Guga Prefers Sampras over Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Guga Prefers Sampras over Federer

NadalMachine
11-01-2006, 06:23 AM
Anybody saw this?

Brazilian Kuerten says Sampras was "much better" than Federer

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Tuesday October 31, 2006

Rio de Janeiro- Former Brazilian tennis star Gustavo Kuerten on Tuesday said Pete Sampras was "much better" than current world number one Roger Federer and that the late Formula 1 champion Ayrton Senna was also better than current star Michael Schumacher. Kuerten, a former world number one himself who beat both Sampras and Federer during his career, told Brazilian TV Globo that the Swiss number one only stands out due to the absence of retired American Sampras.

"In Formula 1, Schumacher took advantage of Senna's death to conquer his triumphs, just like Federer took advantage of the vacuum left by Sampras to obtain his victories. Both are good players, but I prefer Sampras," Kuerten said.

© 2006 dpa German Press Agency

A famous dirt baller prefers Sampras over Federer.:eek: What does that mean?:eek:

Mimi
11-01-2006, 06:29 AM
thanks for posting, but i am afraid many sampras detractors are coming soon ;). Sampras over roger, how can it be? :confused: :eek:

Fed-Express
11-01-2006, 06:38 AM
Well, other greats have said the opposite. And before the flaming starts once more, just keep in my mind that both are great players, as well as Nadal is, so just enjoy the game. And as for the Senna - Schumacher comparison, what Guga is saysing is just hypothetical as nobody knows how this duel would have turned out, therefore it's just BS to state that Senna was better. It was the Brazilian talking in that statement I guess.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 06:44 AM
well...lets keep in mind that kuerten never played fed in his prime. i dont consider rg win, the best of federer. Guga is entitled to his opinion as are rios and bruguera.

plus federer has beaten guga on clay, and bageled him at that. can sampras ever say that? yes, i know guga was past his prime too, but this doesnt detract from the argument.

disturb3d
11-01-2006, 06:52 AM
Kuerten couldn't win a match in this era to save his life. Perfectly reasonable to claim the years when you could actually compete were the 'strongest'.

Allez
11-01-2006, 07:02 AM
Whatever Guga. Enjoy your retirement.

senorgato
11-01-2006, 08:06 AM
everyone's entitled to an opinion, wrong or right :)

Then again, in some ways, Guga is right. The way Roger plays these days, in a defensive manner, wouldn't stand up to Pete's attacking game. Or it may not stand up to it. But, if Roger was playing Pete, he would be playing in a very aggressive manner, ala their Wimbledon showdown that Roger won. And when Roger plays his attacking game, no one can touch him.

Oh, and I guess Navratilova, McEnroe, Agassi, and King saying that Federer is the best player ever doesn't mean anything.

Marine
11-01-2006, 08:37 AM
Respect his choice please. I like Federer but I always prefer Sampras much better, so... bravo Guga !!! :kiss:

TheMightyFed
11-01-2006, 08:56 AM
The way Roger plays these days, in a defensive manner
LOL

nanoman
11-01-2006, 10:16 AM
Isn't it obvious ? Everyone who was in their prime in the sampras era, will say that Sampras is better(Moya, Kuerten, Haas, Courier for a while). If they ask Chang/Kafel, I am sure they will also say that Sampras is better. After all, it's so much cooler to tell your grandkids that you were on the top when the best tennis player ever is around

Everybody else will say Federer is better or need more time to evaluate.

ps. Has anyone not from the Sampras era actually said that Sampras is better ? Laver, Vilas, Connors, Mac, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal. Has anyone of those said that Sampras is better than Fed ?

kronus12
11-01-2006, 10:48 AM
guga is a fine player and a one off the all time great clay courters but he is intitled to his opinion, so is agassi who's played sampras more then anyone and has said more then once that fed is better then sampras. NOt saying both of them are right or wrong its just an opinion.
I don't think anyone could say who was the better player even if fed passes sampras record ppl will always have a different opinion who was the best.
But no one can denie that both of these are two of the best players ever to play the game.

Action Jackson
11-01-2006, 10:50 AM
It's his opinion and good for that.

oz_boz
11-01-2006, 11:12 AM
Guga :lol: I rather think that Sampras took advantage of the relative weakness of Guga's generation, but that's just my opinion.

I would love to hear his opinion on Nadal.

(And the Senna vs Schumacher talk - blabla. Senna was great but he doesn't have enough achievements to back him in a comparison, so just drop it. It's like saying McEnroe is greater than Sampras.)

nobama
11-01-2006, 12:24 PM
Isn't it obvious ? Everyone who was in their prime in the sampras era, will say that Sampras is better(Moya, Kuerten, Haas, Courier for a while). If they ask Chang/Kafel, I am sure they will also say that Sampras is better. After all, it's so much cooler to tell your grandkids that you were on the top when the best tennis player ever is around

Everybody else will say Federer is better or need more time to evaluate.

ps. Has anyone not from the Sampras era actually said that Sampras is better ? Laver, Vilas, Connors, Mac, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal. Has anyone of those said that Sampras is better than Fed ?Last year Agassi said Roger is the best he's ever played against. Though some I'm sure think he only said that because he was beaten by Roger 8 times in a row. Chang has said certain areas of Roger's game are probably better than Pete's, but he's also one of those who thinks Roger has it easier because there are no s/v players now.

oz_boz
11-01-2006, 12:38 PM
Isn't it obvious ? Everyone who was in their prime in the sampras era, will say that Sampras is better(Moya, Kuerten, Haas, Courier for a while). If they ask Chang/Kafel, I am sure they will also say that Sampras is better. After all, it's so much cooler to tell your grandkids that you were on the top when the best tennis player ever is around

Everybody else will say Federer is better or need more time to evaluate.

ps. Has anyone not from the Sampras era actually said that Sampras is better ? Laver, Vilas, Connors, Mac, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal. Has anyone of those said that Sampras is better than Fed ?

You have a point, but I think there's a bit of contradicting yourself in this post. Dismissing the opinions of Sampras' contemporaries but not Fed's?

Sjengster
11-01-2006, 12:50 PM
Lee, how dare you put Guga up to this just because of your new moderator's status! :( :lol:

Seriously though, if he's right then it's been an awfully long vacuum! I thought the latest consensus was that Hewitt was the transitional no. 1 (if one can be transitional and still hold the no. 1 ranking for 75 straight weeks with two year-end finishes)? It does show, however, that longevity will perhaps be the acid test for Federer's standing among the legends of the game. "No major rivals" was a charge levelled at Sampras earlier in his career when he was beating Pioline, Martin, Moya etc. to win Slams, not so by the end of his career; one can only hope Federer will still be good enough to win a major four years from now.

nanoman
11-01-2006, 12:59 PM
You have a point, but I think there's a bit of contradicting yourself in this post. Dismissing the opinions of Sampras' contemporaries but not Fed's?

Not really, I was just trying to point out that the Sampras group consists of people that are biased towards Samp and hardly anybody else.
I didn't imply that the opinion of Hewitt and co should be taken seriously if they say Fed is better.

mandoura
11-01-2006, 01:32 PM
Guga is absolutely entitled to his opinion. :)

Billabong
11-01-2006, 01:46 PM
Even though I don't agree with him, I absolutely respect his opinion:)

Ernham
11-01-2006, 01:54 PM
Anybody saw this?

Brazilian Kuerten says Sampras was "much better" than Federer

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Tuesday October 31, 2006

Rio de Janeiro- Former Brazilian tennis star Gustavo Kuerten on Tuesday said Pete Sampras was "much better" than current world number one Roger Federer and that the late Formula 1 champion Ayrton Senna was also better than current star Michael Schumacher. Kuerten, a former world number one himself who beat both Sampras and Federer during his career, told Brazilian TV Globo that the Swiss number one only stands out due to the absence of retired American Sampras.

"In Formula 1, Schumacher took advantage of Senna's death to conquer his triumphs, just like Federer took advantage of the vacuum left by Sampras to obtain his victories. Both are good players, but I prefer Sampras," Kuerten said.

© 2006 dpa German Press Agency

A famous dirt baller prefers Sampras over Federer.:eek: What does that mean?:eek:

Schumacher beat Senna in an inferior car when Schumacher was still the baby of formula one and Senna was supposed to be in his best racing years. Kuerten is an idiot. Smells a lot like Nadals BS.

Beat
11-01-2006, 02:07 PM
just like Federer took advantage of the vacuum left by Sampras to obtain his victories.

vacuum, what vacuum? yeah, sure, roger only won all those titles because sampras doesn't play anymore.

shotgun
11-01-2006, 02:12 PM
well...lets keep in mind that kuerten never played fed in his prime. i dont consider rg win, the best of federer.

Federer's prime - from TMC 2003 to the current days.

Therefore, Guga beat Federer in Federer's prime, and when Guga was past his prime.

Not that this proves anything, of course.

Dancing Hero
11-01-2006, 02:13 PM
Kuerten has his right to an opinion, maybe he likes Pete better.:)

There's always going to be debate about whether this player was better than that player. I know Federer and Sampras are both going to be rated as all time greats in the sport. It all comes down to personal taste.

Senna and Schumacher were both excellent drivers, you've got to be to win several F1 championships. I don't know why Kuerten brought this into it, maybe he thinks Senna has been forgotten about. I liked Senna myself, but Schumacher won 7 championships, I'm not choosing between them.

shotgun
11-01-2006, 02:15 PM
I would love to hear his opinion on Nadal.

He respects Nadal a lot, and thinks he will be no. 1 in the rankings someday.

It was the dirtballer talking in that statement I guess. ;)

sawan66278
11-01-2006, 02:22 PM
Three points:

1. Guga DID defeat Roger in Roger's prime in straight sets!!!! And Guga was at about 70%! That year, Roger won three of the four slams!!!

2. Wilander said, in the infamous video, that Roger was "by far" not the best player ever. If we assume Sampras is (debatable), than Sampras is still better than Roger

3. Guga's opinion proves my point: there is NO BEST PLAYER EVER...

World Beater
11-01-2006, 02:27 PM
Federer's prime - from TMC 2003 to the current days.

Therefore, Guga beat Federer in Federer's prime, and when Guga was past his prime.

Not that this proves anything, of course.

i would disagree with that...i dont think federer was in his prime on clay during those years at rg.

yes he played well at hamburg. but he historically lost to arazi and horna years before in r1 losses. so just because he discovered his form on faster surfaces doesnt mean anything about his form on clay.

i hope you realize the strides federer has made on clay the past two years. he is much better than he was in 2003 on clay at least.

sawan66278
11-01-2006, 02:30 PM
WorldBeater...he lost to Guga in STRAIGHT SETS at RG...in his prime, he MAY have gone four or five, but would have lost...and if Guga were at 100%...watch out...you too, Rafa...;)

star
11-01-2006, 02:30 PM
As Tim Gunn would say: It's a matter of taste. :)

But, Guga... :hug: I always welcome his opinions.

star
11-01-2006, 02:33 PM
WorldBeater...he lost to Guga in STRAIGHT SETS at RG...in his prime, he MAY have gone four or five, but would have lost...and if Guga were at 100%...watch out...you too, Rafa...;)


:worship:

I watched them go backhand to backhand once. It was great. There's no backhand I would rather see that Guga's magnificent shot. I'm so glad I got to see Guga play. What a gift he was to the tennis world.

All the talk about the lack of personality in the game -- Guga has certainly been a wonderful personality.

nobama
11-01-2006, 02:34 PM
Three points:

1. Guga DID defeat Roger in Roger's prime in straight sets!!!! And Guga was at about 70%! That year, Roger won three of the four slams!!!

2. Wilander said, in the infamous video, that Roger was "by far" not the best player ever. If we assume Sampras is (debatable), than Sampras is still better than Roger

3. Guga's opinion proves my point: there is NO BEST PLAYER EVER...
Not sure when Wilander said that but just last week on the Tennis Channel they were showing the Champions tour and the commentators were talking about Wilander's list of the GOATs and they said at the top of his list was Federer. :scratch:

shotgun
11-01-2006, 02:36 PM
i would disagree with that...i dont think federer was in his prime on clay during those years at rg.

yes he played well at hamburg. but he historically lost to arazi and horna years before in r1 losses. so just because he discovered his form on faster surfaces doesnt mean anything about his form on clay.

i hope you realize the strides federer has made on clay the past two years. he is much better than he was in 2003 on clay at least.

No doubt he's improved in some aspects of his game on clay, but it's not a brutal difference if you compare his overall (all-surface) level of 2003 to the one of 2004 for example.

Even when he defeated Gonzalez by the third round of Roland Garros in 2005 (same round he lost to Guga in 2004), he totally gave the credit to Kuerten:

Q. You seem more comfortable on clay than in previous years. Are you doing things differently?

ROGER FEDERER: No. I think Guga was stronger than Gonzalez. That was the difference.

But I definitely improve every year. And with the experience as well, you know, you know better where you're good at, where maybe you're not as good at, how you get around maybe your weaknesses and the way, you know, maybe you move also. You always got more time to improve. Those things definitely make a difference.

I'm not the only one improving, you know. Everyone always is moving.

nobama
11-01-2006, 02:36 PM
WorldBeater...he lost to Guga in STRAIGHT SETS at RG...in his prime, he MAY have gone four or five, but would have lost...and if Guga were at 100%...watch out...you too, Rafa...;)wb said they didn't think Fed was in his prime then. Of course not every one will agree, but it was one match so I don't think it means all that much.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 02:40 PM
Head to head means nothing, partiuclarly on clay or grass where it's more about style matchup than player matchup

feuselino
11-01-2006, 02:41 PM
In three years there will be threads about Murray beating Fed in his prime...

Didn't Roger beat Guga on clay even before his prime? One match says nothing...

Andre Agassi played both Sampras and Federer at their best, and he said for him Roger is better... just another opinion! :) (One I agree with, hehe...)

DDrago2
11-01-2006, 02:43 PM
Three points:

1. Guga DID defeat Roger in Roger's prime in straight sets!!!! And Guga was at about 70%! That year, Roger won three of the four slams!!!


Kuerten wasn't 70%, but 100% on that particular match. His overall form wasn't the best, but on that occasion he played like he plays for his life, didn't miss anything Kuerten can't play better than that
Unlike that, Federer in that time had a lot of problems on RG center court (not on clay in general, but on that particular court). He had problems to beat anyone - sliping on the court, loosing balance, not knowing how to work out a point. Strange but true


2. Wilander said, in the infamous video, that Roger was "by far" not the best player ever. If we assume Sampras is (debatable), than Sampras is still better than Roger


I didn't know this! Where is that video? When was it? "By far?" With what he arguments that?


3. Guga's opinion proves my point: there is NO BEST PLAYER EVER...


This is quite possible. And maybe then again it realy is Federer...

Ernham
11-01-2006, 02:44 PM
In three years there will be threads about Murray beating Fed in his prime...

Didn't Roger beat Guga on clay even before his prime? One match says nothing...

Andre Agassi played both Sampras and Federer at their best, and he said for him Roger is better... just another opinion! :) (One I agree with, hehe...)

Not only did he beat him, but he fed him a bagel.

Billabong
11-01-2006, 02:47 PM
Not only did he beat him, but he fed him a bagel.

... Before getting back a breadstick;) Guga then beat Roger in Indian Wells 2003 and in RG 2004, both times in straight sets;)

shotgun
11-01-2006, 02:52 PM
In three years there will be threads about Murray beating Fed in his prime...

Murray did beat Federer in his prime, even though the weight of a defeat suffered in a GS is bigger than a defeat suffered in a TMS.

Didn't Roger beat Guga on clay even before his prime? One match says nothing...

Agreed. It's useless to make any conclusions based on close H2Hs, as well as unnecessary to try to take away the deserved credit in any of those wins.

MisterQ
11-01-2006, 03:09 PM
well...lets keep in mind that kuerten never played fed in his prime. i dont consider rg win, the best of federer. Guga is entitled to his opinion as are rios and bruguera.

plus federer has beaten guga on clay, and bageled him at that. can sampras ever say that? yes, i know guga was past his prime too, but this doesnt detract from the argument.

True, but as was discussed in another thread about bagels recently, "bageling" was never really part of Sampras' playing strategy, so perhaps using that as an indicator of playing standard is misguided. :)

MisterQ
11-01-2006, 03:10 PM
Not only did he beat him, but he fed him a bagel.

See my previous comment... :lol:

gillian
11-01-2006, 03:14 PM
Three points:

3. Guga's opinion proves my point: there is NO BEST PLAYER EVER...


Well said. Each era has its best. To me, it'd be a shame if Roger's accomplishments overshadowed Pete's, just as I don't think Pete's accomplishments should overshadow those who came before him.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 03:16 PM
Well said. Each era has its best. To me, it'd be a shame if Roger's accomplishments overshadowed Pete's, just as I don't think Pete's accomplishments should overshadow those who came before him.

Ya. Cause we all know Borg >>>>> Pete anyway! :devil:

TennisGrandSlam
11-01-2006, 03:28 PM
Anybody saw this?

Brazilian Kuerten says Sampras was "much better" than Federer

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Tuesday October 31, 2006

Rio de Janeiro- Former Brazilian tennis star Gustavo Kuerten on Tuesday said Pete Sampras was "much better" than current world number one Roger Federer and that the late Formula 1 champion Ayrton Senna was also better than current star Michael Schumacher. Kuerten, a former world number one himself who beat both Sampras and Federer during his career, told Brazilian TV Globo that the Swiss number one only stands out due to the absence of retired American Sampras.

"In Formula 1, Schumacher took advantage of Senna's death to conquer his triumphs, just like Federer took advantage of the vacuum left by Sampras to obtain his victories. Both are good players, but I prefer Sampras," Kuerten said.

© 2006 dpa German Press Agency

A famous dirt baller prefers Sampras over Federer.:eek: What does that mean?:eek:

:cool:


Senna > Schumacher :rolleyes:

I like Senna more than Schumi

But I think that Schumi is greater than Senna :cool:

We don't need to compare FedCow and Pete, both are great.


Guga tone likes Sean Randall's :rolleyes:


Some Sampras' Fans claim that now players are absolutely weak than the past, so Federer easily dominates Slam titles (Another point of view, why the players are relatively week? Because Federer is relatively strong. Without Rogi, C'mon, A-Rod and Safin must have at least 3-5 GS titles now.)


In Pete era (1993-98), who was the 2nd most GS singles winners?

Agassi (USO 1994, AO 1995)
Rafter (USO 1997, USO 1998)
Bruguera (RG 1993, RG 1994) - Pete was less competitive on Clay

Max. NO. = 2 (=> most of GS were dominated by Pete)

Pete? (10 in his best 6 years!)

Krajicek, Muster, Becker*, Korda, Moya, .... all had 1 Slam in Sampras Era*


So, Sampras is relatively strong in his era, like Rogi in his era!

Some people says Sampras had Agassi, but Rogi has no rival.

Agassi, beside mid 1994 - early 1995, not very competitive with Sampras

After Pete was slow fading, Andres turned up (in 1999)

Don't forget Agassi's 5 of 8 Slam won after Sampras era!


I think mid-to-late-80s was the strongest period : Becker-Lendl-Edberg-Wilander :devil:

mid-to-late-80s, let consider 1985-90 (After JMac Faded down)

Becker : 4 (WIM 85, WIM 86, WIM 89, USO 89)
Lendl : 7 (USO 85, RG 86, USO 86, RG 87, USO 87, AO 89, AO 90)
Edberg : 4(AO 85, AO 87, WIM 88, WIM 90)
Wilander : 4 (RG 85, AO 88, RG 88, USO 88)

Lendl was pro-dominanted as Sampras in 93-98 and Rogi now.
But his rivals were stronger!

MilMilCho
11-01-2006, 03:34 PM
This is just his opinion anyway....
Its hard to prove anything right now.

R.Federer
11-01-2006, 03:47 PM
He's played them both, so he's earned a right to voice his opinions.

By that token, Agassi played them both (and many, many more times than Guga played either of them) and said that Federer is by far the best he's EVER played.

So, each to their own opinion.

BlackSilver
11-01-2006, 03:49 PM
well...lets keep in mind that kuerten never played fed in his prime.

Let's keep in mind that he never played Sampras at his best either.


plus federer has beaten guga on clay, and bageled him at that. can sampras ever say that? yes, i know guga was past his prime too, but this doesnt detract from the argument.

Weird low importance match.


I am gonna explain why Guga thinks this way. Sampras was a nightmare of a matchup for him and Federer simple isn't.
It's that simple

Klaas_nalbandian
11-01-2006, 03:54 PM
I love Kuerten but I don't agree

BlackSilver
11-01-2006, 03:59 PM
Kuerten wasn't 70%, but 100% on that particular match.

Prove it.

His overall form wasn't the best, but on that occasion he played like he plays for his life, didn't miss anything Kuerten can't play better than that


Wrong.

He had problems to beat anyone - sliping on the court, loosing balance, not knowing how to work out a point. Strange but true

Yes, he was being massacred by Kiefer.


This is quite possible. And maybe then again it realy is Federer...[

Or not. Gotta to love these retarded Federer fans who thinks if Federer plays well he is gonna beat everyone easily of how his opponent plays.

BlackSilver
11-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Kuerten couldn't win a match in this era to save his life. Perfectly reasonable to claim the years when you could actually compete were the 'strongest'.

Christ......

Ernham
11-01-2006, 04:07 PM
He's played them both, so he's earned a right to voice his opinions.

By that token, Agassi played them both (and many, many more times than Guga played either of them) and said that Federer is by far the best he's EVER played.

So, each to their own opinion.

Indeed. Kuerten only played Sampras and Federer 3 times. And none of those times were those players even in their primes! Ridiculous. Agassi played Roger and Sampras in their primes; Sampras almost 40 matches and roger something like 10 matches. Far, far better judge than Gus "I beat the Senna of tennis, worship me" Kuerten.

wimbledonfan
11-01-2006, 04:08 PM
I still prefer Pete over Fed .

Federer plays too defensively which wouldn't have worked against Pete . Pete's attacking game was a thing of beauty .

No player that i've ever seen was able to generate as many winners per match as Pete would . I remember watching some Us open matches and he'd hit 60-70 winners pretty routinely .

brent-o
11-01-2006, 04:13 PM
Isn't it obvious ? Everyone who was in their prime in the sampras era, will say that Sampras is better(Moya, Kuerten, Haas, Courier for a while). If they ask Chang/Kafel, I am sure they will also say that Sampras is better. After all, it's so much cooler to tell your grandkids that you were on the top when the best tennis player ever is around

Everybody else will say Federer is better or need more time to evaluate.

ps. Has anyone not from the Sampras era actually said that Sampras is better ? Laver, Vilas, Connors, Mac, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal. Has anyone of those said that Sampras is better than Fed ?

Agassi thinks Federer is better.

Sjengster
11-01-2006, 04:20 PM
I think it's a fallacy, if Player A says Player B is greater than Player C, to look at A's records against B and C and judge the validity of their comments based entirely on that. Sampras most likely was a tougher match-up for Kuerten since he would be attacking the net, pressuring Guga with those big swings of his on the passing shots and exploiting his deep returning position. By contrast Kuerten could hold his own in a serving contest with Federer and would always kill him in backhand to backhand exchanges, as the RG match showed. But again, I don't think he's simplistic enough to say Sampras is a better player than Federer just because he found the latter easier to play against.

I saw all three of the Kuerten-Federer encounters and curious matches they were too; the Hamburg meeting was a bizarre affair as the scoreline suggests but Federer deserves credit for winning the third set decisively when both players were at least displaying half-decent tennis rather than one being absolutely terrible, as was the case in the first two sets. IW 03 was a tight affair, 7-5 7-6 with Federer having four setpoints at the end of the second set on the Kuerten serve, but the greater big match experience and better serving on the day from Guga made the difference.

One can't say Kuerten was in tremendous form at RG 2004 considering he was coming back from an injury break and almost lost to Almagro in the opening round. That said, he did produce an excellent performance on the day and it's not as though Federer was making a ton of errors; in fact the thing that struck me in that match was just how tame and passive he was, he didn't have anything to hurt Kuerten from the baseline. His poor footing on Chatrier was very noticeable and it's easy to make excuses, but I'll never forget how Kuerten came into the net on a bad approach and Federer had a sitter pass, only to slip so badly as he reached the ball that he almost fell flat on his face.

Lee
11-01-2006, 04:30 PM
Lee, how dare you put Guga up to this just because of your new moderator's status! :( :lol:


:sobbing: I am a lowly mod in non-tennis and this is GM.

Sjengster
11-01-2006, 04:33 PM
:sobbing: I am a lowly mod in non-tennis and this is GM.

You're not fooling me for a second, I know you've been using MTF moderating privileges to dispatch some emails to Florianapolis.... :p

lordmanji
11-01-2006, 04:43 PM
2004 Roland Garros
France ClayR32

Kuerten d. Federer 6-4 6-4 6-4

2003 Indian Wells TMS
California, USA
HardR32

Kuerten d. Federer 7-5 7-6(3)

2002 Hamburg TMS
Germany Clay Q

Federer d. Kuerten 6-0 1-6 6-2

Lee
11-01-2006, 04:44 PM
I think it's a fallacy, if Player A says Player B is greater than Player C, to look at A's records against B and C and judge the validity of their comments based entirely on that. Sampras most likely was a tougher match-up for Kuerten since he would be attacking the net, pressuring Guga with those big swings of his on the passing shots and exploiting his deep returning position. By contrast Kuerten could hold his own in a serving contest with Federer and would always kill him in backhand to backhand exchanges, as the RG match showed. But again, I don't think he's simplistic enough to say Sampras is a better player than Federer just because he found the latter easier to play against.

Agree

I saw all three of the Kuerten-Federer encounters and curious matches they were too; the Hamburg meeting was a bizarre affair as the scoreline suggests but Federer deserves credit for winning the third set decisively when both players were at least displaying half-decent tennis rather than one being absolutely terrible, as was the case in the first two sets. IW 03 was a tight affair, 7-5 7-6 with Federer having four setpoints at the end of the second set on the Kuerten serve, but the greater big match experience and better serving on the day from Guga made the difference.

One can't say Kuerten was in tremendous form at RG 2004 considering he was coming back from an injury break and almost lost to Almagro in the opening round. That said, he did produce an excellent performance on the day and it's not as though Federer was making a ton of errors; in fact the thing that struck me in that match was just how tame and passive he was, he didn't have anything to hurt Kuerten from the baseline. His poor footing on Chatrier was very noticeable and it's easy to make excuses, but I'll never forget how Kuerten came into the net on a bad approach and Federer had a sitter pass, only to slip so badly as he reached the ball that he almost fell flat on his face.

I agree Federer was not playing his best vs Guga on that day but I think another reason he had so many errors because he was pressured by Guga's attack. Federer was pushed to run more which exposed his not-so-good movement on clay. Guga was very good in pushing his opponents running side-to-side as he's good in attacking from both wings. In today's best claycourts, I still have to find one that's close to Guga in attacking.


On a seperate note which has nothing to relate to current topic:

Guga was never at 100% since his first hip surgery. His hip bothered him but to a lesser degree before the injury.

And for the bagel that Federer handed to Guga, remember Guga just returned to play after his first hip surgery, which was a BIG mistake for him as it's TOO early.

lordmanji
11-01-2006, 04:46 PM
get your facts straight people!

WF4EVER
11-01-2006, 04:47 PM
It's his opinion and good for that.

Exactly.

safinalium
11-01-2006, 04:53 PM
so what? :eek: guga isn't god or stg, it's his right to have an opinion.

Shirogane
11-01-2006, 05:07 PM
He's played them both, so he's earned a right to voice his opinions.

By that token, Agassi played them both (and many, many more times than Guga played either of them) and said that Federer is by far the best he's EVER played.

So, each to their own opinion.

you may have a point but to be fair, Agassi was past his prime when he was challenging Federer for grand slams titles...

Ernham
11-01-2006, 05:11 PM
you may have a point but to be fair, Agassi was past his prime when he was challenging Federer for grand slams titles...

Ahh, but what does agassi's prime have to do with anything? Comparing Pete with Roger, not with Agassi.

Shirogane
11-01-2006, 05:19 PM
he wouldn't have lost eight or nine times in a row to Fed if he had been, let's say five years younger. What i meant was him saying Fed is better than Pete might have been a biased statement. That's all:)

Ernham
11-01-2006, 05:22 PM
he wouldn't have lost eight or nine times in a row to Fed if he had been, let's say five years younger. What i meant was him saying Fed is better than Pete might have been a biased statement. That's all:)

Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime. Agassi's prime has nothing to do with his impressions of Pete or Roger's prime tennis. Period.

Shirogane
11-01-2006, 05:25 PM
:rolleyes:

Ernham
11-01-2006, 05:33 PM
:rolleyes:

Most intelligent thing you've had to say, sadly.

Eden
11-01-2006, 05:33 PM
This is just his opinion anyway....
Its hard to prove anything right now.

Exactly. Roger is still playing and nobody knows how he will end up to in the history books of tennis. Maybe Guga will say something different in a few years.

guga2120
11-01-2006, 06:15 PM
Gustavo is certainly entitled to his opinion, but you would think he would not neccesarily say that, since he is one of the greatest clay courters ever and Federer is so good on every surface, while Sampras on clay was not that great.

tangerine_dream
11-01-2006, 06:19 PM
A famous dirt baller prefers Sampras over Federer.:eek: What does that mean?:eek:
Another MTF meltdown.

cmurray
11-01-2006, 06:24 PM
I prefer Sampras to Federer too. But Roger's the better player. :)

ToanNguyen
11-01-2006, 06:32 PM
Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime. Agassi's prime has nothing to do with his impressions of Pete or Roger's prime tennis. Period.

Agree completely. Agassi's assessment about Roger and Pete is independent of he is in his prime or not. To Agassi, Roger is a better player than Pete. Period.

DrJules
11-01-2006, 06:34 PM
I still prefer Pete over Fed .

Federer plays too defensively which wouldn't have worked against Pete . Pete's attacking game was a thing of beauty .

No player that i've ever seen was able to generate as many winners per match as Pete would . I remember watching some Us open matches and he'd hit 60-70 winners pretty routinely .


Changes to courts and balls have tended to make the attacking game more difficult. It is noticable that Federer plays a more defensive game in recent years than he did earlier and his results benefited.

Today it is more difficult to hit winners and players find it easier to keep the ball in court. Tim Henman among others noticed a considerable change in conditions at Wimbledon. Federer has just adapted to the conditions and plays more defensively. This is another reason why comparing generations of players is so difficult.

Apemant
11-01-2006, 06:38 PM
No player that i've ever seen was able to generate as many winners per match as Pete would . I remember watching some Us open matches and he'd hit 60-70 winners pretty routinely .

That particular stat is very misleading. 70% of those winners were net volleys on service: he would serve to the farther corner, rush to the net and then volley to the opposite corner (or the same one, if the opponent was running very fast toward the opposite corner :devil: ).
As a general rule of thumb, matches where people (one or both) frequently rush to the net seem to have more winners than matches of mainly baseline exchanges, because all successful volleys as well as successful passing shots count as winners (which they are, of course), and those happen more often than errors.

So, it doesn't mean very much. In my not very humble opinion, Sampras did have a deadly game, but Federer is still above (not by much, but enough to be visible to the naked eye, so to speak).

Corey Feldman
11-01-2006, 06:41 PM
told Brazilian TV Globo that the Swiss number one only stands out due to the absence of retired American Sampras.i find that comment more stupid from Guga..
why not go the whole way and say Sampy only won 14 slams because he was filling the void Rod laver left
:retard:1. Guga DID defeat Roger in Roger's prime in straight sets!!!! And Guga was at about 70%! That year, Roger won three of the four slams!!!so you go on about 300 times a year..
so what? it was a best surface v worst surface match up plus Federer bitch slapped guga 2 years earlier on the surface in Hamburg.

even Horna and Arazi put bigger beating over fed at RG than guga.

Guga is lucky bruguera and muster left a vacuum for him at roland garros for a few years.

sawan66278
11-01-2006, 06:55 PM
Drago...Mats made the comments in that controversial video after the French final against Nadal...now time has passed (and two majors for Roger), so who knows if his opinion is the same...

I have watched most of Guga's career (and the Federer match in question)...Guga's movement was tentative and limited compared to his previous years...

While I truly there is no true greatest player ever (I can actually think of five men, who, in my opinion, if you put their names in a hat and pulled one out, could be called "the best")...one MIGHT be able to argue who had the best career...records speak for themselves...

madmanfool
11-01-2006, 07:18 PM
I have watched most of Guga's career (and the Federer match in question)...Guga's movement was tentative and limited compared to his previous years...

indeed it was, interesting point you made there...

shotgun
11-01-2006, 07:27 PM
i find that comment more stupid from Guga..
why not go the whole way and say Sampy only won 14 slams because he was filling the void Rod laver left
:retard:so you go on about 300 times a year..

Agreed.


so what? it was a best surface v worst surface match up plus Federer bitch slapped guga 2 years earlier on the surface in Hamburg.

I didn't know giving bitch-slaps involved getting bread-sticks as well. :lol:

even Horna and Arazi put bigger beating over fed at RG than guga.

Like it was said earlier, Federer 2004 > Federer 2003, Federer 2002 etc.

Guga is lucky bruguera and muster left a vacuum for him at roland garros for a few years.

Maybe, or he could have repeated Roland Garros 1997 and beaten both again.

Corey Feldman
11-01-2006, 07:53 PM
I didn't know giving bitch-slaps involved getting bread-sticks as well. :loltrue 6-0 1-6 6-2

ok not a level1 bitch slap (as you correctly pointed out he lost a set).
lets call it a level2 bitchslap.

Corey Feldman
11-01-2006, 07:55 PM
Maybe, or he could have repeated Roland Garros 1997 and beaten both again.they must have been past it by that time.... guga was filling the vacuum.
like when fed beat sampy at wimbledon.

:lol:

Lee
11-01-2006, 07:57 PM
true 6-0 1-6 6-2

ok not a level1 bitch slap (as you correctly pointed out he lost a set).
lets call it a level2 bitchslap.

And I also want to remind you that's the 3rd tournament after Guga's first hip surgery. :sad:

Shirogane
11-01-2006, 08:08 PM
Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime.
you cannot be serious !

Agassi's prime has nothing to do with his impressions of Pete or Roger's prime tennis. Period.
What i wanted to say is that we don't know for sure, it's not easy to be objective when you're too old to keep it up with Roger. Hope you understand now.

r2473
11-01-2006, 08:10 PM
I prefer Bridgette Wilson over Mirka.

wimbledonfan
11-01-2006, 09:00 PM
Pete has better taste in women too .

shotgun
11-01-2006, 09:03 PM
true 6-0 1-6 6-2

ok not a level1 bitch slap (as you correctly pointed out he lost a set).
lets call it a level2 bitchslap.

So I assume the Gaudio-Nadal match in Buenos Aires last year was a level2 bitchslap as well? :lol:

World Beater
11-01-2006, 09:50 PM
WorldBeater...he lost to Guga in STRAIGHT SETS at RG...in his prime, he MAY have gone four or five, but would have lost...and if Guga were at 100%...watch out...you too, Rafa...;)

debatable...but yes i acknowledge kuerten's superiority on clay to roger...again his three slams wins were indicative of his play on faster surface not of his prime on clay....you nor I know how a prime guga vs federer match today would pan out on clay or any other surface.

so for you to speculate like this is just as bad as saying that federer is better than sampras because baby fed beat pete at wimbledon, which i am sure you dont believe.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 09:59 PM
No doubt he's improved in some aspects of his game on clay, but it's not a brutal difference if you compare his overall (all-surface) level of 2003 to the one of 2004 for example.

Even when he defeated Gonzalez by the third round of Roland Garros in 2005 (same round he lost to Guga in 2004), he totally gave the credit to Kuerten:

okay...but im talking purely about clay...and its clear how much better roger is on other surfaces than on clay...you cant say that because roger started to play well at three of the four slams that he was in his prime on clay in 04...thats the issue i see here.

well yes gonzo is no kuerten thats true...him giving credit is only indicative of who was better on THAT day...and of course kuerten was better. His reply to the journos question is measuring up gonzo and kuerten on clay, not necessarily his performance on the surface and his subsequent improvement...at least from what you have quoted above...

furthermore, gonzo has always been a good matchup for federer, prime or no prime on any surface. federer was beating him even before his prime...so its obvious for him to think this way, and you dont need federer to tell you that gonzo is no kuerten.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 10:01 PM
True, but as was discussed in another thread about bagels recently, "bageling" was never really part of Sampras' playing strategy, so perhaps using that as an indicator of playing standard is misguided. :)

did sampras ever beat kuerten on clay?

MisterQ
11-01-2006, 10:06 PM
did sampras ever beat kuerten on clay?

That's a very different question. But no, all three ATP matches they played were on hard.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 10:06 PM
Let's keep in mind that he never played Sampras at his best either.


i believe pete was still pretty good in that miami final. the first two sets, pete was at or near his best.

anyways, pete did blow him out in two sets indoors in 99...he was playing pretty well in this match too.



Weird low importance match.
I am gonna explain why Guga thinks this way. Sampras was a nightmare of a matchup for him and Federer simple isn't.
It's that simple

why is it not important? its on clay, isnt it? sure RG is a bigger stage. but when federer played him in his backyard, he won as well...people try to detract from federer and keep pointing to the rg match, when he was beaten at hamburg. rg is practically guga's backyard. so its 1-1. and yes neither of them were at their best on clay.

guga never played pete on clay...that is also something to take note of. all im saying is that if guga played even 2004 version federer on fast surfaces, he might have a different opinion.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 10:10 PM
Was only a matter of time until people started to take jabs at Federer's girlfriend. Heh.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 10:12 PM
That's a very different question. But no, all three ATP matches they played were on hard.

right, but bageling kuerten on clay is a subset of this question isnt it? pete was never good enough at rg those years to even play him on clay.

star
11-01-2006, 10:16 PM
I think it's a fallacy, if Player A says Player B is greater than Player C, to look at A's records against B and C and judge the validity of their comments based entirely on that. Sampras most likely was a tougher match-up for Kuerten since he would be attacking the net, pressuring Guga with those big swings of his on the passing shots and exploiting his deep returning position. By contrast Kuerten could hold his own in a serving contest with Federer and would always kill him in backhand to backhand exchanges, as the RG match showed. But again, I don't think he's simplistic enough to say Sampras is a better player than Federer just because he found the latter easier to play against.

I saw all three of the Kuerten-Federer encounters and curious matches they were too; the Hamburg meeting was a bizarre affair as the scoreline suggests but Federer deserves credit for winning the third set decisively when both players were at least displaying half-decent tennis rather than one being absolutely terrible, as was the case in the first two sets. IW 03 was a tight affair, 7-5 7-6 with Federer having four setpoints at the end of the second set on the Kuerten serve, but the greater big match experience and better serving on the day from Guga made the difference.

One can't say Kuerten was in tremendous form at RG 2004 considering he was coming back from an injury break and almost lost to Almagro in the opening round. That said, he did produce an excellent performance on the day and it's not as though Federer was making a ton of errors; in fact the thing that struck me in that match was just how tame and passive he was, he didn't have anything to hurt Kuerten from the baseline. His poor footing on Chatrier was very noticeable and it's easy to make excuses, but I'll never forget how Kuerten came into the net on a bad approach and Federer had a sitter pass, only to slip so badly as he reached the ball that he almost fell flat on his face.

Kuerten also wasn't in tremendous form at IW that year either. I'd say Federer never played Kuerten in Kuerten's prime, i.e. pre hip surgery.

angiel
11-01-2006, 10:18 PM
Isn't it obvious ? Everyone who was in their prime in the sampras era, will say that Sampras is better(Moya, Kuerten, Haas, Courier for a while). If they ask Chang/Kafel, I am sure they will also say that Sampras is better. After all, it's so much cooler to tell your grandkids that you were on the top when the best tennis player ever is around

Everybody else will say Federer is better or need more time to evaluate.

ps. Has anyone not from the Sampras era actually said that Sampras is better ? Laver, Vilas, Connors, Mac, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal. Has anyone of those said that Sampras is better than Fed ?


When has Connor and Borg say Federer is the better player and Laver for that matter???????????:confused: :confused:

angiel
11-01-2006, 10:26 PM
Kuerten has his right to an opinion, maybe he likes Pete better.:)

There's always going to be debate about whether this player was better than that player. I know Federer and Sampras are both going to be rated as all time greats in the sport. It all comes down to personal taste.

Senna and Schumacher were both excellent drivers, you've got to be to win several F1 championships. I don't know why Kuerten brought this into it, maybe he thinks Senna has been forgotten about. I liked Senna myself, but Schumacher won 7 championships, I'm not choosing between them.


How much championships did Senna won before he died??? and dont you think if he was alive today and could have won seven also?? so your point id flawed.

angiel
11-01-2006, 10:43 PM
I prefer Bridgette Wilson over Mirka.


I second that.:worship: :worship: :D

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 10:48 PM
Agassi played against Pete when neither were in their prime.

If this isnt a typo, it is the stupidest thing Ive ever read

J. Corwin
11-01-2006, 10:57 PM
Maybe Guga commands respect for the older folks a la Sampras. Roger is still wet behind the years. ;)

Agree completely. Agassi's assessment about Roger and Pete is independent of he is in his prime or not. To Agassi, Roger is a better player than Pete. Period.

Agassi is intimidated by Roger's name. :cool: A couple years ago he was asked who he thought were the five greatest players and he said "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras!". That's a lot easier than saying "Federer, Federer, Federer, Federer, Federer..ererrerer..erERERERERER!" :silly:

WhirlyballDerek
11-01-2006, 11:10 PM
Isn't it obvious ? Everyone who was in their prime in the sampras era, will say that Sampras is better(Moya, Kuerten, Haas, Courier for a while). If they ask Chang/Kafel, I am sure they will also say that Sampras is better. After all, it's so much cooler to tell your grandkids that you were on the top when the best tennis player ever is around

Everybody else will say Federer is better or need more time to evaluate.

ps. Has anyone not from the Sampras era actually said that Sampras is better ? Laver, Vilas, Connors, Mac, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal. Has anyone of those said that Sampras is better than Fed ?

Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time.
Rod Laver, winner of 11 Grand Slams, considered by some the greatest player to ever play the game of tennis



He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.

Andre Agassi, at US Open 2005.



He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors', Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That, to me, says it all.
He's probably the greatest player that ever lived.
He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
John McEnroe, winner of 7 Grand Slams. (Source, last two quotes from BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast)


Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever had such quality.
Rafael Nadal, after winning French Open 2006

Sjengster
11-01-2006, 11:10 PM
Kuerten also wasn't in tremendous form at IW that year either. I'd say Federer never played Kuerten in Kuerten's prime, i.e. pre hip surgery.

Well after beating Federer he went on to make the final, with wins over Blake and Schuettler, so he obviously wasn't doing that badly. :p But indeed they never played when Kuerten was at his prime, the two eras never came close to overlapping really. How strange and worrying to think that someone could slip from the no. 1 position in the world through injury at the age of only 25 and never recapture that kind of form again.

Eden
11-01-2006, 11:17 PM
When has Connor and Borg say Federer is the better player and Laver for that matter???????????:confused: :confused:

Some comments from the three players you mentioned:

Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time.
(Rod Laver)

[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer.
(Jimmy Connors)

and one from Sampras himself:

Well, I think when I look at Roger, I mean, I'm a fan. I mean, I'm a fan of how he plays, what he's about, just the fact that I think he's a class—I don't know him personally, but seems like he's a class guy on and off the court. He's fun to watch. Just his athletic ability, what he's able to do on the run. I think he can and will break every tennis record out there.

all found on: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer


This one from Borg:

"With no doubt, Federer is the best player in this generation - he is one of the greatest of all time. He is just 24 years old and probably has many years to come at the top of tennis," The Sun quoted him as saying.

source: http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Sports/20060711/388229.html

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:26 PM
If this isnt a typo, it is the stupidest thing Ive ever read

Agassi played Pete when neither of them were in their primes? You must be the stupid one. Considering you seem to be a fan of Nadal, I'd guess you aren't too bright. No big surprise that the statement confuses you.

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 11:27 PM
Agassi played Pete when neither of them were in their primes? You must be the stupid one. Considering you same to be a fan of Nadal, I'd guess you aren't too bright.

you said that Agassi and Pete played when neither was in their prime. That is a :retard: comment

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:31 PM
you said that Agassi and Pete played when neither was in their prime. That is a :retard: comment


What do you think all of these are, dumb ass?

2002

US Open
NY, U.S.A.

Hard

F

Sampras

6-3 6-4 5-7 6-4
Stats
2002

Houston
TX, U.S.A.

Clay

S

Sampras

6-1 7-5
Stats
2001

US Open
NY, U.S.A.

Hard

Q

Sampras

6-7(7) 7-6(2) 7-6(2) 7-6(5)
Stats
2001

Los Angeles
CA, U.S.A.

Hard

F

Agassi

6-4 6-2
Stats
2001

Indian Wells TMS
California, USA

Hard

F

Agassi

7-6(5) 7-5 6-1
Stats
2000

Australian Open
Australia

Hard

S

Agassi

6-4 3-6 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-1
Stats
1999

Singles Championship
Germany

Hard

F

Sampras

6-1 7-5 6-4
Stats
1999

Singles Championship
Germany

Hard

RR

Agassi

6-2 6-2
Stats
1999

Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A.

Hard

S

Sampras

7-6(7) 6-4
Stats
1999

Los Angeles
CA, U.S.A.

Hard

F

Sampras

7-6(3) 7-6(1)
Stats
1999

Wimbledon
England

Grass

F

Sampras

6-3 6-4 7-5
Stats
1998

Montreal / Toronto
Toronto, Canada

Hard

Q

Agassi

6-7(5) 6-1 6-2
Stats
1998

Monte Carlo
Monaco

Clay

R32

Sampras

6-4 7-5
Stats
1998

San Jose

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 11:35 PM
What do you think all of these are, dumb ass?

You seem to have forgotten the 19 matches they played between 1990-1996. :rolleyes:

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:38 PM
You seem to have forgotten the 19 matches they played between 1990-1996. :rolleyes:

Indeed. The whole god damn original point was that Agassi played Sampras both in and out of his prime and Federer both in and out of his prime. so there was no "bias" cause he saw both aspects. Great reading comprehension, :retard: .

scoobs
11-01-2006, 11:39 PM
Guga Prefers Sampras over Federer

Whoop de doo for him then :)

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 11:41 PM
Im not talking about bias or anything, im just picking out this :retard: statement.

Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime.

I dont care about all the other crap, this is all im calling you out for

nanoman
11-01-2006, 11:41 PM
When has Connor and Borg say Federer is the better player and Laver for that matter???????????:confused: :confused:

Did I say they did ?:confused:

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:43 PM
I dont care about all the other crap, this is all im calling you out for

LOL. Had to be a Nadal fan.

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 11:47 PM
LOL. Had to be a Nadal fan.

so you have resorted to insulting my favorite player because you have run out of shit to spew. Good Job :yeah:

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:51 PM
so you have resorted to insulting my favorite player because you have run out of shit to spew. Good Job :yeah:

That's nice. Now go jab yourself with a sharp object, just like your moonball hero. Then figure out how to read.

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 11:55 PM
That's nice. Now go jab yourself with a sharp object, just like your moonball hero. Then figure out how to read.

I know what I read and what I didnt read. I didnt read about in prime and out of prime. I did read that you posted that Agassi and Sampras didnt play each other in their primes.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:57 PM
Agassi and Sampras didnt play each other in their primes.

Where? I didn't say that. You read that your :retard:-vision. oops looks like YOU said it! funny what happens when you quote somehting out of context.

Johnny Groove
11-01-2006, 11:58 PM
Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime. Agassi's prime has nothing to do with his impressions of Pete or Roger's prime tennis. Period.

RIGHT HERE MORON :retard: and its not out of context

Ernham
11-02-2006, 12:02 AM
RIGHT HERE MORON :retard:

"Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime" is not the same thing as "Agassi and Sampras didn't play each other in their prime." This all must be very confusing for a Nadal fan. i mean, you'd have to understand a concept as incredible as time! That's asking a lot of a rafatard.

scoobs
11-02-2006, 12:07 AM
NOTE TO SELF: don't post witticisms in the middle of a flame war...

:)

Johnny Groove
11-02-2006, 12:08 AM
"Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime" is not the same thing as "Agassi and Sampras didn't play each other in their prime." This all must be very confusing for a Nadal fan. i mean, you'd have to understand a concept as incredible as time! That's asking a lot of a rafatard.

Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime: This post indicates that when Agassi played Pete, neither were in their prime. (Which is total BS)

Agassi and Sampras didn't play each other in their prime: This post indicates that when Agassi and Sampras played, neither was in their prime.

I dont see a difference. What is it? :scratch:

I also dont know why u continue to add on the Rafa fan BS. :shrug:

mangoes
11-02-2006, 12:38 AM
Whoop de doo for him then :)

My thoughts exactly:D

NOTE TO SELF: don't post witticisms in the middle of a flame war...

:)

:lol: :lol: A "grammatical" flame war :lol: :lol:

Blaze, I like your avatar..............minus the figurine:p :lol:

guga2120
11-02-2006, 12:49 AM
That's a very different question. But no, all three ATP matches they played were on hard.

not to take to big of a shot at Sampras b/c on a fast court he was maybe the best ever, but the reason he never played Guga on clay is b/c he would usually get bounced in the first 2 rounds, esp at the French Open, he was lucky to win a round, even when he was 1 in the world.

MisterQ
11-02-2006, 01:25 AM
not to take to big of a shot at Sampras b/c on a fast court he was maybe the best ever, but the reason he never played Guga on clay is b/c he would usually get bounced in the first 2 rounds, esp at the French Open, he was lucky to win a round, even when he was 1 in the world.

I'm actually not arguing that Sampras is a better player than Roger. ;) I'm saying that the fact he never bagelled Guga or played Guga on clay shouldn't be used against him. Sampras rarely bageled ANYBODY. That wasn't his approach. He beat people 6-4, 7-6, 6-3, yet the opponent actually had no chance. :lol:

The fact that Federer bageled Kuerten DOES show that Roger is a really good claycourt player. :yeah: It just says nothing about Pete.

As for playing Guga on clay, I understand your logic, but there's an element of chance as well. Agassi (not the greatest claycourter, but certainly quite competent) never played Guga on clay either. Sometimes draws just don't work out that way.

Ernham
11-02-2006, 02:46 AM
Sampras jumped in at just the right time for his kind of tennis. it was at a time when the two-handed backhand was still somewhat uncommon. The only guy with the combo of a good return and the two handed backhand was Agassi, really. today, he's get bounced out on the hard courts by Federer or *gulp* Nalbandian, but he'd probably still be king of wimbledon.

ca1houn
11-02-2006, 03:06 AM
Kuerten should just shut the fuck up he has only played them 3 time
each, hardly enough matches to make a judgment on there tennis ability.
Anyway all his encounters with Pete were on hard where of course Pete
going to rule Federer had to beat him on his best surface at a time
when he was far from peck form which is still not clear because fed
has many years to go.

Merton
11-02-2006, 03:12 AM
Guga is entitled to his opinion and he certainly carries enough tennis knowledge to be listened to.

LCeh
11-02-2006, 03:27 AM
Agassi played against pete when neither were in their prime: This post indicates that when Agassi played Pete, neither were in their prime. (Which is total BS)

Agassi and Sampras didn't play each other in their prime: This post indicates that when Agassi and Sampras played, neither was in their prime.

I dont see a difference. What is it? :scratch:

I also dont know why u continue to add on the Rafa fan BS. :shrug:

He/she meant that Agassi had played against Pete when neither were in their prime. He didn't mean all their matchs were played when they were not at their prime. I agree that it's a misleading statement, but the poster did further explain that statement, and it's not really stretch to say that that's what he/she meant. Anyway, just to clear things up. :wavey:

Mimi
11-02-2006, 03:37 AM
why Kuerten should shut the fuck up :rolleyes: , he is entitled to his opinion, just like you :rolleyes: , whats more, he is a tennis player, he has much better tennis knowledge than you
Kuerten should just shut the fuck up he has only played them 3 time
each, hardly enough matches to make a judgment on there tennis ability.
Anyway all his encounters with Pete were on hard where of course Pete
going to rule Federer had to beat him on his best surface at a time
when he was far from peck form which is still not clear because fed
has many years to go.

RogersGirl
11-02-2006, 04:24 AM
As Tim Gunn would say: It's a matter of taste. :)

But, Guga... :hug: I always welcome his opinions.

i love tim gunn, and the dictionary in his mouth :p
...anyway, Guga's entitled to his opinion, of course. only time will tell. Pete was a great, if not the great; we still need to see how the rest of roger's career plays out before best ever claims can be convincingly made.

Lee
11-02-2006, 04:33 AM
Kuerten should just shut the fuck up he has only played them 3 time
each, hardly enough matches to make a judgment on there tennis ability.
Anyway all his encounters with Pete were on hard where of course Pete
going to rule Federer had to beat him on his best surface at a time
when he was far from peck form which is still not clear because fed
has many years to go.

With this reasoning, I think every posters in MTF have to shut up as none of us ever played vs Federer and/or Sampras.

Mimi
11-02-2006, 04:53 AM
brilliant Lee :worship: :bowdown: :bigclap: :yeah:
With this reasoning, I think every posters in MTF have to shut up as none of us ever played vs Federer and/or Sampras.

Ernham
11-02-2006, 05:00 AM
Agassi's opinion > Kuerten's opinion^1000

Mimi
11-02-2006, 06:00 AM
you are really funny, how do you judge this :rolleyes:
Agassi's opinion > Kuerten's opinion^1000

Action Jackson
11-02-2006, 10:48 AM
Sampras jumped in at just the right time for his kind of tennis. it was at a time when the two-handed backhand was still somewhat uncommon. The only guy with the combo of a good return and the two handed backhand was Agassi, really. today, he's get bounced out on the hard courts by Federer or *gulp* Nalbandian, but he'd probably still be king of wimbledon.

Yes, Krajicek and Stich had 2 handed backhands, then again at least Wayne Ferreira did:p

Ernham
11-02-2006, 03:18 PM
you are really funny, how do you judge this :rolleyes:

Well, despite Agassi's looooong time in the media spotlight, I don't quite recall him ever saying anything as stupid as Kuerten's totally nonsense statement about Senna/Schumacher. As soon as a mic goes into Kuerten's face, the stupidity starts to spill out. Then we have the fact that Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches. Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them. Comparativley, Kuerten's opinion is complete trash, without even getting into the fact he was a clay courter and Agassi a total player.

angiel
11-02-2006, 03:58 PM
Well, despite Agassi's looooong time in the media spotlight, I don't quite recall him ever saying anything as stupid as Kuerten's totally nonsense statement about Senna/Schumacher. As soon as a mic goes into Kuerten's face, the stupidity starts to spill out. Then we have the fact that Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches. Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them. Comparativley, Kuerten's opinion is complete trash, without even getting into the fact he was a clay courter and Agassi a total player.


Have you ever play tennis??? and you think your opinions count and not Guga who played them both............does that sound real you Ernham, I dont think so, let Guga speak will you he knows the game a 1000 times better than you do.

Thank you.:o :o

Seraphim
11-02-2006, 04:16 PM
I think many of you are missing the REAL stinger of Guga's statement.

It's what he "claimed" about Schu and Fed and not so much who he "prefers".

Whom he prefers as "much better" is inarguable(?) it's his choice, his opinion.

But he took digs at Schu and Fed as to why they are as successful as they are.

Nine pages in and it's nearly been avoided, although it's quite arguable and I think some of you already know that, but ignore it and instead claim that he "has a right to his opinion", and he does, but the Sampras/Federer debate isn't a new one. It's quite old now. Some of you missed the REAL argument being made.

Discuss...........................................

Seraphim
11-02-2006, 04:19 PM
vacuum, what vacuum? yeah, sure, roger only won all those titles because sampras doesn't play anymore.


BINGO!

Julio1974
11-02-2006, 06:39 PM
Finally Guga showed he is not perfect... I think that in three years nobody will doubt the Federer is the greatest in history.

Ernham
11-02-2006, 09:59 PM
Have you ever play tennis??? and you think your opinions count and not Guga who played them both............does that sound real you Ernham, I dont think so, let Guga speak will you he knows the game a 1000 times better than you do.

Thank you.:o :o

Do I need to repeat myself? Nah, not gonna . I'l just tell you: learn how to read.

Mimi
11-03-2006, 01:19 AM
learn how to behave better before asking people to learn how to read, you are not an english teacher :rolleyes:
Do I need to repeat myself? Nah, not gonna . I'l just tell you: learn how to read.

Ernham
11-03-2006, 01:34 AM
you are not an english teacher :rolleyes:

Sometimes I wonder. I never said Kuerten's opinion was worthless. Compared to Agassi's, though, it's almost.

Merton
11-03-2006, 02:36 AM
Sometimes I wonder. I never said Kuerten's opinion was worthless. Compared to Agassi's, though, it's almost.

So greater success in a field implies greater expertise on offering valid opinions? Think again.

betowiec
11-03-2006, 02:40 AM
10 pp of analysis

lol

Mimi
11-03-2006, 02:41 AM
:bowdown: :clap2: So greater success in a field implies greater expertise on offering valid opinions? Think again.

Ernham
11-03-2006, 02:57 AM
So greater success in a field implies greater expertise on offering valid opinions? Think again.

LEARN TO GOD DAMN READ. It has nothing to do with success. Repeat myself because people are too stupid to read it with any comprehension or they are just too god damn lazy to read a couple posts back.

"Well, despite Agassi's looooong time in the media spotlight, I don't quite recall him ever saying anything as stupid as Kuerten's totally nonsense statement about Senna/Schumacher. As soon as a mic goes into Kuerten's face, the stupidity starts to spill out. Then we have the fact that Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches. Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them. Comparativley, Kuerten's opinion is complete trash, without even getting into the fact he was a clay courter and Agassi a total player."

Mimi
11-03-2006, 03:23 AM
as Lee pointed out earlier, if you think Guga needs to play both Roger and Pete at their peak before he has a better idea on whether roger or pete is greater, then none of us can make comment on who is better or bad mouthing Guga by saying he talks trush coz we never get a chance to play against either roger or pete


LEARN TO GOD DAMN READ. It has nothing to do with success. Repeat myself because people are too stupid to read it with any comprehension or they are just too god damn lazy to read a couple posts back.

"Well, despite Agassi's looooong time in the media spotlight, I don't quite recall him ever saying anything as stupid as Kuerten's totally nonsense statement about Senna/Schumacher. As soon as a mic goes into Kuerten's face, the stupidity starts to spill out. Then we have the fact that Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches. Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them. Comparativley, Kuerten's opinion is complete trash, without even getting into the fact he was a clay courter and Agassi a total player."

NYCtennisfan
11-03-2006, 03:29 AM
Have you ever play tennis??? and you think your opinions count and not Guga who played them both............does that sound real you Ernham, I dont think so, let Guga speak will you he knows the game a 1000 times better than you do.

Thank you.:o :o

Using only two emoticons must be a record for Angiel. :eek:

Liverpool4ever
11-03-2006, 03:36 AM
Guga's opinion that Sampras is the better player has to be respected and more than most since he played Federer in his prime and played Sampras when he was close to his best as well.

His comments on the other hand about Schumacher only dominating, because of Senna's death is stupid just as his comment that Federer is dominating only due to Sampras' retirement.

Merton
11-03-2006, 03:45 AM
"Well, despite Agassi's looooong time in the media spotlight, I don't quite recall him ever saying anything as stupid as Kuerten's totally nonsense statement about Senna/Schumacher. As soon as a mic goes into Kuerten's face, the stupidity starts to spill out. Then we have the fact that Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches. Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them. Comparativley, Kuerten's opinion is complete trash, without even getting into the fact he was a clay courter and Agassi a total player."

Ok, so this is not about Agassi being more successful than Guga. What you say is that (a) Guga is stupid about Senna-Schumacher, so he is stupid about Pete-Roger (b) Agassi knows better because "Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches" while "Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them"

(a) Being wrong in something implies being wrong in everything else? Not to mention the fact that Senna/Schumacher is far from clear since Senna died before they faced each other long enough. But I am not going into a F1 argument, it is far from being something I am too interested at.

(b) First, Guga faced Roger at his prime, in a slam, in a year where Roger went 74-6 winning 3 slams. The fact that he played less often does not imply he is wrong and Agassi is right. It may or it may not be the case.

LEARN TO GOD DAMN READ. It has nothing to do with success. Repeat myself because people are too stupid to read it with any comprehension or they are just too god damn lazy to read a couple posts back.

I did not quote your post out of context, you stll claim that Agassi carries a more valid opinion than Guga. There are many, many, many famous examples of colossal mistakes of people having great expertise, from Julian the Apostate moving against Christians to Martin Heidegger endorsing the Nazis. Agassi has his opinion, and so does Guga. After Roger retires, it may be clear, or it may not be. We will see.

MisterQ
11-03-2006, 03:49 AM
I wonder if the players are aware that their soundbites on Federer/Sampras issues generate this much debate. :lol:

Merton
11-03-2006, 03:52 AM
I wonder if the players are aware that their soundbites on Federer/Sampras issues generate this much debate. :lol:

They might be rolling over, laughing, it would be quite entertaining, at least for some of them.

Mimi
11-03-2006, 03:53 AM
great post :worship: :D
Ok, so this is not about Agassi being more successful than Guga. What you say is that (a) Guga is stupid about Senna-Schumacher, so he is stupid about Pete-Roger (b) Agassi knows better because "Agassi played against sampras for Sampras's entire career and played against federer in is "formative years" andin his prime, a combined total against those 2 in the range of 60 matches" while "Kuerten never played against roger in his prime, and he only played a total of 6 matches against both of them"

(a) Being wrong in something implies being wrong in everything else? Not to mention the fact that Senna/Schumacher is far from clear since Senna died before they faced each other long enough. But I am not going into a F1 argument, it is far from being something I am too interested at.

(b) First, Guga faced Roger at his prime, in a slam, in a year where Roger went 74-6 winning 3 slams. The fact that he played less often does not imply he is wrong and Agassi is right. It may or it may not be the case.



I did not quote your post out of context, you stll claim that Agassi carries a more valid opinion than Guga. There are many, many, many famous examples of colossal mistakes of people having great expertise, from Julian the Apostate moving against Christians to Martin Heidegger endorsing the Nazis. Agassi has his opinion, and so does Guga. After Roger retires, it may be clear, or it may not be. We will see.

Fedex
11-03-2006, 04:01 AM
Last year Agassi said Roger is the best he's ever played against. Though some I'm sure think he only said that because he was beaten by Roger 8 times in a row. Chang has said certain areas of Roger's game are probably better than Pete's, but he's also one of those who thinks Roger has it easier because there are no s/v players now.
Federer has actually beaten up on the serve and volley players in the past, although he has never had to face a great serve and volley player.

Ernham
11-03-2006, 04:04 AM
Ok, so this is not about Agassi being more successful than Guga. What you say is that (a) Guga is stupid about Senna-Schumacher, so he is stupid about Pete-Roger

Yes. The Senna/Schumacher nonsense makes it rather clear that Kuerten has a strange interpretation of reality and makes me suspect that the "comparison criteria" that he uses to compare the two is very odd. The fact he is Brazilian really makes me question this. In Brazil they actually think that Pele was better than Zico, which is so incredibly absurd it boggles the mind. Usually their arguments are something along the lines of "Pele won X amount of World Cups, while Zico didn't." Basically, their argument has no bearing on how good the players were, just at the results that they ended up(which was mostly out of their hands). This is even MORE suspect when you sit down and use the same logic with all doinate champions. Maybe Sampras wouldn't have dominated if Lendl, McEnroe, etc. had not retired, and maybe they themselves because Borg retired, all the freaking way back to Tilden, Gonzales and lord knows who else.

(b) First, Guga faced Roger at his prime, in a slam, in a year where Roger went 74-6 winning 3 slams. The fact that he played less often does not imply he is wrong and Agassi is right. It may or it may not be the case.


Yeah, on clay only...



I did not quote your post out of context, you stll claim that Agassi carries a more valid opinion than Guga. There are many, many, many famous examples of colossal mistakes of people having great expertise, from Julian the Apostate moving against Christians to Martin Heidegger endorsing the Nazis. Agassi has his opinion, and so does Guga. After Roger retires, it may be clear, or it may not be. We will see.

For every one that makes the mistake, hundreds more are correct who have the greater expertise/knowledge/experience. i have a rule that the first time someone mentions Hitler/Nazis, it's a pretty good bet that I destroyed thieir argument and have them cowering under any possible strawman they can dig up.

MisterQ
11-03-2006, 04:06 AM
Federer has actually beaten up on the serve and volley players in the past, although he has never had to face a great serve and volley player.

Don't know if you would count him as great in this context, but Rafter won all three matches against Roger. They were prior to Roger's dominant phase, though. (1999 and 2001). I guess Roger was losing to Henman all the time in those years too...

mangoes
11-03-2006, 04:07 AM
I wonder if the players are aware that their soundbites on Federer/Sampras issues generate this much debate. :lol:

Yes, it's the way for them to get back into the media's light :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Fedex
11-03-2006, 04:10 AM
I still prefer Pete over Fed .

Federer plays too defensively which wouldn't have worked against Pete . Pete's attacking game was a thing of beauty .

No player that i've ever seen was able to generate as many winners per match as Pete would . I remember watching some Us open matches and he'd hit 60-70 winners pretty routinely .

Keep in mind that Federer can play more aggresive (ala serve and volley) and most likely would have against Sampras.

Ernham
11-03-2006, 04:13 AM
Keep in mind that Federer can play more aggresive (ala serve and volley) and most likely would have against Sampras.

He really wouldn't need to. All he would need to do is return well. That was always the key in beating Sampras. Return him well, break him, then be happy with your set.

Liverpool4ever
11-03-2006, 04:16 AM
Federer has a great record against serve and volleyers. He completely trounces the poorer ones like Stepanek, Rusedski, Mirnyi and Bjorkman. He managed to beat the power SV as a kid including Ivanisevic, Sampras and Krajicek. As for his record against Rafter this one is often taken out of context. The first time they played Federer was just 17 and even then he managed to take a set off him. The second time they played was pretty bad and Federer was taught a lesson, but the third time they played when Federer was just 19 when into a third set tie break. Rafter at the time was on the form that would seem him lose to Ivanisevic in the fifth set of the final. He had far more trouble with baseliners at the time like Nalbandian, Kiefer, Haas, hewitt and Agassi. Hence I don't think he really was troubled by SV at all apart from Henman and with this improvements I think he has corrected that as well.

Merton
11-03-2006, 04:19 AM
For every one that makes the mistake, hundreds more are correct who have the greater expertise/knowledge/experience.

You must be aware that you are in slippery ground, moving from casual empiricism (experts are right most of the time) to determinism (this particular expert/knowledgeable/experienced is right)

i have a rule that the first time someone mentions Hitler/Nazis, it's a pretty good bet that I destroyed thieir argument and have them cowering under any possible strawman they can dig up.

Rule #1: If somebody quotes a post it means he never read the other posts/DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO READ.
Rul #2: "Someone mentions the Hitler Nazis" means that "I destroyed thieir argument and have them cowering under any possible strawman they can dig up"

You might need to reconsider these rules.:wavey:

World Beater
11-03-2006, 04:22 AM
i really dont understand this prime "shit"...because federer was crap all those years at rg, and he made his breakthrough only in 2005...why does one necessarily have to be in his/her prime on ALL surfaces?

i dont see the need to generalize over each surface.

Merton
11-03-2006, 04:25 AM
i really dont understand this prime "shit"...because federer was crap all those years at rg, and he made his breakthrough only in 2005...why does one necessarily have to be in his/her prime on ALL surfaces?

i dont see the need to generalize over each surface.

Federer was not crap at all on clay in 2004, just look at Hamburg that same year.

Ernham
11-03-2006, 04:27 AM
You must be aware that you are in slippery ground, moving from casual empiricism (experts are right most of the time) to determinism (this particular expert/knowledgeable/experienced is right)


If I'm on slippery ground, you are drowning in a petro ocean. Heh. If I look at two studies that examined some given "thing" related to humans, and the one study had a sample size of 60+ and was representative versus a study that had a sample size of 6 and was not at all representative, which one would the scientific community laugh at? I'll be laughing with the scientists, and you can call up Miss Cleo.

World Beater
11-03-2006, 04:28 AM
Federer was not crap at all on clay in 2004, just look at Hamburg that same year.

doesnt matter...he was crap at RG...clay is not a generic surface...we all know the difference between hamburg clay and rg clay, and federer's problems at rg. federer could beat anybody in his backyard, hamburg, and he could lose to everyone at rg prior to 2005.

also, for you to compare hamburg and rg is a bit silly because then i can bring up federer beating kuerten in a match of no real consequence at hamburg.

federer was never really crap on clay, but to say he was in his prime on clay is "silly" until 2005.

Liverpool4ever
11-03-2006, 04:33 AM
Federer was not crap at all on clay in 2004, just look at Hamburg that same year.

Federer's best clay surface is probably Hamburg, because the clay is heavier and damper due to the weather. This helps him with the balls not bouncing as high and improving his footing.Not to mention it being a German speaking tournament seems to help him as well. Federer's record in German speaking areas is very impressive. Federer has always been able to beat the bets clay courters at Hamburg even when he was very young. As has been mentioned his footing at the French is poor and it took him a while to get to grips with with the size of the stadium. Having said that maybe his break through would have come in 2004 had it not been for Guga;beating Federer at a slam is never easy and guga deserves credit for managing it.

Merton
11-03-2006, 04:50 AM
If I'm on slippery ground, you are drowning in a petro ocean. Heh. If I look at two studies that examined some given "thing" related to humans, and the one study had a sample size of 60+ and was representative versus a study that had a sample size of 6 and was not at all representative, which one would the scientific community laugh at? I'll be laughing with the scientists, and you can call up Miss Cleo.

Correct, but irrelevant. The key word is "representative", the 60 experts might have their own agenda, or they might just be wrong. For example, the overwhelming consensus before Copernicus was that the sun was revolving around the earth. It didn't work very well.

When there is inherent uncertainty about something, you will update your beliefs based on experts opinion, but still the experts might be wrong. Now you need to find the representative sample of experts claiming that Roger was best, compare with those that claim Pete was the best, and prove that the ratio is 60 to 6. Next, you need to prove that the 6 voting for Pete have the alias "Miss Cleo". Good luck.

Merton
11-03-2006, 04:54 AM
doesnt matter...he was crap at RG...clay is not a generic surface...we all know the difference between hamburg clay and rg clay, and federer's problems at rg. federer could beat anybody in his backyard, hamburg, and he could lose to everyone at rg prior to 2005.

also, for you to compare hamburg and rg is a bit silly because then i can bring up federer beating kuerten in a match of no real consequence at hamburg.

federer was never really crap on clay, but to say he was in his prime on clay is "silly" until 2005.

Federer's best clay surface is probably Hamburg, because the clay is heavier and damper due to the weather. This helps him with the balls not bouncing as high and improving his footing.Not to mention it being a German speaking tournament seems to help him as well. Federer's record in German speaking areas is very impressive. Federer has always been able to beat the bets clay courters at Hamburg even when he was very young. As has been mentioned his footing at the French is poor and it took him a while to get to grips with with the size of the stadium. Having said that maybe his break through would have come in 2004 had it not been for Guga;beating Federer at a slam is never easy and guga deserves credit for managing it.

Valid points, I am not comparing Hamburg to RG, and there is no doubt that Roger improved at RG. For the record, I am a Roger fan, I was never a Pete fan, and my opinion as to who is the greatest is irrelevant before Roger retires.

Ernham
11-03-2006, 05:03 AM
Correct, but irrelevant. The key word is "representative",

ya, that's why I put it in bold.


the 60 experts might have their own agenda,

Yes, it's all a conspiracy.

or they might just be wrong. For example, the overwhelming consensus before Copernicus was that the sun was revolving around the earth. It didn't work very well.

Not among the experts it wasn't, at that time and long, long before it, astronomers/navigators/captains all knew that the earth went around the sun. This is , what, strawman number 3?


When there is inherent uncertainty about something, you will update your beliefs based on experts opinion, but still the experts might be wrong.

Don't let any black cats cross your path. Mmmkay? Never know, you know.

World Beater
11-03-2006, 05:10 AM
Valid points, I am not comparing Hamburg to RG, and there is no doubt that Roger improved at RG. For the record, I am a Roger fan, I was never a Pete fan, and my opinion as to who is the greatest is irrelevant before Roger retires.

no it doesnt matter who you are a fan of...i just dont understand the prime issue raised by many here, not just you.

federer in 2005 could have arguably beaten everyone except rafa. if for example, federer had dominated nadal in 2006 on clay, then one would need to redraw the boundary for federer's prime...but even in 2006 nadal was still too much showing that it was more a question of their matchup and not of federer's form.

in 2004, he was very far from that as guga showed, and nalbandian would have done so in the qf round even if guga didnt have such a great one-off performance. federer lost at rome also? these days its only nadal who prevents him, and an argument could be made since 2005.

Merton
11-03-2006, 05:31 AM
Don't let any black cats cross your path. Mmmkay? Never know, you know.

Rule #3: Don't forget Julian the Apostate, it would add up one more strawman.
Rule #4: Respond to points never raised, then make inferences that make you look mildly intelligent.

Eden
03-21-2007, 10:22 PM
A new statement from Guga:

Former No. 1 Gustavo Kuerten on the Roger Federer vs. Pete Sampras debate: "Looking head to head, I thought Sampras had the better shot for me. As he [Federer] has been growing better and better, I'm sure he's getting close...By the record and the numbers, he's breaking down one after the other. I think -- in one or two years, he's going to be the best player in tennis ever."...

Source: http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-04-21/d.php

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 11:25 PM
^Bandwagon hopper

Apemant
03-21-2007, 11:46 PM
^Bandwagon hopper

:haha:

Bilbo
03-21-2007, 11:51 PM
Guga is an idiot

aramis
03-22-2007, 12:57 AM
Guga is playing right now, if anyone is interested.

Bremen
03-22-2007, 01:22 AM
Guga is playing right now, if anyone is interested.

And not doing so hot...

Kolya
03-22-2007, 02:19 AM
LOL - Bruguera said Federer was 10 times better than Sampras.

Mimi
03-22-2007, 04:09 AM
and sampras is 1,000 times better than Brugera :p
LOL - Bruguera said Federer was 10 times better than Sampras.

Kolya
03-22-2007, 05:04 AM
Head to Head - Bruguera 4 v Sampras 3 :D hahaha.

Yeah obviously Sampras is the better player 14 GS to 2 GS.

yomike
03-22-2007, 09:51 AM
OMG:o Guga I guess he is not a Federer fan. Even with my Fed bashings I would never put Sampras in Federer's league. Federer is a man on his own.

corporalclegg
03-22-2007, 09:57 AM
Well, for now, if you go by the # of Grand Slams, then YES! Sampras was the greatest ever. But in a year or two... no.

angiel
03-22-2007, 08:27 PM
OMG:o Guga I guess he is not a Federer fan. Even with my Fed bashings I would never put Sampras in Federer's league. Federer is a man on his own.



Pete Sampras dont want to be in Roger league my friend, he has one of his own, if you never know that:mad: :mad: Roger is the one who want to be in Pete Sampras league, not the other way around.:wavey: :wavey:

almouchie
03-22-2007, 08:35 PM
glad to have smebody from players routing for pistolpete

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 08:44 PM
When Guga beat Pete at the Masters Cup in 2000 (I'm pretty sure that's the year) he probably convinced himself that he defeated the best player of all-time.

Chalk that up to wishful thinking.

angiel
03-22-2007, 08:44 PM
Guga is an idiot


Is he,,,, are you just dont like what he has to say, he his entitled to his opinions you know, just like you do.:p :p :p