Cricket Player Manager
Page 101 of 1037 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151201601 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 15549
Like Tree77Likes

Thread: *Official* Tennis Thread

  1. #1501
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,867
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    but IMO, Federer right now is a better player than Pete ever was- the only surface where Pete could give Federer a run for his money is grass...that too, i think Federer would win narrowly.
    easy there....pete did win 7 slams on hard courts as well in addition to the 7 wimbledons....5 opens and 2 australians....federer at this point has 2....pete was year-end no: 1 for 6 consecutive years....these are incredible achievements....federer has the talent of a great champion, whether he has the longevity of a great champion remains to be seen....
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    very very close friend of mine is an Arab Christian and he speaks Arabic too and the visible hidden filth shows the mentality which may never change .....
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    AAooouchh !!!!!
    I still remember that zipper accident of mine when I was in kindergarten ..... (Thing is OK I repeat thing is OK now )!!!

  2. #1502
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Well i am not talkin about achievements.... those take time to build....even Bradman eary in his career hadnt achieved a third of what Hobbs had achieved...
    Plus in individual sports, it has a lot to do with the level of competition.
    Back in the 70s-early 90s, there were 6-8 worldclass players per era who were a cut above the rest....they routinely featured in finals and semi finals of grand slams and rarely lost to rank outsiders in grand slams....
    Since 2000, the field has become much closer, albeit lacking in the quality of Connors-McEnroe-Borg era...... Ie, a #75 can win against top-notch players a helluva lot frequently compared to 20-30 years ago. Simply because the overall field quality is stronger.
    Federer may win 14+ slams or he may fall short... but when it comes to how well he plays the game, i think Federer is a better player than Sampras at his peak.
    The only thing Sampras did better than Federer was have a better second serve.
    Everything else Federer either does better or matches him.

  3. #1503
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,867
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Well i am not talkin about achievements.... those take time to build....even Bradman eary in his career hadnt achieved a third of what Hobbs had achieved...
    Plus in individual sports, it has a lot to do with the level of competition.
    Back in the 70s-early 90s, there were 6-8 worldclass players per era who were a cut above the rest....they routinely featured in finals and semi finals of grand slams and rarely lost to rank outsiders in grand slams....
    Since 2000, the field has become much closer, albeit lacking in the quality of Connors-McEnroe-Borg era...... Ie, a #75 can win against top-notch players a helluva lot frequently compared to 20-30 years ago. Simply because the overall field quality is stronger.
    Federer may win 14+ slams or he may fall short... but when it comes to how well he plays the game, i think Federer is a better player than Sampras at his peak.
    The only thing Sampras did better than Federer was have a better second serve.
    Everything else Federer either does better or matches him.
    sampras had a better, more dominant first serve, the second serve in fact is a much closer comparison than the first....their first volleys and forehands(sampras had an exceptional forehand) match pretty well but in every other aspect(return, court coverage, backcourt defense, backhand etc), federer seems to be better....
    Last edited by Anil; 07-07-2005 at 09:57 PM.

  4. #1504
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by broncoman
    compare Federer's 12 unforced errors in the final to the massive ammounts of errors there are in womens matches, its a no contest, id much prefer to watch Federer with his breath taking tennis wipe the floor with any male player than match Williams and anyone else going error for error, ause basically womens tennis is about who makes the least ammount of errors rather than who plays better tennis...
    Federer wasn't challenged enough and that's why he made only 12 unforced errors. Watch him play with Safin who is a much better player than Roddick/Hewitt and tell me how many unforced errors he makes. Once again, yes it is nice to watch Federer hitting breathtaking shots but what do you expect when the other guy is merely playing like a ball boy.


  5. #1505
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Well i am not talkin about achievements.... those take time to build....even Bradman eary in his career hadnt achieved a third of what Hobbs had achieved...
    Plus in individual sports, it has a lot to do with the level of competition.
    Back in the 70s-early 90s, there were 6-8 worldclass players per era who were a cut above the rest....they routinely featured in finals and semi finals of grand slams and rarely lost to rank outsiders in grand slams....
    Since 2000, the field has become much closer, albeit lacking in the quality of Connors-McEnroe-Borg era...... Ie, a #75 can win against top-notch players a helluva lot frequently compared to 20-30 years ago. Simply because the overall field quality is stronger.
    Federer may win 14+ slams or he may fall short... but when it comes to how well he plays the game, i think Federer is a better player than Sampras at his peak.
    The only thing Sampras did better than Federer was have a better second serve.
    Everything else Federer either does better or matches him.
    http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

    Not to forget that the quality of opponents Pete faced throughout his career, Federer is yet to face someone as good as Agassi.

  6. #1506
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    The only thing Sampras did better than Federer was have a better second serve.
    Everything else Federer either does better or matches him.
    Err Sampras was a better serve and Volleyer, better Forehand, better athletism. And no Roger doesn't have a better first serve than pete.

  7. #1507
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    Federer wasn't challenged enough and that's why he made only 12 unforced errors. Watch him play with Safin who is a much better player than Roddick/Hewitt and tell me how many unforced errors he makes. Once again, yes it is nice to watch Federer hitting breathtaking shots but what do you expect when the other guy is merely playing like a ball boy.
    LOL Roddick hits the ball harder than anyone on the tour, Roddick didnt play too badly in the final Federer was just awesome.

  8. #1508
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    Err Sampras was a better serve and Volleyer, better Forehand, better athletism. And no Roger doesn't have a better first serve than pete.
    Federer has a better backhand, better return, better clay court game...
    I agree Federer is still behind Sampras, Pete was at the top of the game for a decade, Rog has been there for 2 years, hes won half the ammount of grand slams, You just dont become a better player than the greatest all time ni a couple of seasons, but imo he will one day over take Sampras...

  9. #1509
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by broncoman
    Federer has a better backhand, better return, better clay court game...
    I was responding to c_c who said Pete is ahead only in second serve.Yes Federer has a better clay court game but Pete is better on Grass. Despite being better than Pete on Clay, Federer doesn't have a French open title to show and hasn't done much better at Roland Garros.

  10. #1510
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    I was responding to c_c who said Pete is ahead only in second serve.Yes Federer has a better clay court game but Pete is better on Grass. Despite being better than Pete on Clay, Federer doesn't have a French open title to show and hasn't done much better at Roland Garros.
    his overall clay court record is better, masters series r pretty important and hes done quite well in them on clay in the past couple of years...

  11. #1511
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Not to forget that the quality of opponents Pete faced throughout his career, Federer is yet to face someone as good as Agassi.
    which is why Federer holds a 7-3 career record against Agassi, eh ?

    The quality of tennis since 2000 is much higher than quality of tennis in the mid/late 90s.
    That is a widely accepted view and even Sampras said as much.

    Err Sampras was a better serve and Volleyer, better Forehand, better athletism. And no Roger doesn't have a better first serve than pete.
    Better volleyer ? Nope. Pete volleyed alot more than Federer but Federer is more efficient in his volleying. Watch a few Federer vs Agassi matches. Agassi struggled to pass federer a lot more than he struggled to pass Pete.
    Better forehand ? Nope. People like Johnny Mac, Cash, Becker etc. all say that the Federer forehand is one of the best of alltime. Pete might've had a better running forehand. But Federer is far more athletic than Pete - which is why his defense is so bloody strong and which is why he wins points with regularity that anybody else- even Pete- couldnt win.
    Their first serves are close IMO but the only advantage Pete has is his second serve.
    And Federer's career isnt over as of now. He is just entering his prime. I am not talking about accomplishments here - they depend a lot on the field strength and Federer faces a much more competitive field than Pete did for most of his career.
    I am talking about who has a superior game and i say its Federer( which is also what Becker, Johnny Mac etc. thinks for the record). I think if Federer today took on Pete at his peak, Pete would lose more than win.

    As per unforced errors go, to conclude that one had less unforced errors because he had inferior competition is erroneous.
    For it also depends on how well you can pull off your shots - something Roger does with stunning ability- i havnt seen anyone make shots like Federer does since the heydeys of Johnny Mac himself.
    Last edited by C_C; 07-07-2005 at 11:47 PM.

  12. #1512
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    which is why Federer holds a 7-3 career record against Agassi, eh ?
    And Agassi of last 2-3 years is performing at the same level as he used to do in 90s and 2000-2002. Does it surprise you that all of Federer's wins have come in last one and half years when Agassi has clearly lost his game ?

    The quality of tennis since 2000 is much higher than quality of tennis in the mid/late 90s.That is a widely accepted view and even Sampras said as much.
    The very fact that players like Agassi are still reaching the SF of Grandslams conveys that there aren't any better young players. Players like Roddick, Hewitt still lose to Agassi even on their day. And I dont know much about widely accepted view on the quality of Tennis or Pete's comments. If at all Pete said that he is just being generous and it reflects his humbleness. I cant see one single decent player(on Grass court) who can be classified in the league of Goran, Rafter, Scud, Becker, Stich, Enqvist, Henmen, Martin, Krajicek et all.

  13. #1513
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Better volleyer ? Nope. Pete volleyed alot more than Federer but Federer is more efficient in his volleying. Watch a few Federer vs Agassi matches. Agassi struggled to pass federer a lot more than he struggled to pass Pete.
    And the fact that Agassi is almost on verge of his retirement has nothing to do with it ?? When Agassi was at top he blew away Federer like a bubble, Federer struggled to win a set in their first 3 meets.

    Better forehand ? Nope. People like Johnny Mac, Cash, Becker etc. all say that the Federer forehand is one of the best of alltime. Pete might've had a better running forehand.
    Pete definately had the best running forehand I have seen. Have Mac/Beck said Federer's forehand better than Pete, 'One of the best all time' doesn't mean better than Pete as he himself had one of the best forehand(if not the best) of all time .


    But Federer is far more athletic than Pete - which is why his defense is so bloody strong and which is why he wins points with regularity that anybody else- even Pete- couldnt win.
    His defence is good because of his backcourt game and his returns, like Agassi and not because of his athletism. He is stronger, Pete was more athletic. As for Pete's backcpurt games you should watch his US open wins over Agassi and you will know how underrated his backcourt game was.

    Their first serves are close IMO but the only advantage Pete has is his second serve.And Federer's career isnt over as of now. He is just entering his prime. I am not talking about accomplishments here - they depend a lot on the field strength and Federer faces a much more competitive field than Pete did for most of his career.
    BULL. Federer with the exception of an erratic Safin doesn't face any competition and as far as serve and volley goes, I guess you have forgotten Pete's game. Try renting some of Pete's games and watch him play in Wimbledon.

  14. #1514
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    And Agassi of last 2-3 years is performing at the same level as he used to do in 90s and 2000-2002. Does it surprise you that all of Federer's wins have come in last one and half years when Agassi has clearly lost his game ?



    The very fact that players like Agassi are still reaching the SF of Grandslams conveys that there aren't any better young players. Players like Roddick, Hewitt still lose to Agassi even on their day. And I dont know much about widely accepted view on the quality of Tennis or Pete's comments. If at all Pete said that he is just being generous and it reflects his humbleness. I cant see one single decent player(on Grass court) who can be classified in the league of Goran, Rafter, Scud, Becker, Stich, Enqvist, Henmen, Martin, Krajicek et all.
    Enqvist on grass? do me a favour!
    Tim Henman! has never even won a grass court event!
    Todd Martin was average on grass, face it grass has always been dominated by different people at different times. Bjorg won 6 wimbledons in a row, Sampras won 7 in 8 years, guys like Goran were consistently good by making the semis every year but always lose to Pete and the likes. Its just a trend that happens on grass.
    Other surfaces this isnt as evident...

  15. #1515
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    So what that Agassi makes Semis and Quarters at 33-34 years of age ?
    That means the competition is worse ? where did you get that from ? You realise that Lendl was making semis and quarters in the early 90s, at the same stage as Agassi is right now ?
    They are alltime great players and when they switch it on, they can beat almost anybody.
    Federer blew away agassi 2 years ago i think and that wasnt agassi past his prime- indeed, as recent as a year ago, he still had it.
    Agassi beat Federer when he was a newbie- every player- good,great or poor gets creamed the first few years on the tour. Becker is the only exception i can think of.
    Pete had an awesome running forehand but it was nowhere close to being the best forehand in the game in my opinion. Marcelo Rios had a demon forehand and there was this Swede ( i forget his name- Magnus Gustaffson i think) who had an absolute stunner of a forehand. Tomas Muster's forehand was awesome too...all of them handily overshadowed Pete's forehand both in terms of power and accuracy.
    Federer's forehand is easily as good as Pete's. Federer's shotmaking is of a superior quality than Pete's( or indeed anybody's saving perhaps Borg and McEnroe).
    Pete's backcourt game was underrated but by no means was it awesome. He couldnt outslug or outlast the baseliners while playing back. Federer can practically blow anyone outta the ballpark with his backcourt game OR his serve and volleying. His game is essentially an amalgam of Agassi and Sampras.
    And yes, the field is a LOT stronger today than it was 5-6 years ago. Right now you have number 50s or number 80s who give top 10 players a run for their money, have almost all shots in their armoury and on their day can beat anybody. Pete didnt have that kinda competition- no one had. In the 70s/80s you had half a dozen or so players who were absolute topclass followed by a big drop in field quality. Which is why you see practically every grand slam finals being contested by big-name players. Today its not so because the competition is a lot tougher. Anybody can knock off anybody ( barring perhaps Federer) if they are so much 5% off colour.
    And you dont see a good grasscourt player today ? Federer is GOD of grasscourt right now- fit to be alongside Pete, Borg,Becker,Edberg and McEnroe as the kings of grasscourt.
    Roddick is pretty awesome on grass as well - easily as good as anybody on grass back in Pete's day barring Goran.
    And yes, Federer's biggest competitor right now is an erratic Marat Safin. But that isnt surprising- i called that since Safin creamed Agassi in his debut French Open.... Safin is a humongous talent- monster serve, good forehand and a killer backhand.He isnt totally incompetent at the net either, unlike some claycourters from Sampras's era but more Agassi-esque at the net ( ie, approaches for the kill instead of controlling a point from the net).
    A full throttle Safin can beat anybody- remember him creaming Pete in the US Open finals while still being a teenager and Pete playing like a God ?
    Federer can blow away Pete from the backcourt- and no, i mean Federer's defence is great. In tennis, your defense is how well you scramble...Federer's scrambling shots are a class above everyone else's , apart from McEnroe. Look at the point he played versus Roddick in this year's wimbledon finals- roddick was booming around court and Federer running back and forth putting the ball back deep- he didnt have to unleash a running forehand like Pete used to because he moves a whole lot better than Pete ever did and is much more in position...he finally lobbed the ball and Roddick smashed it- result ? Federer smacked back a winner to Roddick's smash- that is a trademark of Federer really. The guy's defence is too good..the only one i can think of who had a defence like Federer is Marcelo Rios.

    And i dont have to rent tapes of Pete's game- i have followed Tennis since the late 80s-have attended numerous Wimbledon and US open personally actually. I also used to play junior level tennis ... tennis from the 90s is etched into my memory.
    I think Federer can take Pete out more often than not on any surface. His returning is as good as anybody's ( you notice how everyone struggles against big servers but Federer ? Notice how everybody struggles to return Roddick's serve but Fedeer ?) and is definately superior to Pete's.
    He overall serving is slightly off Pete's level but that is more than made up because of Federer's much superior returning.
    He is more athletic than Pete, can blow off Pete from the baseline and his touchshots are something nobody has ever come close to barring McEnroe. He is an awesome serve and volleyer- he just doesnt do it as often as Pete because he doesnt need to.
    its not often you hear old timers calling a five-time grand slam winner 'the most talented player ever' but everybody who's anybody in tennis admits that Federer is the most talented since Laver, if not the most talented ever. Pete's best shot at Federer is on grass and even then the advantage is with Federer.
    Pete was my favourite player from the 90s but give jack his jacket- Federer is THE best player i've ever seen with a tennis racket. Period.
    Borg comes next, followed by Pete and then McEnroe.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FAQ & Introduction Thread
    By Samuel_Vimes in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-06-2011, 12:06 PM
  2. The Ashes Commentary Thread
    By GIMH in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 04:14 AM
  3. Selection errors tally thread
    By Richard in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 349
    Last Post: 23-08-2009, 04:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •