Page 102 of 1034 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112152202602 ... LastLast
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 15498
Like Tree72Likes

Thread: *Official* Tennis Thread

  1. #1516
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    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 ?
    Dude, Lendl's last major came when he was 30, Agassi's last major when he was 33 Lendl had retired at 34, Agassi is 35+ and still playing. Not to forget Lendle was crushed by Becker. Besides Agassi is nowhere the physical monster Lendl was. Do you see the difference now. Lendl would have retired earlier had it not been for his quest for winning Wimbledon.

    They are alltime great players and when they switch it on, they can beat almost anybody.
    Yeah Right and Johny Mac of 90s and today is same same as that of 80s, right ?? He is an alltime great and when he switches on he can beat anyone right ??

    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.
    Becker is the only exception, ever heard the name Bjorg ? Anyways, yes Federer beat Agassi in 2003 November when he was only 4 months shy of turning 34 and Federer had hit his peak form because in next one year he won 3 grand slams, . Roger was not a newbie when he was beaten by Agassi, Federer turned pro in 1998 and until 2002 when Agassi was 31, he had lost all the three matches played. Even an aged Agassi took him to five sets in 2004 US open Quarters and in the same US open Roger crushed Hewitt(who is considered in top 3 palyers today) 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. That's the competition Roger gets now a days. And as far as newbies are concerned, Jim courier, Agassi, Pete, Becker all won at least one GS within 3 years of turning pro, Roger won his first after six years.


    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.
    Rios had very good forehand but nowhere near as all time best. All time best can be Courier, Lendl, Sampras, Federer and Pete's running forehand was the best I have seen. Roddick's forehand is good but IMO he takes too much time before hitting his forehand (to get more power) and that's what makes his forehand very predictable. I dont know much about Muster other than him being a Clay court monster. I dont think he could beat Pete's forehand on any other surface.

    Federer's shotmaking is of a superior quality than Pete's( or indeed anybody's saving perhaps Borg and McEnroe).
    We will never know that unless he faces some real challenge on a tennis court. Shot making comes from confidence in your game and when you are really challenged, 6-0s and 6-es aren't what I call challenged.

    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.
    Good that you mentioned that Roger's game is an amalgam of Agassi's Backcourt and Sampras' Serv & Volley, but is he better than Andre in Back court, I doubt, is he a better serve and volley player than Pete, NO. Pete's backcourt game(combined with his serve) was good enough to beat players like Agassi. I hardly saw Pete making a double fault on his serve, Federer did that the other day against Roddick and I didn't even watch the full match. No matter how much you deny, Pete's had the most reliable serve one has seen. Roger doesn't.

    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,
    err that is because top 10 today aren't good enough to stay there for long. I classify them as the Greg Reudeskis of 90s.

    have almost all shots in their armoury and on their day can beat anybody. Pete didnt have that kinda competition- no one had.
    Nonsense, No. 2 Roddick doesn't have anything except for his serve. Hewitt's speed and his return is his strength and other than that he doesn't have much of a game. The only player today who can challenge Roger or can be considered as a top 10 player besides Roger is Safin. And as I said, Safin is the Goran of 2000s and until he changes that I dont see much competition for Roger.

    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.
    What ?? Roddick is as good as grass on anyone in 90s ?? Dude, ever heard the name Scud, Rafter, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Martin etc ?

    Anyways, If you think Roger is the best player ever since Laver, then I respect your opinion, I have not watched Laver or Bjorg play so cant comment, I watched Tennis extensively in late 80s and 90s and I have seen Federer, I dont think he is better than Pete on Grass or Hard Courts. He is better on Clay and that's it but Sampras of 90s would beat Federer of today 7 out of 10 times on hard/Grass court. Roger will probably win it all on clay.
    Last edited by Sanz; 09-07-2005 at 06:30 AM.

  2. #1517
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by broncoman
    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...
    Okay My mistake Enqvist/Martin were really a grass court players, I just remember Enqvist having a big serve and both of them being top 10 players for a while in the 90s.

  3. #1518
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    Okay My mistake Enqvist/Martin were really a grass court players, I just remember Enqvist having a big serve and both of them being top 10 players for a while in the 90s.
    Enqvist made the top 10 on the back of his hard court form early in the 99 season i believe it was, maybe 98??? he won Adelaide, made the final of the Aus open, played well up until in the French, since that year though hes been pretty much rubbish.
    A very under rated Grass courter is Sebastien Grosjen, he always seems to lose to Hewitt or Roddick in the later rounds at Wimbledon but i think he has the type of game to beat Federer at Wimbledon, just doesnt get to play him unfortunately...

  4. #1519
    Banned Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    20,793
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    So what that Agassi makes Semis and Quarters at 33-34 years of age ?
    That means the competition is worse ? .............
    Nothing personal but who would like to read such an incoherent HUGE paragraph without spaces, proper paragraphing etc.


  5. #1520
    International Captain Piper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6,350
    Put the handbags down ladies
    February 10th 2009 <3
    Rest In Peace Fardin
    Rest In Peace Sazza

  6. #1521
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Dude, Lendl's last major came when he was 30, Agassi's last major when he was 33 Lendl had retired at 34, Agassi is 35+ and still playing. Not to forget Lendle was crushed by Becker. Besides Agassi is nowhere the physical monster Lendl was. Do you see the difference now. Lendl would have retired earlier had it not been for his quest for winning Wimbledon.
    Lendl played and competed well till he was 32 or 33 i think. Agassi has played longer than most but it is obvious that his fitness level is a lightyear ahead of other 30-year olds- today or in the past.
    And Agassi isnt a physical monster ? Can you show me another tennis player who moved as well as Agassi does at the age of 33-34 ?
    No- nobody did.
    Agassi's continued excellence is due to his superb fitness and not decline in tennis quality.

    Yeah Right and Johny Mac of 90s and today is same same as that of 80s, right ?? He is an alltime great and when he switches on he can beat anyone right ??
    There is a difference between ' i had retired over 10 years ago' and 'i am comming to the end of my career'.

    Becker is the only exception, ever heard the name Bjorg ? Anyways, yes Federer beat Agassi in 2003 November when he was only 4 months shy of turning 34 and Federer had hit his peak form because in next one year he won 3 grand slams, . Roger was not a newbie when he was beaten by Agassi, Federer turned pro in 1998 and until 2002 when Agassi was 31, he had lost all the three matches played. Even an aged Agassi took him to five sets in 2004 US open Quarters and in the same US open Roger crushed Hewitt(who is considered in top 3 palyers today) 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. That's the competition Roger gets now a days. And as far as newbies are concerned, Jim courier, Agassi, Pete, Becker all won at least one GS within 3 years of turning pro, Roger won his first after six years.
    Yes, thank you for reminding me of Borg- still, players who succeed from the get-go are much rarer.
    Agassi beat Federer in the first few years of his arrival - when Federer was still a newbie...He is only 24 right now and 3-4 years ago, he was still learning the trade.
    20-21 is a stage where a lotta players are getting dominated by the old guard. Sampras didnt win a title till 2 years after turning pro and didnt win a grand slam for 5 years after turning pro.
    Roger didnt win a title for the first 3 years of his professional career and won his grand slam in his fifth year. Like Sampras.
    Sampras had a losing record to Becker, Lendl, Edberg, etc in the first few years of his career as well.
    That is nothing uncommon..like i said, apart from Borg, Becker and maybe a few others here and there, almost everybody loses far more than they win for the first few years after they turn pro.
    Look- it is a fact that competition today, as in the last 4-5 years,is stronger than it has ever been.
    That is why you see such a mixed bag of grand slam winners and semi finalists - because today there are atleast 50-60 players who can beat anybody if they are performing at 100% and the other person has so much of a 5-10% drop in efficiency.
    That is a fact that every tennis expert acknowledges- You didnt have so many quality players in the 1990s or infact anytime before.
    You didnt have players of the callibre of Carlos Moya outside the top 25, you didnt have players like Chela outside the top 30, etc.
    The difference between Sampras( or Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Becker, etc) and Federer's era is this:
    Today there are dozens and dozens of players who can win a grand slam because they are pretty good and their games are pretty good.
    Back then, there was a group of higly skilled dozen or so players, who routinely featuredi n the QF/SF of all grandslams and the 'can win a grand slam' field was much smaller.
    That is something people like McEnroe, Tracy Austin, Becker, Agassi etc. openly admits- and that is evident if you see a 2nd round US open match from 1992 and one from today.


    Rios had very good forehand but nowhere near as all time best. All time best can be Courier, Lendl, Sampras, Federer and Pete's running forehand was the best I have seen. Roddick's forehand is good but IMO he takes too much time before hitting his forehand (to get more power) and that's what makes his forehand very predictable. I dont know much about Muster other than him being a Clay court monster. I dont think he could beat Pete's forehand on any other surface.
    Federer's forehand is predictable ?!?!
    Is this why he hits so many winners from his forehand side ?
    He takes longer to release his forehand than a quick-releaser like Courier or Agassi but Sampras had a big windup to his forehand too.
    Sampras had an excellent running forehand- true. But like i said, Federer rarely plays a running forehand, because he is such a good mover- he is definately a superior mover than Pete is, which means he gets to the ball quicker and is in position quicker than Pete is.
    And if you are in position, you dont play a running forehand...running forehand isnt considered a big deal in tennis - its something that is a bonus but you do not require it if you are an excellent mover like Federer.
    As per the best forehand, i agree with most names in your list as being near the top but one glaring omission is Magnus Gustaffson- he had undoubtedly the best forehand of the 90s. Players- even players like Sampras- avoided his forehand side almost with the same feindish dedication as players avoided Steffi Graf's forehand.
    Muster had a giant forehand and was a superman in terms of fitness.... he was not a typical claycourt bully like Bruguera - he had the game to win on hard courts except for his serve, which was rather weak.
    But his backcourt game was definately good.

    We will never know that unless he faces some real challenge on a tennis court. Shot making comes from confidence in your game and when you are really challenged, 6-0s and 6-es aren't what I call challenged.
    Federer makes stunning shots almost every match- he made stunning shots when he lost to Safin and Nadal. He simply creates shots that someone like Pete never did- like i said, his level of shotmaking isnt seen since the days of McEnroe.

    Good that you mentioned that Roger's game is an amalgam of Agassi's Backcourt and Sampras' Serv & Volley, but is he better than Andre in Back court, I doubt, is he a better serve and volley player than Pete, NO. Pete's backcourt game(combined with his serve) was good enough to beat players like Agassi. I hardly saw Pete making a double fault on his serve, Federer did that the other day against Roddick and I didn't even watch the full match. No matter how much you deny, Pete's had the most reliable serve one has seen. Roger doesn't.
    His back-court game is better than Agassi's IMO. His forehand is much bigger than Agassi's, he has the touch that Agassi( or practically anybody) lacks and his backhand is a rocket- with a single handed backhand, he has more court coverage than Agassi as well.
    His serve and volley- his serve is slightly behind Sampras's IMO but his volleying is superior.
    He just doesnt volley as much as Sampras did because Federer is one of the few who can truly dominate from the baseline or from the net. It is a harder to pass Federer than Pete IMO...the only volleyers i can say were definately superior to Federer were Edberg, Becker, Rafter and McEnroe.
    And having watched Pete all his career, i've never seen Pete beat any baseliner who's playing well without serve and volley. I saw him beat Agassi once in Indianapolis playing from the baseline but that was during Agassi's slump, where he eventually dropped out of the top 100.

    err that is because top 10 today aren't good enough to stay there for long. I classify them as the Greg Reudeskis of 90s.
    You classify them wrong, because every single top 10 today has a game that is superior to Rusedski and his like.
    The reason they dont stay there long enough is because the pool is lot more competitive today than in the past- again, hear the expert opionions on this matter and watch a lotta tennis and you'd find this.
    The latest generation of rackets and feindish following of the Bollitieri school of tennis has produced players who are much more of a complete packages and not the dodos from baseline like Henman or dodos from the net like Bruguera of the past.

    Nonsense, No. 2 Roddick doesn't have anything except for his serve. Hewitt's speed and his return is his strength and other than that he doesn't have much of a game. The only player today who can challenge Roger or can be considered as a top 10 player besides Roger is Safin. And as I said, Safin is the Goran of 2000s and until he changes that I dont see much competition for Roger.
    Hewitt is a modern day Agassi, though of slightly lower quality. He is still a damn sight superior to players like Courier though- grand slam or no grand slam.
    Roddick doesnt have anything apart from Power- his touch game is totally lacking. But his power from serve, forehand and backhand is good enough to overpower most players- today or from the past. A player who's only grasscourt loss for the past 3 years have come to Federer is by no means a crap grasscourt player. He isnt in the Edberg-McEnroe-Becker-Sampras-Federer-Borg-Rafter category of grasscourters but he is definately in the group immediately below that echelon.
    Safin is the Goran of 2000s because of his mental frailty. Oterhwise, his game is much superior to that of Goran's. Goran's backhand was about as reliable as Vancouver's weather(which is to say, non existant reliablity).


    What ?? Roddick is as good as grass on anyone in 90s ?? Dude, ever heard the name Scud, Rafter, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Martin etc ?
    Roddick is definately better than Todd Martin/Stich or Scud IMO.

    I dont think he is better than Pete on Grass or Hard Courts. He is better on Clay and that's it but Sampras of 90s would beat Federer of today 7 out of 10 times on hard/Grass court. Roger will probably win it all on clay.
    Federer simply has a much superior game to anyone i've seen, barring Laver. And i've seen Laver a lot from videotapes. His game is very much like Lavers- that is, perfection.
    The closest to perfection after Federer IMO would be Borg, not Sampras. I consider Borg to be the greatest player of the open era after Federer, with Sampras a close third.
    Borg was basically the pioneer of the modern baseline game. He is the first not to have the 'handshake' grip ( something you see Henman having and thus his baseline game sucking so bad- since handshake grip and topspin dont go well together), he was the first to give heavy topspin and his accuracy was unmatched- nobody was more accurate than Borg. If you watch 'the match' between Borg and McEnroe ( the 5 setter wimbledon final that mr loudmouth lost), you'd see how accurate Borg was. He hit the 'T' half the time in that match and McEnroe hung in there basically due to his genius shotmaking. Nothing more.
    What more, Borg could volley pretty well too but like Agassi, he didnt control the point from the net but rather came in to finish a point- though IMO he was a significantly superior volleyer than Agassi.
    So as far as i am concerned, Federer has the most complete game in the Open era that i've ever seen and Borg had the mental constitution of a behemoth, alongside a fitness level that none could match(not even Lendl or Agassi), the accuracy that nobody has ever duplicated- before or since and a versatility that is hard to match.
    That guy retired at the age of 26 with the best record ever at grandslams( in terms of win%) and apart from Laver, he is, i think, the only player who's won wimbledon and French open in the same year- that too, thrice.
    In his last year, Borg had a record of winning the french open and comming runners-up(both times to McEnroe) at the WImbledon and US open.
    Dont forget, back in those days, Australian Open was considered a 'minor tourney' and nobody payed much heed to the Aussie Open...so essentially outta 3 grand slams and playing for 8-9 years, he won 11 and came runners-up in i think atleast 5 others( r.up at US open 4 times i think).....
    All this by the age of 26...i have very little doubt if Borg played OZ open( he only participated once) and played till a normal retirement age ( 30-32/33), his grand slam record would've been untouchable.

  7. #1522
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Lendl played and competed well till he was 32 or 33 i think. Agassi has played longer than most but it is obvious that his fitness level is a lightyear ahead of other 30-year olds- today or in the past.
    And Agassi isnt a physical monster ? Can you show me another tennis player who moved as well as Agassi does at the age of 33-34 ?
    No- nobody did.
    Agassi's continued excellence is due to his superb fitness and not decline in tennis quality.
    Agassi is nothing compared to Lendl's physical strength. Agassi's was a class untill 2 years ago. He is detoriating very fast and I expect a retirement announcement very soon. But I can say that he can still beat Hewitt/Safin/'Roddick even on their day. This couldn't be said about the Lendl of early 90s, Becker/Edberg/Pete would have crushed him, like Federer can crush Agassi now.



    There is a difference between ' i had retired over 10 years ago' and 'i am comming to the end of my career'.
    So Agassi of 2005 is same Agassi of 90s, right ??

    Sampras didnt win a title till 2 years after turning pro and didnt win a grand slam for 5 years after turning pro.
    Wrong, Pete Turned pro in 1988 and won the US open in 1990. And I dont know how that becomes 5 years in my counting it is less than 3 years.

    Roger didnt win a title for the first 3 years of his professional career and won his grand slam in his fifth year. Like Sampras.
    He won his title in 6th year , Sampras did in 3rd year, I dont know how that can be same.

    Today there are dozens and dozens of players who can win a grand slam because they are pretty good and their games are pretty good.
    Back then, there was a group of higly skilled dozen or so players, who routinely featuredi n the QF/SF of all grandslams and the 'can win a grand slam' field was much smaller.
    That is something people like McEnroe, Tracy Austin, Becker, Agassi etc. openly admits- and that is evident if you see a 2nd round US open match from 1992 and one from today.
    Instead of quoting Mac, Becker etc why dont you name some players from this era who are in the same league of Borg/Connors/Mac/Lendl or Becker/Pete/Edberg/Agassi/Goran/Rafter/Courier etc. I dont consider Hewitt/Roddick in the same league and only a fit and balanced Safin and Roger can be considered that good.


    Federer's forehand is predictable ?!?![
    Is this why he hits so many winners from his forehand side ?
    He takes longer to release his forehand than a quick-releaser like Courier or Agassi but Sampras had a big windup to his forehand too.
    I was talking about Roddick's forehand who is considered good today. Federer's is class but Roddick's isn't that ofcourse in mi opinion.

  8. #1523
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    All this by the age of 26...i have very little doubt if Borg played OZ open( he only participated once) and played till a normal retirement age ( 30-32/33), his grand slam record would've been untouchable.
    that's possibly true...11 slams by 26 is a fantastic achievement....although he wouldn''t have been able to maintain the same win % at slams against an in-form mcenroe, up-and-coming lendl, wilander...also by '85, two other super talents were starting to bring it on on the big stage, edberg and becker...and if you consider the ever-present threat of connors, vilas etc, i very much doubt whether borg would've maintained that super winning %...having said that he was definitely capable of winning another 3-4 slams(would've been mostly the french, i'd say) by 30-32....
    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 )!!!

  9. #1524
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Well i dont think Borg would've won more than 5-6 grand slams if he played another 5-6 years...Borg retired in 81 i think....Becker didnt come around till 86 i think.... thats around the same time when Edberg came along too and 81 is when Connors (someone Borg thumped) and McEnroe were his only immediate challenge...Lendl and Wilander were developing but still in the newbie stage. He would still be peerless on clay(for none of his immediate competitors were anywhere close to him on clay) and good enough for a few slams at wimbledon/aus/us open....

    But i do think he could've approached 20 grand slams if he had played in more than 1 australian open... I can definately see him winning a few australian open had he bothered showing up.

  10. #1525
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Sanz- thanks for the correction but the point still stands : at a newbie stage, almost everyone has a sucky record- an alltime great or even an alsoran.
    First 3-4 years isnt good enough to compare anyone really, as it is still development stage.

    As per who is good enough today to be compared to Rusedski/Todd martin/ivanisevic/courier, lets just agree to disagree, for i think there are dozens today with a game to match or beat all those at their prime.
    That by the way, is also the expert opinion on the matter.

  11. #1526
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Well i dont think Borg would've won more than 5-6 grand slams if he played another 5-6 years...Borg retired in 81 i think....Becker didnt come around till 86 i think.... thats around the same time when Edberg came along too and 81 is when Connors (someone Borg thumped) and McEnroe were his only immediate challenge...Lendl and Wilander were developing but still in the newbie stage. He would still be peerless on clay(for none of his immediate competitors were anywhere close to him on clay) and good enough for a few slams at wimbledon/aus/us open....

    But i do think he could've approached 20 grand slams if he had played in more than 1 australian open... I can definately see him winning a few australian open had he bothered showing up.
    becker won wimbledon in '85...and edberg won the australian in '85 as well.......wilander won the french in '82 and was a force from then on till his retirement in the mid-'90s....lendl
    won the french in '84 and you know what he accomplished in the years since....

    when borg retired in '81, he was 26, if he had played on till he was 32-33, he would have been playing in 85 at age 30, that's why i brought these four up...they would all have been genuine hurdles in his way apart from mcenroe, connors etc....

  12. #1527
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    As per who is good enough today to be compared to Rusedski/Todd martin/ivanisevic/courier, lets just agree to disagree, for i think there are dozens today with a game to match or beat all those at their prime.
    That by the way, is also the expert opinion on the matter.
    rusedski is not worth mentioning, ivanisevic was a force at wimbledon and nowehere else, courier was a consistent player and was a player who usually pounced on more talented players when they were not at their best, still won 3 slams...but not a tennis great(andy roddick, lleyton hewitt and safin would blast him away playing at 75% of their capacity...), todd martin was a good grass and hard courter, a fiesty player but way, way below the standards of the three players in question.....

  13. #1528
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Okay, so i was off by a year.
    I think it can also be conversely argued that if Bjorg did play till 85/86 or so, people like McEnroe, Connors,Becker,Edberg etc. would have less titles...because by no means was borg done....a person who makes all the grand slam finals he competes in in his last year, and wins one of them, is by no means 'done'.
    he had 11 when he was done, essentially playing 11 australian opens... all i am syaing is, if he had played another 5 years or so, another 4-6 grand slams was definately possible....and if he had played in OZ open more than once, he could've won another 2-3 slams or so.... so i think that if Borg played all the slams and till a regular retirement age, he would've approached 20 slams...i think that is a credible speculation, given the man's record.

  14. #1529
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    I agree.... but its not just Hewitt/Safin/Roddick..i think a lotta players would blast away Rusedski/Todd martin/Courier etc........players like Moya,Fererro,Canas,Chela,Lopez, etc.I dont think Ivanisevic would've been any different - his problems were in his mind, not his game and if you got problems in your mind, i dont see how the quality of the field is of much significance.

    Btw, does anyone know what happened to lapentti ?

  15. #1530
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Okay, so i was off by a year.
    I think it can also be conversely argued that if Bjorg did play till 85/86 or so, people like McEnroe, Connors,Becker,Edberg etc. would have less titles...because by no means was borg done....a person who makes all the grand slam finals he competes in in his last year, and wins one of them, is by no means 'done'.
    he had 11 when he was done, essentially playing 11 australian opens... all i am syaing is, if he had played another 5 years or so, another 4-6 grand slams was definately possible....and if he had played in OZ open more than once, he could've won another 2-3 slams or so.... so i think that if Borg played all the slams and till a regular retirement age, he would've approached 20 slams...i think that is a credible speculation, given the man's record.
    agreed...if you notice i wasn't saying that borg was "done", i was just saying that these folks would've been genuine competition for him....and would've made his task much more difficult than in the late 70's and early 80's where only connors, mcenroe, vilas and maybe someone like roscoe tanner(not a huge threat i know..) had stood in his way....



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, 11:06 AM
  2. The Ashes Commentary Thread
    By GIMH in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 03:14 AM
  3. Selection errors tally thread
    By Richard in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 349
    Last Post: 23-08-2009, 03:12 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
  •