Author Topic: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1  (Read 278232 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #160 on: November 20, 2008, 10:10:07 PM »
In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it? :rofl_2:

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

sampras has 14 slams. all on super slick surfaces. grass was slick back then. u.s. open surface has been fast hard courts for quite sometime now.

there is no doubt he was a great mover and a great athlete but his game was limited in scope. he knew he could not win at roland garros. he is not the only great one who could not pocket a title at roland garros. johhny mac, connors, newcombe, and so many others would never win the title at roland garros either. and now Fed is a casualty at roland garros. he will be without a title there as well.

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

It is not when you are born and brought up on clay. Pete's attitude towards RG was more like, "hmm...I don't know if I can win but I am sure I don't care. " You do not seem to reckon the idea that many greats didn't care about RG as much as they cared about other slams. Look at the past winners at RG. What do you see? It's as always crowded by clay courters and won by clay courters most of the time. How many times were there exceptions? Most importantly, why hasn't Nadal won a hard court slam yet? What's keeping him? If clay is the hardest then shouldn't any other surface be a cakewalk?  But there's still hope for you herc, my dear friend.

last year people like you were saying that he will never win Wimbledon. he just doesnt know how to stay healthy or he would have had slams on every surface including quick sand.

 there is hope for you yet. they guy is barely 22. dont you want to wait until his career is over before you say he has no slams on hard courts.

i am just going to have to educate you emma.

Offline BGT

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11545
  • Gender: Female
  • ALLEZ LES BLEUS!
    • Facebook
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #161 on: November 20, 2008, 10:41:33 PM »
Quick memo: just PRAY for death



Offline falcon

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 4938
  • Gender: Female
  • cooooooooooooooool
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #162 on: November 20, 2008, 10:46:36 PM »
In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it? :rofl_2:

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

sampras has 14 slams. all on super slick surfaces. grass was slick back then. u.s. open surface has been fast hard courts for quite sometime now.

there is no doubt he was a great mover and a great athlete but his game was limited in scope. he knew he could not win at roland garros. he is not the only great one who could not pocket a title at roland garros. johhny mac, connors, newcombe, and so many others would never win the title at roland garros either. and now Fed is a casualty at roland garros. he will be without a title there as well.

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

It is not when you are born and brought up on clay. Pete's attitude towards RG was more like, "hmm...I don't know if I can win but I am sure I don't care. " You do not seem to reckon the idea that many greats didn't care about RG as much as they cared about other slams. Look at the past winners at RG. What do you see? It's as always crowded by clay courters and won by clay courters most of the time. How many times were there exceptions? Most importantly, why hasn't Nadal won a hard court slam yet? What's keeping him? If clay is the hardest then shouldn't any other surface be a cakewalk?  But there's still hope for you herc, my dear friend.

last year people like you were saying that he will never win Wimbledon. he just doesnt know how to stay healthy or he would have had slams on every surface including quick sand.

 there is hope for you yet. they guy is barely 22. dont you want to wait until his career is over before you say he has no slams on hard courts.

i am just going to have to educate you emma.


I agree....4 years ago people were talking about how rafa would never reach the last stages on grass, leave alone winning it...and win he did in style....actually I thought he would be winning a HC slam before wimby because of the slighty slow nature of rebound ace at the AO, he's still very young, it would be highly unlikely that he wouldn't win a slam on a HC...he will....he just has too much will power for that.


The drag of destiny destroys the reins of reason

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #163 on: November 20, 2008, 10:50:09 PM »
emma now I see why Kittens had to strike you down...poor emma, so much knowledge out there yet you dismiss it.

If you did your homework, you would have known JMac GREATEST regret was to lose that final at RG to Lendl.....now, if you think RG didn't matter to Legends, it sure did to JMac.

Now, Edberg had good results at RG...he was unlucky he met a better player that day..........to say Pete didn't care for RG is ludicrous and arrogant; you are dismissing the Man himself. Pete did try, and tried hard.....or do you think he hired Higueras back then to help his S&V? SEE...you can learn something new everyday.

Pete knew deep down, he didn't have what it takes to win the hardest Slam....his game was not complete and that's why his pathetic results vs poor competition like Delgado to name a few are no surprise.

Are you going to tell me know that Roger doesn't care for RG? hahahah....got you gain dear!

To be fair.....look at the great legends that conquered RG:

Laver, Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander and now Nadal.Clay has always been REAL TENNIS.....look at Rosewell and even before him and see all the battles that were fought on the beautiful red dirt.

RG is worth MORE than UO and AO combine? Why? Is the traditional surfaces where tennis came to life after grass.........there was no hardcourts and for sure the UO didn't play on hardcourts since the the beginnings unlike RG who always played on clay..........

Why hasn't Nadal won a HC Slam yet?

Well, try age 22 for starter then add the deep competition on hards and his natural game which is suited for natural surfaces and that should answer your question. Why not give him more time...why the hurry? Is Pete the one WHO WILL NEVER WIN RG thus the discussion on why Roger is superior to Pete because Roger is an ALL SURFACES player.......too bad for him that Nadal came along if not, there wouldn't be any GOAT talk.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 10:51:08 PM by huntingyou »

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15254
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #164 on: November 20, 2008, 10:54:10 PM »

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

It is not when you are born and brought up on clay. Pete's attitude towards RG was more like, "hmm...I don't know if I can win but I am sure I don't care. " You do not seem to reckon the idea that many greats didn't care about RG as much as they cared about other slams. Look at the past winners at RG. What do you see? It's as always crowded by clay courters and won by clay courters most of the time. How many times were there exceptions? Most importantly, why hasn't Nadal won a hard court slam yet? What's keeping him? If clay is the hardest then shouldn't any other surface be a cakewalk?  But there's still hope for you herc, my dear friend.

last year people like you were saying that he will never win Wimbledon. he just doesnt know how to stay healthy or he would have had slams on every surface including quick sand.

 there is hope for you yet. they guy is barely 22. dont you want to wait until his career is over before you say he has no slams on hard courts.

i am just going to have to educate you emma.


I agree....4 years ago people were talking about how rafa would never reach the last stages on grass, leave alone winning it...and win he did in style....actually I thought he would be winning a HC slam before wimby because of the slighty slow nature of rebound ace at the AO, he's still very young, it would be highly unlikely that he wouldn't win a slam on a HC...he will....he just has too much will power for that.

I don't think one grand slam is any harder than any other grand slams. Some are suited for grass, and have a faster or more powerful game. Other are more patient, and prefer to wait for their opponents to make a mistake, or look for a an opening to exploit.  Two styles of play benefiting different surfaces. There are a number of great clay courters who failed to win Wimbledon, and a number of grass greats who failed in Paris.
I do think the grass courts these days favor the grinding player more than ever, and it is less and less a unique surface. Also, with the ability to hit hard, clay is not so much the slow down grind it out surface it used to be. You can actually hit a winner on clay today, where such a thing was unheard of 15 or 20 years ago.
So all four grand slams are played with pretty much the same style with small variations now rather than having to play radically different styles like Borg in the 70's. But the are all difficult for different reasons.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #165 on: November 20, 2008, 10:55:26 PM »
In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it? :rofl_2:

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

sampras has 14 slams. all on super slick surfaces. grass was slick back then. u.s. open surface has been fast hard courts for quite sometime now.

there is no doubt he was a great mover and a great athlete but his game was limited in scope. he knew he could not win at roland garros. he is not the only great one who could not pocket a title at roland garros. johhny mac, connors, newcombe, and so many others would never win the title at roland garros either. and now Fed is a casualty at roland garros. he will be without a title there as well.

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

It is not when you are born and brought up on clay. Pete's attitude towards RG was more like, "hmm...I don't know if I can win but I am sure I don't care. " You do not seem to reckon the idea that many greats didn't care about RG as much as they cared about other slams. Look at the past winners at RG. What do you see? It's as always crowded by clay courters and won by clay courters most of the time. How many times were there exceptions? Most importantly, why hasn't Nadal won a hard court slam yet? What's keeping him? If clay is the hardest then shouldn't any other surface be a cakewalk?  But there's still hope for you herc, my dear friend.

last year people like you were saying that he will never win Wimbledon. he just doesnt know how to stay healthy or he would have had slams on every surface including quick sand.

 there is hope for you yet. they guy is barely 22. dont you want to wait until his career is over before you say he has no slams on hard courts.

i am just going to have to educate you emma.

Educate me all you want but it just doesn't fly with me. He has already won 3 RG. He could have won at least 1 either AO or USO by now; that is, if you take into your own theory account that clay is the hardest surface on earth. You are, frankly, beating your own logic right there. There's a slim chance Rafa might not win another slam ever again. That's a possibility too like it or not.
You are everything I am not.

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #166 on: November 20, 2008, 11:03:53 PM »
There is a slim chance Novak might crash in an airplane.

We are not talking slim chances in here.....everybody knows anything is possible.

Now, RG is the hardest..why?

Look at Sampras, Connors, JMac, Edberg, Becker and now Federer......all these great champions won 3 GS but RG; why?

Ohhh I know...they just didn't care!

BTW, nobody is saying other Slams are easy; Wimbledon takes real talents for the most part but you have guys winning SW19 who weren't that great just like RG, or at least making finals.............Krajicek, Stich, Goran and Hewitt weren't world beaters but all of them won Wimbledon once........ just like Ferrero, Costas, Gaudio and many other who won RG without being world beaters.

You need more evidence to stand a chance!

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #167 on: November 20, 2008, 11:08:39 PM »
emma now I see why Kittens had to strike you down...poor emma, so much knowledge out there yet you dismiss it.

If you did your homework, you would have known JMac GREATEST regret was to lose that final at RG to Lendl.....now, if you think RG didn't matter to Legends, it sure did to JMac.

Now, Edberg had good results at RG...he was unlucky he met a better player that day..........to say Pete didn't care for RG is ludicrous and arrogant; you are dismissing the Man himself. Pete did try, and tried hard.....or do you think he hired Higueras back then to help his S&V? SEE...you can learn something new everyday.

Pete knew deep down, he didn't have what it takes to win the hardest Slam....his game was not complete and that's why his pathetic results vs poor competition like Delgado to name a few are no surprise.

Are you going to tell me know that Roger doesn't care for RG? hahahah....got you gain dear!

To be fair.....look at the great legends that conquered RG:

Laver, Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander and now Nadal.Clay has always been REAL TENNIS.....look at Rosewell and even before him and see all the battles that were fought on the beautiful red dirt.

RG is worth MORE than UO and AO combine? Why? Is the traditional surfaces where tennis came to life after grass.........there was no hardcourts and for sure the UO didn't play on hardcourts since the the beginnings unlike RG who always played on clay..........

Why hasn't Nadal won a HC Slam yet?

Well, try age 22 for starter then add the deep competition on hards and his natural game which is suited for natural surfaces and that should answer your question. Why not give him more time...why the hurry? Is Pete the one WHO WILL NEVER WIN RG thus the discussion on why Roger is superior to Pete because Roger is an ALL SURFACES player.......too bad for him that Nadal came along if not, there wouldn't be any GOAT talk.


Sorry, but Lendl was simply better on clay than JMac just like Nadal is simply better than Federer on clay. Federer definitely wants it more than Pete. I have absolutely no doubt about that. He would have won one if a clay specialist like Nadal wasn't around.

Oh, and yes, Pete did try. But did he try his best? That is the question. You are actually being quite ignorant for not exploring that possibility at all. I followed Pete more than you know and I claim to know few things better than you when it comes to him.

Borg never won anything on hard, mind you. Lendl never won anything on grass. Agassi's win was a fluke and we all know it. Was there even a hard court in Laver's era? The last 15 years or so, only Agassi won RG, which was again a fluke. Otherwise, all of them are clay courters. That should say it all.

I don't care for clay and I certainly don't believe it is one of the hardest surfaces. It's just one of those stupid theories to make ones' player look better.

Believe whatever you want but until Nadal can win either AO or USO with just as ease, it goes out the window.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 11:11:34 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #168 on: November 20, 2008, 11:17:31 PM »
There is a slim chance Novak might crash in an airplane.

We are not talking slim chances in here.....everybody knows anything is possible.

Now, RG is the hardest..why?

Look at Sampras, Connors, JMac, Edberg, Becker and now Federer......all these great champions won 3 GS but RG; why?

Ohhh I know...they just didn't care!

BTW, nobody is saying other Slams are easy; Wimbledon takes real talents for the most part but you have guys winning SW19 who weren't that great just like RG, or at least making finals.............Krajicek, Stich, Goran and Hewitt weren't world beaters but all of them won Wimbledon once........ just like Ferrero, Costas, Gaudio and many other who won RG without being world beaters.

You need more evidence to stand a chance!

I am not one of those people who wrote Nadal off as far as Nadal and Wimby were concerned. herc didn't even know me back then neither did I know him, so that's a bit rich. I expected Nadal to make it. However, with Nole and Murray around and God knows who else is going to show up next year, it will be equally hard for Nadal to win any hard court slam and it will only get worse and worse for him. And like Federer fans, you need to deal with it too. Let's see how next year pans out for each one. I am saying this and will continue to say this that, Nadal has his hands full next year and it won't be pretty.
You are everything I am not.

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #169 on: November 20, 2008, 11:35:48 PM »
Sorry, but Lendl was simply better on clay than JMac just like Nadal is simply better than Federer on clay. Federer definitely wants it more than Pete. I have absolutely no doubt about that. He would have won one if a clay specialist like Nadal wasn't around.

What Lendl being better than JMac on clay has anything to do with a legend like him not caring for RG? In every interview, John always says his biggest regret was letting that match go away; you knew he lead 2 sets to love didn't you? Now, after I debunked your ignorant statement of "the Greats didn't care for RG" you now look for excuses by talking Lendl being better on clay; isn't Lendl a Legend too?

Federer is more vocal than Pete that's for sure but nobody knows what did Pete really felt when he played at RG.....it would be nonsense to claim otherwise...the media shows he did care and he did try and when a Champion like Pete tries it means they give 100%

BTW, Nadal is not a claycourt specialist......Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten and others were claycourt specialist.......that's a backhanded insult to a complete player like Nadal, claycourt specialist don't win RG followed by Queens and Wimbledon in the span of 4 weeks. It takes a special talent....and Pete wasn't that versatil, sorry but it's the truth.

Oh, and yes, Pete did try. But did he try his best? That is the question. You are actually being quite ignorant for not exploring that possibility at all. I followed Pete more than you know and I claim to know few things better than you when it comes to him.

You are the ignorant claiming to know that Pete just didn't care for RG....do you want me to bring the articles from the mid 90s before RG? All the buzz was WHEN did Pete was going to win RG......Pete himself talked about the meaning of winning on clay after winning all the other Slams....only bitter and arrogant people would now claim that Pete just didn't care

Borg never won anything on hard, mind you. Lendl never won anything on grass. Agassi's win was a fluke and we all know it. Was there even a hard court in Laver's era? The last 15 years or so, only Agassi won RG, which was again a fluke. Otherwise, all of them are clay courters. That should say it all.

You do know Borg didn't play the AO and in fact the AO was on grass anyways? Did you also know the UO was played on Har-tru clay for some years? Do you also know that Borg lost to JMac at the UO on hards....you also know he won big titles on CARPET and HARDCOURTS outside of the UO when it was in fact held on hardcourts? Anyways....what Borg "not winning on hards" has to do with your statement of Legend not caring for RG? Lendl did won Queens and made back to back FINALS(Cash and Becker) at Wimbledon followed by THREE SF(Edberg)......so Lendl was a grascourter and a very successfull one unlike Pete on clay. Agassi win was the result of hardwork and the fulfillment of a life time dream...call it fluke, I call it destiny.

No, no hardcourts in Laver's era and that's the point......RG>>>>UO and AO

BTW, Kafelnikov won RG..far away from a claycourter specialist, Courier won RG...far away from a claycourter specialist and before him it was Lendl and Wilander the rulers of RG just after BORG left it open.

I don't care for clay and I certainly don't believe it is one of the hardest surface. It's just one of those stupid theories to make ones' player look better.

Believe whatever you want but until Nadal can win either AO or USO with just as ease, it goes out the window.

It shows; unlike you and your limited knowledge as a result of your apathy towards what you can't appreciate....I do appreciate tennis including CLAY and understand the importance of claycourt tennis and the relevance in the context of HISTORY.

Nadal won Wimbledon already with two additional finals and two SF on hards...........he doesn't have to win AO or UO to prove whatever misguided  view you have of him....but he will, he is too good not to....Pete will never win RG or even make finals though!

.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #170 on: November 20, 2008, 11:46:21 PM »
You can insult my knowledge all you want but the fact remains, if clay is the hardest one to win and given that Nadal already won 3 of them, he should have won any of the hard slams by now hands down. He hasn't won any. In fact, he looked quite ordinary against Murray.

It's not like I don't care for clay at all but I absolutely don't believe it's the hardest one. Even Gaudio won one not to mention Chang as well. So there you go.

Btw, Pete isn't arrogant enough to say that he didn't care about clay at all. He was smart enough to know that that wan't going to be a very smart move. I am saying this and call me stupid if that makes you feel like a man, but I stand by what I say. In fact, I didn't even want him to even bother with it espcially having thousands of clay courters around.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 11:55:58 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #171 on: November 20, 2008, 11:55:19 PM »
Nadal won Wimbledon already with two additional finals and two SF on hards...........he doesn't have to win AO or UO to prove whatever misguided  view you have of him....but he will, he is too good not to....Pete will never win RG or even make finals though!


That's a very nice dream to have and dreaming is free. Pete did make the semi in 1996 at RG. That counts for something. That's only when he tried his best.

You say that Nadal doesn't have to win AO or USO to prove whatever, I say the same. Pete doesn't have to win RG to prove your misguided view of him. Nadal hasn't won HC yet. Sure, he might but it is just as impossible at this point as Federer winning RG.

Anyway, looks like am having a sleepless night.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 11:58:10 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #172 on: November 21, 2008, 12:14:25 AM »
Anyway, good night every one. I should go to bed. I know given my past record, I will only toss and turn for hours as I am way past my bedtime, but it's much better than arguing here nonstop and make things even worse. I like Rafa and I wish him well. I do personally want him to win at least one HC slam before he goes away. So...
You are everything I am not.

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #173 on: November 21, 2008, 12:33:16 AM »
Nadal won Wimbledon already with two additional finals and two SF on hards...........he doesn't have to win AO or UO to prove whatever misguided  view you have of him....but he will, he is too good not to....Pete will never win RG or even make finals though!


That's a very nice dream to have and dreaming is free. Pete did make the semi in 1996 at RG. That counts for something. That's only when he tried his best.

You say that Nadal doesn't have to win AO or USO to prove whatever, I say the same. Pete doesn't have to win RG to prove your misguided view of him. Nadal hasn't won HC yet. Sure, he might but it is just as impossible at this point as Federer winning RG.

Anyway, looks like am having a sleepless night.

Nadal doesn't need to win them just to convince you of something he is or he is not. Pete never won RG because he wasn't good enough...is not like he had increible claycourters like Nadal in every RG he enter. IF Nadal never wins a HC Slam, then it means he wasn't good enough too........I'm not going to deny a Fact. Let's see what happens within the next 3 years.....can you wait that long?

BTW, I never called you stupid or anything like that.....far from it. You called me ignorant which is cool, I made my point and it was pretty strong.

ahhh,

chances of Nadal winning a HC Slam>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chances of Roger winning RG

don't mix the two ok.

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #174 on: November 21, 2008, 12:42:53 AM »
You can insult my knowledge all you want but the fact remains, if clay is the hardest one to win and given that Nadal already won 3 of them, he should have won any of the hard slams by now hands down. He hasn't won any. In fact, he looked quite ordinary against Murray.

It's not like I don't care for clay at all but I absolutely don't believe it's the hardest one. Even Gaudio won one not to mention Chang as well. So there you go.

Btw, Pete isn't arrogant enough to say that he didn't care about clay at all. He was smart enough to know that that wan't going to be a very smart move. I am saying this and call me stupid if that makes you feel like a man, but I stand by what I say. In fact, I didn't even want him to even bother with it espcially having thousands of clay courters around.



This is subjective.....but is a fact that you put more physical effort to win RG than any other Slam.......at RG, your will is tested more than in any other place; there isn't much options when you are getting ACE on grass or outplay.

Now I can play this game too....Gaudio won RG but so Krajicek at Wimbledon, Chang won RG but so Stich at Wimbledon...........ever heard of Pat Cash? He won one too......Rafter only won the UO and yes so did Muster at RG. Kuerten? What about Goran?

See how easy I just debunked another myth............do you know who is Whashington? He made finals at Wimbledon....check it out, 1997.

Please, don't confuse me....I'm a man because I take care of my kids and my wife........arguing in here has nothing to do with it! Believe or not.....I have high regards for you, anybody who loves tennis and talk about it is a A+ on my book despite your opinions  :gleam:

Offline Start da Game

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #175 on: November 21, 2008, 03:04:53 AM »
let me educate you all...........

i don't quite know about jmac or edberg or anyone but the thing that sampras din't bother about french is quite true to an extent..........i actually feel that he did wonderfully well on clay, given his desire for clay, actually the lack of it...........why don't you all who said he tried everything on clay and failed, just go and check the records on how much clay court tennis he played, firstly? the only masters which he cared to participate regularly before the french open was rome, the then italian open..........he din't give a damn about the rest of the events, most of the times...........if he really wanted a french title that badly, he would have given himself a decent shot by playing a ton of clay court tennis and tuning up his game perfectly for the french.........but he din't and all he did was trying his best on the day itself, the RG..........also, let's not forget that pete is thrice a quarterfinalist and once a semifinalist at RG and taken out at that stage by players who are greats in the history, greats like bruguera, courier.........he was close to the french in 96 by beating both courier and bruguera and had one off day at the wrong time...........not at all bad for a player who din't give his best for the title..........and i don't know how many of you here are aware of this fact that sampras beat all these clay greats muster, bruguera and courier at the french open, which is quite a feat...........i don't understand why people often say sampras couldn't play on clay...........his lack of desire undid him at french open...........why don't you all just go and watch his matches against clay greats like courier, bruguera etc? he could rally with them neck and neck and certainly could play on clay..........

my favorite surfaces have always been the traditional surfaces...........both grass and clay equally...........i liked sampras' invincibility at wimbledon and kuerten's artistry at french...........both the surfaces are totally different to each other and demand totally different skills compared to each other..........but i slightly tend to agree that french is the toughest slam of all..........just for the reason that it needs one to grow up on clay to win it and also have the required strength to win it............wimbledon demands another set of skills to win..........both the slams are equally great, regardless of which is tougher to win............as Emma said, even many clay greats failed to win even a single wimbledon and of course the same with the case of grass greats when it comes to winning french...........primarily wimbledon is meant to be for sort of mixed tennis..........SNV mostly and baseline treat with all those amazing rallies.........we used to get that only at wimbledon, but not anymore though..........

someone was making fun of stitch for having won a wimbledon..........do they know how deceiving stitch's serve was and his ability at the net? look, it is all tastes when talking about which is great, baseline or SNV...........i am someone who likes both the styles and treat them equally..........i enjoy both the styles of game and that is one of the strongest reasons why i feel 90s is the toughest era of all..........for the standard and level of tennis in all styles it had..........

p.s. sampras won two of his slams on the dead slow rebound ace of australia...........and also made a final and two semifinals at australia, twice getting beaten by agassi and once by stefan edberg in the semis...........all this goes without saying that he did not take part in the 91, 92 and 99 editions of the slam...........
« Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 03:09:43 AM by shankar21 »
Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

i demand french open to be renamed RAFAEL GARROS

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #176 on: November 21, 2008, 04:01:48 AM »
let me educate you all...........

i don't quite know about jmac or edberg or anyone but the thing that sampras din't bother about french is quite true to an extent..........i actually feel that he did wonderfully well on clay, given his desire for clay, actually the lack of it...........why don't you all who said he tried everything on clay and failed, just go and check the records on how much clay court tennis he played, firstly? the only masters which he cared to participate regularly before the french open was rome, the then italian open..........he din't give a damn about the rest of the events, most of the times...........if he really wanted a french title that badly, he would have given himself a decent shot by playing a ton of clay court tennis and tuning up his game perfectly for the french.........but he din't and all he did was trying his best on the day itself, the RG..........also, let's not forget that pete is thrice a quarterfinalist and once a semifinalist at RG and taken out at that stage by players who are greats in the history, greats like bruguera, courier.........he was close to the french in 96 by beating both courier and bruguera and had one off day at the wrong time...........not at all bad for a player who din't give his best for the title..........and i don't know how many of you here are aware of this fact that sampras beat all these clay greats muster, bruguera and courier at the french open, which is quite a feat...........i don't understand why people often say sampras couldn't play on clay...........his lack of desire undid him at french open...........why don't you all just go and watch his matches against clay greats like courier, bruguera etc? he could rally with them neck and neck and certainly could play on clay..........

my favorite surfaces have always been the traditional surfaces...........both grass and clay equally...........i liked sampras' invincibility at wimbledon and kuerten's artistry at french...........both the surfaces are totally different to each other and demand totally different skills compared to each other..........but i slightly tend to agree that french is the toughest slam of all..........just for the reason that it needs one to grow up on clay to win it and also have the required strength to win it............wimbledon demands another set of skills to win..........both the slams are equally great, regardless of which is tougher to win............as Emma said, even many clay greats failed to win even a single wimbledon and of course the same with the case of grass greats when it comes to winning french...........primarily wimbledon is meant to be for sort of mixed tennis..........SNV mostly and baseline treat with all those amazing rallies.........we used to get that only at wimbledon, but not anymore though..........

someone was making fun of stitch for having won a wimbledon..........do they know how deceiving stitch's serve was and his ability at the net? look, it is all tastes when talking about which is great, baseline or SNV...........i am someone who likes both the styles and treat them equally..........i enjoy both the styles of game and that is one of the strongest reasons why i feel 90s is the toughest era of all..........for the standard and level of tennis in all styles it had..........

p.s. sampras won two of his slams on the dead slow rebound ace of australia...........and also made a final and two semifinals at australia, twice getting beaten by agassi and once by stefan edberg in the semis...........all this goes without saying that he did not take part in the 91, 92 and 99 editions of the slam...........


Goop post for the most part BUT one thing:

Sampras never beat any claycourt GREAT during their good days....beating Muster in 1991 or 1993? where he lost to my grandma on clay doesn't count or beating burn out Courier when he was losing to players rank out the top 75 on clay. Bruguera? Whe did Sampras beat Bruguera and what Bruguera did that year on clay? Is like Nadal taking credit for beating old Agassi at Wimbledon.

Sampras lost to Kafelnikov at RG.......far for a decent claycourter so please stop the superlatives since I'm smarter than that. What about Sampras losing in the 2RD and 1RD to qualifiers during his prime? To say Sampras was anything but mediocre on clay is to believe Muster was anything but mediocre outside of clay for example.

Sampras posted a miserable 90-64 record on clay....is not he didn't care, he just wasn't good enough with his game to adapt it to clay and that's why I praise Roger even more because it was obvious Roger was mediocre on clay but he worked hard at it and look at him...only second best to the GOAT of clay.


A spade is spade, making excuses for Pete on why he sucked on clay in relative terms to all time greats doesn't hide the facts he KNEW what the FO meant to his career....he tried and he failed!

Offline Start da Game

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #177 on: November 21, 2008, 04:05:07 AM »


i liked the rebound ace surface a lot..........it's my favorite hardcourt..........australia should have stuck with it.........they were developing a nice little legend with that surface.........just for the sake of players like hewitt, who promises nothing, they changed it to plexicushion..........it's a big mistake they did...........
Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

i demand french open to be renamed RAFAEL GARROS

Offline Start da Game

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #178 on: November 21, 2008, 04:52:09 AM »
let me educate you all...........

i don't quite know about jmac or edberg or anyone but the thing that sampras din't bother about french is quite true to an extent..........i actually feel that he did wonderfully well on clay, given his desire for clay, actually the lack of it...........why don't you all who said he tried everything on clay and failed, just go and check the records on how much clay court tennis he played, firstly? the only masters which he cared to participate regularly before the french open was rome, the then italian open..........he din't give a damn about the rest of the events, most of the times...........if he really wanted a french title that badly, he would have given himself a decent shot by playing a ton of clay court tennis and tuning up his game perfectly for the french.........but he din't and all he did was trying his best on the day itself, the RG..........also, let's not forget that pete is thrice a quarterfinalist and once a semifinalist at RG and taken out at that stage by players who are greats in the history, greats like bruguera, courier.........he was close to the french in 96 by beating both courier and bruguera and had one off day at the wrong time...........not at all bad for a player who din't give his best for the title..........and i don't know how many of you here are aware of this fact that sampras beat all these clay greats muster, bruguera and courier at the french open, which is quite a feat...........i don't understand why people often say sampras couldn't play on clay...........his lack of desire undid him at french open...........why don't you all just go and watch his matches against clay greats like courier, bruguera etc? he could rally with them neck and neck and certainly could play on clay..........

my favorite surfaces have always been the traditional surfaces...........both grass and clay equally...........i liked sampras' invincibility at wimbledon and kuerten's artistry at french...........both the surfaces are totally different to each other and demand totally different skills compared to each other..........but i slightly tend to agree that french is the toughest slam of all..........just for the reason that it needs one to grow up on clay to win it and also have the required strength to win it............wimbledon demands another set of skills to win..........both the slams are equally great, regardless of which is tougher to win............as Emma said, even many clay greats failed to win even a single wimbledon and of course the same with the case of grass greats when it comes to winning french...........primarily wimbledon is meant to be for sort of mixed tennis..........SNV mostly and baseline treat with all those amazing rallies.........we used to get that only at wimbledon, but not anymore though..........

someone was making fun of stitch for having won a wimbledon..........do they know how deceiving stitch's serve was and his ability at the net? look, it is all tastes when talking about which is great, baseline or SNV...........i am someone who likes both the styles and treat them equally..........i enjoy both the styles of game and that is one of the strongest reasons why i feel 90s is the toughest era of all..........for the standard and level of tennis in all styles it had..........

p.s. sampras won two of his slams on the dead slow rebound ace of australia...........and also made a final and two semifinals at australia, twice getting beaten by agassi and once by stefan edberg in the semis...........all this goes without saying that he did not take part in the 91, 92 and 99 editions of the slam...........


Goop post for the most part BUT one thing:

Sampras never beat any claycourt GREAT during their good days....beating Muster in 1991 or 1993? where he lost to my grandma on clay doesn't count or beating burn out Courier when he was losing to players rank out the top 75 on clay. Bruguera? Whe did Sampras beat Bruguera and what Bruguera did that year on clay? Is like Nadal taking credit for beating old Agassi at Wimbledon.

Sampras lost to Kafelnikov at RG.......far for a decent claycourter so please stop the superlatives since I'm smarter than that. What about Sampras losing in the 2RD and 1RD to qualifiers during his prime? To say Sampras was anything but mediocre on clay is to believe Muster was anything but mediocre outside of clay for example.

Sampras posted a miserable 90-64 record on clay....is not he didn't care, he just wasn't good enough with his game to adapt it to clay and that's why I praise Roger even more because it was obvious Roger was mediocre on clay but he worked hard at it and look at him...only second best to the GOAT of clay.


A spade is spade, making excuses for Pete on why he sucked on clay in relative terms to all time greats doesn't hide the facts he KNEW what the FO meant to his career....he tried and he failed!


hunting, i am talking from my experience...........not from any stats...........it's not like pete played clay court tennis like davydenko every event and yet failed to win even 1 event..........he just din't play enough clay tennis to win RG..........i remember a few of pete's clay matches post 95 period, particularly that monte carlo match where he blasted agassi out of the court in straight sets from the baseline..........was it in 99? but just a fews days ago, i downloaded his 96 match against courier and watched it..........let me say that sampras could play on clay and he is a fool who never tried enough to win the french.........courier was as usual getting away from sampras winning the first two sets, pounding sampras' backhand relentlessly...........sampras turned it around and won the last 3 sets..........it wasn't like courier was playing ordinary tennis..........i never ever saw sampras try that hard for french..........some of those endless rallies were amazing..........regardless of what bruguera or courier were at that time, beating both of them that too in one event and that too of the magnitude of frnech open is something special..........as a matter of fact, bruguera was to go on and reach the french final, the very next year..........

now which do you prefer? sampras avenging his clay defeats at the hands of clay legends at roland garros or federer losing time and again to the same player who is destined to be the greatest ever on clay? i prefer the former, for the reason that he showed some fight, beat those clay greats and proved a point.........no matter, however great nadal is on clay, how many times has federer even challenged him at the french open? now forget about him beating nadal.........

i don't mean to say that only sampras could play on clay and federer is useless..........but it's wrong to claim that federer is totally better than sampras on clay...........no way..........

p.s. sampras made quarterfinal of french from 92-94 and semifinal in 96...........
Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

i demand french open to be renamed RAFAEL GARROS

Offline TennisVeritas

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #179 on: November 21, 2008, 05:37:06 AM »
let me educate you all...........

i don't quite know about jmac or edberg or anyone but the thing that sampras din't bother about french is quite true to an extent..........i actually feel that he did wonderfully well on clay, given his desire for clay, actually the lack of it...........why don't you all who said he tried everything on clay and failed, just go and check the records on how much clay court tennis he played, firstly? the only masters which he cared to participate regularly before the french open was rome, the then italian open..........he din't give a damn about the rest of the events, most of the times...........if he really wanted a french title that badly, he would have given himself a decent shot by playing a ton of clay court tennis and tuning up his game perfectly for the french.........but he din't and all he did was trying his best on the day itself, the RG..........also, let's not forget that pete is thrice a quarterfinalist and once a semifinalist at RG and taken out at that stage by players who are greats in the history, greats like bruguera, courier.........he was close to the french in 96 by beating both courier and bruguera and had one off day at the wrong time...........not at all bad for a player who din't give his best for the title..........and i don't know how many of you here are aware of this fact that sampras beat all these clay greats muster, bruguera and courier at the french open, which is quite a feat...........i don't understand why people often say sampras couldn't play on clay...........his lack of desire undid him at french open...........why don't you all just go and watch his matches against clay greats like courier, bruguera etc? he could rally with them neck and neck and certainly could play on clay..........

my favorite surfaces have always been the traditional surfaces...........both grass and clay equally...........i liked sampras' invincibility at wimbledon and kuerten's artistry at french...........both the surfaces are totally different to each other and demand totally different skills compared to each other..........but i slightly tend to agree that french is the toughest slam of all..........just for the reason that it needs one to grow up on clay to win it and also have the required strength to win it............wimbledon demands another set of skills to win..........both the slams are equally great, regardless of which is tougher to win............as Emma said, even many clay greats failed to win even a single wimbledon and of course the same with the case of grass greats when it comes to winning french...........primarily wimbledon is meant to be for sort of mixed tennis..........SNV mostly and baseline treat with all those amazing rallies.........we used to get that only at wimbledon, but not anymore though..........

someone was making fun of stitch for having won a wimbledon..........do they know how deceiving stitch's serve was and his ability at the net? look, it is all tastes when talking about which is great, baseline or SNV...........i am someone who likes both the styles and treat them equally..........i enjoy both the styles of game and that is one of the strongest reasons why i feel 90s is the toughest era of all..........for the standard and level of tennis in all styles it had..........

p.s. sampras won two of his slams on the dead slow rebound ace of australia...........and also made a final and two semifinals at australia, twice getting beaten by agassi and once by stefan edberg in the semis...........all this goes without saying that he did not take part in the 91, 92 and 99 editions of the slam...........


Goop post for the most part BUT one thing:

Sampras never beat any claycourt GREAT during their good days....beating Muster in 1991 or 1993? where he lost to my grandma on clay doesn't count or beating burn out Courier when he was losing to players rank out the top 75 on clay. Bruguera? Whe did Sampras beat Bruguera and what Bruguera did that year on clay? Is like Nadal taking credit for beating old Agassi at Wimbledon.

Sampras lost to Kafelnikov at RG.......far for a decent claycourter so please stop the superlatives since I'm smarter than that. What about Sampras losing in the 2RD and 1RD to qualifiers during his prime? To say Sampras was anything but mediocre on clay is to believe Muster was anything but mediocre outside of clay for example.

Sampras posted a miserable 90-64 record on clay....is not he didn't care, he just wasn't good enough with his game to adapt it to clay and that's why I praise Roger even more because it was obvious Roger was mediocre on clay but he worked hard at it and look at him...only second best to the GOAT of clay.


A spade is spade, making excuses for Pete on why he sucked on clay in relative terms to all time greats doesn't hide the facts he KNEW what the FO meant to his career....he tried and he failed!


hunting, i am talking from my experience...........not from any stats...........it's not like pete played clay court tennis like davydenko every event and yet failed to win even 1 event..........he just din't play enough clay tennis to win RG..........i remember a few of pete's clay matches post 95 period, particularly that monte carlo match where he blasted agassi out of the court in straight sets from the baseline..........was it in 99? but just a fews days ago, i downloaded his 96 match against courier and watched it..........let me say that sampras could play on clay and he is a fool who never tried enough to win the french.........courier was as usual getting away from sampras winning the first two sets, pounding sampras' backhand relentlessly...........sampras turned it around and won the last 3 sets..........it wasn't like courier was playing ordinary tennis..........i never ever saw sampras try that hard for french..........some of those endless rallies were amazing..........regardless of what bruguera or courier were at that time, beating both of them that too in one event and that too of the magnitude of frnech open is something special..........as a matter of fact, bruguera was to go on and reach the french final, the very next year..........

now which do you prefer? sampras avenging his clay defeats at the hands of clay legends at roland garros or federer losing time and again to the same player who is destined to be the greatest ever on clay? :rofl_2: :rofl_2: i prefer the former, for the reason that he showed some fight, beat those clay greats and proved a point.........no matter, however great nadal is on clay, how many times has federer even challenged him at the french open? now forget about him beating nadal.........

i don't mean to say that only sampras could play on clay and federer is useless..........but it's wrong to claim that federer is totally better than sampras on clay...........no way..........

p.s. sampras made quarterfinal of french from 92-94 and semifinal in 96...........

Do you refer to what legend?? At RG??  :rofl_2: :rofl_2:

Pete on clay as I said several time was never a real threat for the big bosses on this surface and this during all his career..More specifically it is important to remember these facts ( but it is true you -Sarah- you are "talking from my experience'-..A guy that is following Tennis from less than 20 years is talking by experience..You have 22 years old man..Give us a break..Experience  :whistle:  :rofl_2: :rofl_2:)

* Ferrero: Never played Pete AT ALL (even outside RG)...

* Kuerten: Never played on clay against Pete- This was the main champion on the red stuff during Pete's career a sort of Rafa at his best (even better in the case of his BH BTW..)

* Muster: Played once in RG 1991: Pete victory..But then he lost at the second round against Thierry Champion (straight sets: 6-3 6-1 6-1)

* Corretja: Never played against Pete at RG

* Moya: Never played against Pete at RG

* Berasategui Never played Pete at RG -a part, if I remember well, a famous match and Pete's victory in 5 sets for the Davis Coup

* It remains Bruguera who played twice against Pete at RG 1993 & 1996...

As I said already, this last case is very interesting: Brugera played twice Pete at RG and in '93 was Sergi who was able to win when in '96 was Pete...BTW I have provide you some other examples, i.e.:

Pete '96 best year at RG. We have:

First Round Def. Magnus Gustafsson
Second Round Def. Sergi Bruguera serious opponent no doubt
Third Round Def. Todd Martin
Fourth Round Def. Scott Draper
Quarterfinals Def. Jim Courier serious opponent no doubt
Semi Lost to Yevgeny Kafelnikov

II season Pete'95, i.e the previous one to his best result at RG:

First Round Lost to Gilbert Schaller  :rofl_2:

Schaller is what in your history book an HoF on clay I guess...

III season, 2 seasons ahead the best one: '94 RG:

First Round Def. Albert Costa a serious opponent but his RG title was in 2002 FYI
Second Round Def. Marcelo Rios
Third Round Def. Paul Haarhuis
Fourth Round Def. Mikael Tillstrom
Quarterfinals Lost to Jim Courier serious opponent

Pete '97 RG:

First Round Def. Fabrice Santoro
Second Round Def. Francisco Clavet
Third Round  Lost to Magnus Norman : :whistle:

Pete draw in '98 RG:
First Round Def. Todd Martin
Second Round Lost to Ramon Delgado  :whistle:

Once again, I do not see this incredible amount of Monsters Lions and other beasts that should have prevented your so complete player to do something better on clay..

As a conclusion I definitely prefer the high standard consistency shown by FED during his peak seasons on clay, i.e. between '05-07 and evenm '08 ( a RG semi plus three RG finals) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than Pete RG results..Which shows clearly that FED>>>>>>>>Pete on clay.. :)>>>>
« Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 05:43:56 AM by TennisVeritas »
"The more you lose, the more they believe they can beat me. But believing is not enough, you still have to beat me" Roger Federer.

We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, we can only be wise with our own wisdom