Topic: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1

[swish]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

I would think that the clay courters would think that the HC is the toughest surface and vice versa. It's pretty much depending on what you're good at. Every surface has it's challenges, and the challenges are different for each player.
So yeah, nothing is proved and won't be proved.

[huntingyou]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

2002-2004: Pure claycourters won RG in an period most agree was weak for tennis in general with the retirement of  Pete and the slow demise of Agassi...while Roger ascended to the throne.

2000-2001: Guga was an incredible claycourter........his career was cut short due to injuries, he was developing into a threat on hardcourts...who knows?

1999: Agassi

1998: Moya, a baseliner with more consistent results on hardcourts

1997: Guga

1996: Kafelnikov became an AO champ and SF at the UO....hardly a claycourter with most of his titles on carpet and hardcourts.

1995: Muster.......a claycourter because of a tragic accident; who know what would have happened if that guy didn't crush his knee

1994-1993: Sergi........the prototype for those players you dislike..."claycourt especialst"

1992-1991: Courier.........a baseliner, two times AO Champ and SW19 RU to Sampras.

1990: Gomez...............Agassi should have won that final, he was the favorite.

1989: Chang....hardly a claycourt specialist....and Edberg wasn't a claycourter at all....

1988: Wilander.....an all time great with GS titles in all surfaces

1987-1986: Lendl.......another all surface player with Legend written on his name.......Wilander the RU was no claycourt specialist of course

1985: Wilander...beating Lendl

1984: Lendl......beating JMac.........no claycourt specialist in here

1983: Noah and his lucky day vs Wilander

1982: Wilander making a debut after Borg retired

1981-1978: Borg...what can I said

For the most part, All Time greats have held the RG title on their hands or atleast contested for it......yes you have your periods of claycourt specialists who were mediocre in other surfaces but for the must part was limited.

There are SW19 champions and finalist who never won anything else in other surfaces......the same we can say about UO and AO champions who have failed miserable in the other GSs.

Can't argue the facts!..........you don't have to like clay....but RG is home to Great champions in tennis, just like Wimbledon and the UO.

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

What about Laver, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi who won it and Edberg and JMac who got RU trophy?  Connors won the UO on clay too...so what's your point!

[Start da Game]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

[sadi]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

Are you kidding Sampras has never made a final at Roland Garros you think its comparable with Roger at clay.

[falcon]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

Are you kidding Sampras has never made a final at Roland Garros you think its comparable with Roger at clay.

I personally believe that fed is better than Sampras on clay but then we cannot ignore the fact that Fed hasn't had anyone else...no one apart from rafa who can call himself a worthy opponent on clay...Muster, Guga, Bruguera...none of the players from 2004-2007 are of this quality...only now I feel that Nole is getting better on clay...still not in the same league though.

[TennisVeritas]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

Are you kidding Sampras has never made a final at Roland Garros you think its comparable with Roger at clay.

I personally believe that fed is better than Sampras on clay but then we cannot ignore the fact that Fed hasn't had anyone else...no one apart from rafa who can call himself a worthy opponent on clay...Muster, Guga, Bruguera...none of the players from 2004-2007 are of this quality...only now I feel that Nole is getting better on clay...still not in the same league though.

So, the poor results of Pete at RG (or on clay in general) are due to the presence of  Guga, Muster and Bruguera? 

Why given that Pete was not there to meet one of them in the crucial moment of most of the clay events in the '90?

Facts are quite clear and already posted by me at least 100000 times..I mean:

* 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)

* It remains Bruguera who played twice against Pete at RG 1993 & 1996...But in his best run at the RG, i.e. in '96 he was stopped by Yevgeny Kafelnikov who was not such a big name on clay right..

I really do not see how people still belive that Pete can be considered as being better than FED on clay, it is like saying than in the fast grass of the '90 and at his peak FED would be better than Pete..It is just absurd IMO.

[TennisVeritas]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

Where is this list? She is going on and on ..Where..Facts are:

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 A clayt court specialist..Right?? 

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

First Round Lost to Gilbert Schaller  Gilbert who!!! 

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 : 

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

Sure Pete was always stopped by great players at RG 

[kittens25]

Why is there any discussion about Pete on clay.  Pete is a great player, but he stunk on clay, period, and anyone debating this simply looks like a moron for even trying.    Federer is 10x a better clay courter and I like Pete alot more then Roger, but that is plain as day.   Tougher competition doesnt fly for figs here, Sampras couldnt even beat Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, Magnus Norman (3 years before his fluke elite year), or clunky clay courter Phillipoussis at the French.   He hardly ever played some of those so called "great" clay courters, since he was going out in early rounds to nobodies most times.    With only Kafelnikov and Stich to beat to win the French Open Mr. Kafelnikov straight setted him and fed him a bagel in the middle. 

Pete's greatness is based on his greatness on other surfaces.  His clay court mediocrity cannot be disputed, nor argued.   How far his non existant clay court abilities go to preventing his GOAT status in light of his greatness on non-clay surfaces is an interesting debate.  His non existant clay court abilities is not a debate, except one in desperation and cheesy excuse barrel digging.

[kittens25]

I personally believe that fed is better than Sampras on clay but then we cannot ignore the fact that Fed hasn't had anyone else...no one apart from rafa who can call himself a worthy opponent on clay

Well what Pete's results at the French suggest is anyone in the top 100 either then or today could call himself a "worthy" opponent for Pete on clay.   When you suck more on a surface you then have a higher # of worthy opponents.   Hardly rocket science.

[Jamesdster]

Why is there any discussion about Pete on clay.  Pete is a great player, but he stunk on clay, period, and anyone debating this simply looks like a moron for even trying.    Federer is 10x a better clay courter and I like Pete alot more then Roger, but that is plain as day.   Tougher competition doesnt fly for figs here, Sampras couldnt even beat Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, Magnus Norman (3 years before his fluke elite year), or clunky clay courter Phillipoussis at the French.   He hardly ever played some of those so called "great" clay courters, since he was going out in early rounds to nobodies most times.    With only Kafelnikov and Stich to beat to win the French Open Mr. Kafelnikov straight setted him and fed him a bagel in the middle. 

Pete's greatness is based on his greatness on other surfaces.  His clay court mediocrity cannot be disputed, nor argued.   How far his non existant clay court abilities go to preventing his GOAT status in light of his greatness on non-clay surfaces is an interesting debate.  His non existant clay court abilities is not a debate, except one in desperation and cheesy excuse barrel digging.

I was a big fan of Pete and I agree with everything painful thing you said.

[TennisVeritas]

Why is there any discussion about Pete on clay.  Pete is a great player, but he stunk on clay, period, and anyone debating this simply looks like a moron for even trying.    Federer is 10x a better clay courter and I like Pete alot more then Roger, but that is plain as day.   Tougher competition doesnt fly for figs here, Sampras couldnt even beat Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, Magnus Norman (3 years before his fluke elite year), or clunky clay courter Phillipoussis at the French.   He hardly ever played some of those so called "great" clay courters, since he was going out in early rounds to nobodies most times.    With only Kafelnikov and Stich to beat to win the French Open Mr. Kafelnikov straight setted him and fed him a bagel in the middle. 

Pete's greatness is based on his greatness on other surfaces.  His clay court mediocrity cannot be disputed, nor argued.   How far his non existant clay court abilities go to preventing his GOAT status in light of his greatness on non-clay surfaces is an interesting debate.   His non existant clay court abilities is not a debate, except one in desperation and cheesy excuse barrel digging.

  Great post  BRAVO

[Start da Game]

Why is there any discussion about Pete on clay.  Pete is a great player, but he stunk on clay, period, and anyone debating this simply looks like a moron for even trying.    Federer is 10x a better clay courter and I like Pete alot more then Roger, but that is plain as day.   Tougher competition doesnt fly for figs here, Sampras couldnt even beat Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, Magnus Norman (3 years before his fluke elite year), or clunky clay courter Phillipoussis at the French.   He hardly ever played some of those so called "great" clay courters, since he was going out in early rounds to nobodies most times.    With only Kafelnikov and Stich to beat to win the French Open Mr. Kafelnikov straight setted him and fed him a bagel in the middle. 

Pete's greatness is based on his greatness on other surfaces.  His clay court mediocrity cannot be disputed, nor argued.   How far his non existant clay court abilities go to preventing his GOAT status in light of his greatness on non-clay surfaces is an interesting debate.  His non existant clay court abilities is not a debate, except one in desperation and cheesy excuse barrel digging.

i never tried to prove anywhere that sampras is better than federer on clay.........all i said and meant is, i would prefer pete beating courier, muster and bruguera at roland garros to federer going down to nadal 1 million times...........i don't care about how many runner up plates he has...........but that's just me anyway..........

[TennisVeritas]

Why is there any discussion about Pete on clay.  Pete is a great player, but he stunk on clay, period, and anyone debating this simply looks like a moron for even trying.    Federer is 10x a better clay courter and I like Pete alot more then Roger, but that is plain as day.   Tougher competition doesnt fly for figs here, Sampras couldnt even beat Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, Magnus Norman (3 years before his fluke elite year), or clunky clay courter Phillipoussis at the French.   He hardly ever played some of those so called "great" clay courters, since he was going out in early rounds to nobodies most times.    With only Kafelnikov and Stich to beat to win the French Open Mr. Kafelnikov straight setted him and fed him a bagel in the middle. 

Pete's greatness is based on his greatness on other surfaces.  His clay court mediocrity cannot be disputed, nor argued.   How far his non existant clay court abilities go to preventing his GOAT status in light of his greatness on non-clay surfaces is an interesting debate.  His non existant clay court abilities is not a debate, except one in desperation and cheesy excuse barrel digging.

i never tried to prove anywhere that sampras is better than federer on clay.........all i said and meant is, i would prefer pete beating courier, muster and bruguera at roland garros to federer going down to nadal 1 million times...........i don't care about how many runner up plates he has...........but that's just me anyway..........

You are just a Fed hater nothing else you can not stand the fact that he is the best ever!!!

Or at least a valid candidate to the GOAT status as Pete was.. as Borg and Laver..And might be even others 

[Clay Death]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

Are you kidding Sampras has never made a final at Roland Garros you think its comparable with Roger at clay.

I personally believe that fed is better than Sampras on clay but then we cannot ignore the fact that Fed hasn't had anyone else...no one apart from rafa who can call himself a worthy opponent on clay...Muster, Guga, Bruguera...none of the players from 2004-2007 are of this quality...only now I feel that Nole is getting better on clay...still not in the same league though.

how about Lendl and Courier? they were not too shabby on clay either they would have owned Fed on clay.

[Dallas]

Speaking of wishful thinking, I would welcome it more than anything if both Nole and Murray win everything next year; that is, Murray to win both Wimbledon and USO, and Nole to AO and RG. Part of me wants to see the demise of Federer and Nadal which is more than likely in the two years or so.

Funny though how, both the 90s and the 00s have produced possibly two greatest players of all time yet neither have won at least one RG. Sampras' chances are gone while Federer's are fading fast. At the same time, with the exception of Nadal this year, none of the clay courters have won anything on hard courts or on grass. It has been this way since 1990. I fail to see how clay is superior to all other surfaces when all these clay couters failed miserably on all other surfaces while busy dominating the clay. Agassi and Nadal even things out but then you have Federer, who made the RG final more than once. Even so, Nadal winning 1 title on hard court will hardly prove anything, as too many things need to take place in that one particular event, which may put a dent on the win itself. But of course, we have to have our biased opinions based on loose facts which prove basically nothing.

Roger hasn't won RG because of Nadal only....he is actually more consistent at RG than the AO.

A little bit of history might help:

2005-Today : The reign of the GOAT of clay while the candidate for overall GOAT has failed at his hands....if it's wasnt for Rafa, Roger might have 4 RG which would put your theory to rest. The RG champ is also Wimby champ with two additional RU on his pocket

Yes Sampras didn't won RG and Federer seems to miss one but for totally different reasons.

throw in bruguera and courier along with nadal and let me see how many french finals federer would have even got to...........look, you can say federer is excellent on clay or whatever but, comparing him with sampras is unnecessary...........what do you mean by he would have won 4 french opens had nadal not been there? then what should pete fans say? you know how many stopped him at RG? though they were not as good as nadal, they knew what a french open victory means and are considered greats on clay.......agassi, bruguera, courier and even the list of clay courters just goes on and on..........now you are talking just about nadal and who else can you show me who is as good as bruguera et al or at least half as good as nadal and faced federer in at least one of all his french open matches? federer din't even get to face djokovic till now...........if federer is remarkably great on clay, then why can't he prove it by beating nadal once, despite facing him this many times at french open? there is no such thing that GOAT on a surface can never be defeated on that surface...........even someone like krajicek took out sampras at his sheer best in 96 who seemed invincible to everyone at wimbledon at that time..........isn't federer on clay as good as krajicek on grass at least? i know that krajicek was a gem on grass..........and i don't mean to say that federer must take out nadal in straight sets at french like krajicek did to pete on grass, but at least how many fighting matches have you seen him play against nadal at french open?  1-9 itself shows that he is no match for nadal on clay...........however great the opponent is, going down to him this many times makes someone think a bit different to what you are thinking..........and it will only raise doubts about federer's ability against other clay greats like bruguera, courier, kuerten etc. had they been playing...........so, comparing him to sampras again and again and saying that he is greater than sampras on clay is not right...........

Are you kidding Sampras has never made a final at Roland Garros you think its comparable with Roger at clay.

I personally believe that fed is better than Sampras on clay but then we cannot ignore the fact that Fed hasn't had anyone else...no one apart from rafa who can call himself a worthy opponent on clay...Muster, Guga, Bruguera...none of the players from 2004-2007 are of this quality...only now I feel that Nole is getting better on clay...still not in the same league though.

how about Lendl and Courier? they were not too shabby on clay either they would have owned Fed on clay.

There is no way you can back this statement up since they will never play against each other.  Anyway... this is suppose to be a discussion about the 2009 Australian Open, January 19-Feb. 1 - yet - some how - we always come back to Pete vs Roger.  Don't we have enough of those discussions in about 50 other threads on this forum?

Let's get back to talking about the 2009 Australian Open since you all started this thread 2 months before it's scheduled to open....   Drop the Pete vs Roger and who's better on clay, blah, blah, blah.... Please!

[huntingyou]

Why is there any discussion about Pete on clay.  Pete is a great player, but he stunk on clay, period, and anyone debating this simply looks like a moron for even trying.    Federer is 10x a better clay courter and I like Pete alot more then Roger, but that is plain as day.   Tougher competition doesnt fly for figs here, Sampras couldnt even beat Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, Magnus Norman (3 years before his fluke elite year), or clunky clay courter Phillipoussis at the French.   He hardly ever played some of those so called "great" clay courters, since he was going out in early rounds to nobodies most times.    With only Kafelnikov and Stich to beat to win the French Open Mr. Kafelnikov straight setted him and fed him a bagel in the middle. 

Pete's greatness is based on his greatness on other surfaces.  His clay court mediocrity cannot be disputed, nor argued.   How far his non existant clay court abilities go to preventing his GOAT status in light of his greatness on non-clay surfaces is an interesting debate.  His non existant clay court abilities is not a debate, except one in desperation and cheesy excuse barrel digging.

you just OWENED shankar...........sorry, but it's plain true.

This era is dominated by baseliners so in essence, every player can be competitive on clay since the requirements to play successfull claycourt tennis are instill in player formation.

Shankar has to realize that both Roger and Rafa are CLEANING both sides of the draw..............the Brugueras, Muster's and Couriers of the 90s have no chance to shine or ever become great on this surface since there are TWO superior players waiting for them.

If Roger is a great player with a superior game to 99% of tennis players....and he grew up on clay and in essence he is a baseliner, then why is so hard to beleive that Roger is indeed a superior claycourter.

Nadal has lost 6 sets at RG......3 of those to Roger. Rome 2006 was the closest that any man has come close to beat Nadal on 5 set tennis at his best.......so.......

No doubt, Roger>Courier, Bruguera, Muster........only Kuerten on clay could have beat him but it would have a great match!

[Emma]

First of all, I am simply dismissing the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all. If it was, then all these clay courters, who have no other life than to pathetically live and die on clay, would have won something else by now. If you find clay beautiful then that’s sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just don’t make a sweeping statement that it’s the toughest cause it isn’t. As I see it, hard surface is just as tough if not more. You should know because your man never won it and unlikely to win it. Come to think of it, both Laver and Borg probably would have struggled just as much. How can you say, no, they wouldn't have when I can say just the same? In fact, I just did.

Second of all, there’s a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I can’t prove otherwise so I will keep to myself, I will say that Federer is better than Sampras given their records on clay and nothing else. And that’s fine even though one cannot possibly deny that, the 90s were flooded with some great clay courters and it was impossible for anyone, especially when someone didn’t have as much experience on clay as opposed to those who practically grew up on clay, to win at least one slam. Other than Nadal, Federer didn’t have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya…in fact, the list is countless and it goes on and he would have struggled just as much as Pete to win one RG title. Still, Pete’s performance on clay is average compared to his other achievements on other surfaces, but it is still much better than many other clay courters who have done practically nothing on any other surfaces. And sure, Federer can edge on clay against Sampras if that’s what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldn’t take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Pete’s record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

You say Federer is greater than Bruguera, Muster and Courier on clay? And how would you know that? Do you have first hand evidence to support your theory? Did they ever play in their prime against each other? They didn’t so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didn’t some of you just yesterday were saying how wrong it was for Spain to choose Verdasco and that it was nothing but a stupid mistake to choose him to play the deciding match? Wasn’t it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didn’t see that happening. Or do you just see arrogance in others while fail to see your own? The point is, some of you are dead wrong sometimes and you need to know it---better yet, admit it. So whatever theory you are giving out, doesn’t really always cut it.

Right now, I am more focused on Nadal than Federer. I will see what he can do next year. Expect me to rip him apart every time he fails (Shankar, buddy, you will just have to put up with me). Injury or any other excuses will not fly with me, as I never gave Federer excuses for having the so called mono. It’s all part of the game and just as weak as when I say Pete never took clay all that seriously. So if you are going to go by facts and facts only, then don’t play the injury or the overplayed card….just so we are clear and on the same page.

[dmastous]

First of all, I am simply dismissing the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all. If it was, then all these clay courters, who have no other life than to pathetically live and die on clay, would have won something else by now. If you find clay beautiful then that’s sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just don’t make a sweeping statement that it’s the toughest cause it isn’t. As I see it, hard surface is just as tough if not more. You should know because your man never won it and unlikely to win it. Come to think of it, both Laver and Borg probably would have struggled just as much. How can you say, no, they wouldn't have when I can say just the same? In fact, I just did.

Sweeping statements are sort of a specialty around here... 

Second of all, there’s a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I can’t prove otherwise so I will keep to myself, I will say that Federer is better than Sampras given their records on clay and nothing else. And that’s fine even though one cannot possibly deny that, the 90s were flooded with some great clay courters and it was impossible for anyone, especially when someone didn’t have as much experience on clay as opposed to those who practically grew up on clay, to win at least one slam. Other than Nadal, Federer didn’t have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya…in fact, the list is countless and it goes on and he would have struggled just as much as Pete to win one RG title. Still, Pete’s performance on clay is average compared to his other achievements on other surfaces, but it is still much better than many other clay courters who have done practically nothing on any other surfaces. And sure, Federer can edge on clay against Sampras if that’s what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldn’t take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Pete’s record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

I'll say it again. Any attempt to try and compare players of different eras is a waste of time. There is no way to compare the two since they are very different games. The rules are nearly the same, and the court is the same, but the equipment is very different, and the approach in today's game is totally different. Especially on clay and grass.
These are unquantifiable things, so we just need to appreciate each era as a separate entity. You can't compare Laver and Federer, but you can appreciate both.
That's how I see it.

[pawan89]

First of all, I am simply dismissing the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all. If it was, then all these clay courters, who have no other life than to pathetically live and die on clay, would have won something else by now. If you find clay beautiful then that’s sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just don’t make a sweeping statement that it’s the toughest cause it isn’t. As I see it, hard surface is just as tough if not more. You should know because your man never won it and unlikely to win it. Come to think of it, both Laver and Borg probably would have struggled just as much. How can you say, no, they wouldn't have when I can say just the same? In fact, I just did.

Sweeping statements are sort of a specialty around here... 

Second of all, there’s a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I can’t prove otherwise so I will keep to myself, I will say that Federer is better than Sampras given their records on clay and nothing else. And that’s fine even though one cannot possibly deny that, the 90s were flooded with some great clay courters and it was impossible for anyone, especially when someone didn’t have as much experience on clay as opposed to those who practically grew up on clay, to win at least one slam. Other than Nadal, Federer didn’t have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya…in fact, the list is countless and it goes on and he would have struggled just as much as Pete to win one RG title. Still, Pete’s performance on clay is average compared to his other achievements on other surfaces, but it is still much better than many other clay courters who have done practically nothing on any other surfaces. And sure, Federer can edge on clay against Sampras if that’s what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldn’t take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Pete’s record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

I'll say it again. Any attempt to try and compare players of different eras is a waste of time. There is no way to compare the two since they are very different games. The rules are nearly the same, and the court is the same, but the equipment is very different, and the approach in today's game is totally different. Especially on clay and grass.
These are unquantifiable things, so we just need to appreciate each era as a separate entity. You can't compare Laver and Federer, but you can appreciate both.
That's how I see it.

Why are you making sweeping statements here dmast?  I love how, like Dallas said, Tennis Discussions can pretty much be re-labelled Federer vs. Sampras .. again. 

[Emma]

I simply have problems when someone says that Sampras simply sucked on clay. It’s not entirely true. He wasn’t as good as he was on other surfaces, too many great clay courters around at that time and 3rd, which is my own theory and Shankar seems to think the same way, Pete didn’t take clay as seriously. These were all the reasons why he never made beyond the semi at RG. Oh and btw, he never liked going to Australia either. He hated the long flight and it's only his desire to break the record that made him go there in the first place. Still, he didn't show up few times. In many of his interviews, he didn't even bother to mention AO.

So yes, I take it as an issue when someone says he simply stunk on clay without considering any of the things I mentioned above. So Kitten needs to stop using those stupid words. It drives me nuts.

I don't want to make it about Pete vs Roger but it will come up time and again as Federer is about to break Sampras' record. I don't see any reason why Pete fans should be quiet about it. If we have something to say, we will say it. This is a tennis message board after all and it's not written anywhere that it should only be about Federer.