Author Topic: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1  (Read 297529 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 #220 on: November 24, 2008, 08:47:16 PM »
I simply have problems when someone says that Sampras simply sucked on clay. Itís not entirely true. He wasnít 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 didnít 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.


sampras was weak on clay. its not rocket science. just watch one of his matches on a fast hard court or fast grass court.

in short, he was relatively one dimensional. live with the truth.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #221 on: November 24, 2008, 09:01:23 PM »
I simply have problems when someone says that Sampras simply sucked on clay. Itís not entirely true. He wasnít 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 didnít 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.


sampras was weak on clay. its not rocket science. just watch one of his matches on a fast hard court or fast grass court.

in short, he was relatively one dimensional. live with the truth.

You mean when Nadal won Wimbledon only by few points and all of a sudden, he's the king of grass kind of way? Sure, why not as long as we are delusional.

So, what's with Nadal's outfits anyway? If it's not screaming for attention then I don't know what it is. He's quite the attention seeker in that way. Also, why does he need to adjust himself so many times? That's a pretty sight, isn't it? Too bad we don't talk about it as much as opposed to Federer's much talked about nose while putting Pete down for his hair, tongue and what not.
You are everything I am not.

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 #222 on: November 24, 2008, 09:08:03 PM »
I simply have problems when someone says that Sampras simply sucked on clay. Itís not entirely true. He wasnít 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 didnít 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.


sampras was weak on clay. its not rocket science. just watch one of his matches on a fast hard court or fast grass court.

in short, he was relatively one dimensional. live with the truth.

You mean when Nadal won Wimbledon only by few points and all of a sudden, he's the king of grass kind of way? Sure, why not as long as we are delusional.

So, what's with Nadal's outfits anyway? If it's not screaming for attention then I don't know what it is. He's quite the attention seeker in that way. Also, why does he need to adjust himself so many times? That's a pretty sight, isn't it? Too bad we don't talk about it as much as opposed to Federer's much talked about nose while putting Pete down for his hair, tongue and what not.


was that in english? what does all that have to do with the price of tea in china? all some are saying is that sampras was relatively weak on clay.

that is not a new discovery or a great revelation.

lay off the cheap liquor emma.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #223 on: November 24, 2008, 09:13:51 PM »
Dearest herc, I am simply picking on your Nadal and I will do so until I feel otherwise. You will just have to put up with me. Anyway, relatively weak I can take. One dimensional I can't. Lose the word. Nadal game lacks so many things that I just don't know where to start, but I shall start somewhere so stay tuned.

Anyway, I must go to bed. So adios, sayonara, ciao, goodnight, shalom, khodahafeez, namaste, ta ta whatever.

Sweet dreams, Kitten. lol
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 09:14:41 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Offline kittens25

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11200
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #224 on: November 24, 2008, 09:16:32 PM »
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.

Awww but are you forgetting.  I promised only a week ago to torture you for the next little while.   :innocent: :rofl_2:   Nice to see it vindicated that I am already doing my job, without even really starting to try yet to boot, all the better.   :Sword Fight:

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10283
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #225 on: November 24, 2008, 09:18:25 PM »
Roger IMO would beat all of those clay courters in the 90's most of the time. No one had the powerful topspin of Nadal, which I think is the #1 reason Rog can't get a handle on Rafa.
If Fed tries to take the ball early there is a great chance of a mis**t, the ball bounces too unpredictably for him to react in time. Just look at how many shanks he has against Nadal. If Fed waits some for a good hit then Nadal has plenty of time to get into position, there's no where for Fed to go. No one in the 90's had that kind of shot.
I can't see how those guys could beat Fed without a weapon like Nadal has.
This is great credit to Nadal.

Roger just goes through everyone else, whether good clay courters or not, he hasn't lost to anyone but Rafa at RG for years, I don't think any of the 90's claycourters could do that. And none of them could beat Rafa, that's for sure.

Right now I'm picking Fed to go all the way at the AO, the surface should be quicker than last year also which doesn't help Nadal. I picked Fed for the UO too remember.  :smartie:

My darkhorse is Gulbis again.  :cool:

Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #226 on: November 24, 2008, 09:22:59 PM »
I simply have problems when someone says that Sampras simply sucked on clay. Itís not entirely true. He wasnít 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 didnít 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.


You're cool Emma.  :cool: At least you are realistic. And I will say, the Pete vs. Fed discussions are very entertaining and a matter of great interest .. for the first 1000 times its discussed that is. After that it's just a bunch of people with no objectivity (the lack of which just becomes apparent, its never not there) arguing the same things over and over again, going in circles about things that can only end up going in circles. Oh and I won't even mention the personal comments that start to fly.. It's just a no win situtation.

You have every right to defend Sampras, just don't get carried away because those whom you are letting bother you have nothing to lose to keep doing just that the whole time. Just stay cool  :cool:

I personally agree with you the parts that you made bold. He was not as good on clay as he was on other surfaces because he didn't take clay seriously. That was his choice and the price he paid was he ended up being a relatively not-so-successful clay-courter. Simple as that. As far as the strong clay courters of his era are concerned, yeah relative to him there were quite a few which made him look mediocre I guess. Again, whatever the reason, he just wasn't a top notch clay courter by his own standards at other surfaces and by the standards of the day.


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 #227 on: November 24, 2008, 09:27:55 PM »
Dearest herc, I am simply picking on your Nadal and I will do so until I feel otherwise. You will just have to put up with me. Anyway, relatively weak I can take. One dimensional I can't. Lose the word. Nadal game lacks so many things that I just don't know where to start, but I shall start somewhere so stay tuned.

Anyway, I must go to bed. So adios, sayonara, ciao, goodnight, shalom, khodahafeez, namaste, ta ta whatever.

Sweet dreams, Kitten. lol

pick on anybody you like. i dont have a problem with that. i pick on the clay monster more than anybody.

now what is this about the sleep business. dont you know that sleep is overrated? stick around and play.

Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #228 on: November 24, 2008, 09:28:51 PM »
Roger IMO would beat all of those clay courters in the 90's most of the time. No one had the powerful topspin of Nadal, which I think is the #1 reason Rog can't get a handle on Rafa.
If Fed tries to take the ball early there is a great chance of a mis**t, the ball bounces too unpredictably for him to react in time. Just look at how many shanks he has against Nadal. If Fed waits some for a good hit then Nadal has plenty of time to get into position, there's no where for Fed to go. No one in the 90's had that kind of shot.
I can't see how those guys could beat Fed without a weapon like Nadal has.
This is great credit to Nadal.

Roger just goes through everyone else, whether good clay courters or not, he hasn't lost to anyone but Rafa at RG for years, I don't think any of the 90's claycourters could do that. And none of them could beat Rafa, that's for sure.

Right now I'm picking Fed to go all the way at the AO, the surface should be quicker than last year also which doesn't help Nadal. I picked Fed for the UO too remember.  :smartie:

My darkhorse is Gulbis again.  :cool:

Finally, someone talking about the Australian Open  ;-()

I am picking Fed for the AO all the way too but I think his biggest challenges will be Murray and Djokovic, not Nadal.

Oh, and my darkhorse pick is Gasquet  :cool: Although I must admit, Gulbis is a beast, and like Safin and Tsonga perhaps, he can actually be unstoppable for stretches and his game doesn't allow the opponent to tame the beast. Can't say that about Gasquet, Gasquet has to be on constant vigilence and play a smart full game through and through as he does have obvious limitations, or to put it mildly, he's more normal than Gulbis and his  best is more normal and countered easily compared to Gulbis at his best.


Offline kittens25

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11200
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #229 on: November 24, 2008, 09:30:50 PM »
Oh, and my darkhorse pick is Gasquet


« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 09:31:23 PM by kittens25 »

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10283
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #230 on: November 24, 2008, 09:34:43 PM »
Roger IMO would beat all of those clay courters in the 90's most of the time. No one had the powerful topspin of Nadal, which I think is the #1 reason Rog can't get a handle on Rafa.
If Fed tries to take the ball early there is a great chance of a mis**t, the ball bounces too unpredictably for him to react in time. Just look at how many shanks he has against Nadal. If Fed waits some for a good hit then Nadal has plenty of time to get into position, there's no where for Fed to go. No one in the 90's had that kind of shot.
I can't see how those guys could beat Fed without a weapon like Nadal has.
This is great credit to Nadal.

Roger just goes through everyone else, whether good clay courters or not, he hasn't lost to anyone but Rafa at RG for years, I don't think any of the 90's claycourters could do that. And none of them could beat Rafa, that's for sure.

Right now I'm picking Fed to go all the way at the AO, the surface should be quicker than last year also which doesn't help Nadal. I picked Fed for the UO too remember.  :smartie:

My darkhorse is Gulbis again.  :cool:

Finally, someone talking about the Australian Open  ;-()

I am picking Fed for the AO all the way too but I think his biggest challenges will be Murray and Djokovic, not Nadal.

Oh, and my darkhorse pick is Gasquet  :cool: Although I must admit, Gulbis is a beast, and like Safin and Tsonga perhaps, he can actually be unstoppable for stretches and his game doesn't allow the opponent to tame the beast. Can't say that about Gasquet, Gasquet has to be on constant vigilence and play a smart full game through and through as he does have obvious limitations, or to put it mildly, he's more normal than Gulbis and his  best is more normal and countered easily compared to Gulbis at his best.

Like I think you mentioned before, some players with great skills should take a little off of there best shots to gain some consistency, not quite as exciting but they may win a few more points that way and go further.


Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #231 on: November 24, 2008, 09:37:09 PM »


Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #232 on: November 24, 2008, 11:09:49 PM »
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 thatís sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just donít make a sweeping statement that itís the toughest cause it isnít. 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.

You just don't quit; do yo? After being out class many times in the same thread about the same topic you keep coming for more.

YOU dismiss the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all.....who are you? You don't even understand claycourt tennis what makes you the authority all of sudden. I will take a wild guess and assume you don't play tennis yourself.........there is no bailout on clay; there is no serve that can hide your weakness and holes in your game.....on clay you think, you work hard and the strongest at the end will be the last standing....simple; if is the toughest Slam to win? Some people might think that way since many great players failed miserible at RG with Sampras leading the pack.

About Nadal and hardcourts.......well, he has been quite successfull so far with many big titles and victories over tough opponenents......now, IS he more successful on clay and grass? Yes and because of his overwhelming success on natural surfaces the man is being judge by the likes of you with a pretty big stick. Don't you think you should wait at least until Nadal get out of his prime? At 22, there will be many tries for him......and because I'm not Nostradamus I will just say wait and see......get your popcorn ready because the wait might not take too long.....certainly shorter than waiting for Pete and his one dimensional game winning at RG.

Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles during his time........ever heard of Los Angeles? Borg also won big titles on HC and came very close against JMac at the UO finals......

Second of all, thereís a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I canít 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 thatís 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 didnít 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 didnít have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, MoyaÖin 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, Peteís 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 thatís what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldnít take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Peteís record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

If you only use records to make assumptions about players then why keep this argument in the first place? IF You were to pay a little attention to Roger's game on clay and then watch Sampras......it would be CLEAR to realize that Roger is just light years ahead of Pete and we can start with movement if you are looking for specific reasons, then follow with Roger's semi-western topspin forehand vs Sampras flat eastern forehand and finally the strategy employ by both players is quite the opposite.....probably Pete never had a high IQ to beging with; who knows?

The 90s weren't never flooded with claycourt greats........the 90s were flooded with players who could play on clay but SUCK in every other surface; call it what you want but great's they weren't unless you are talking about Guga which in that case...Pete never had the chance to get killed by him anyways. Pete never fought a clay great for a RG titles and when he finally made SF he got killed by a player even more pathetic on that surface than himself........losing to Delgado, Schuller and company doesn't help your argument and when he lost to Courier past 1993...the guy was a shadow of himself anyways; nothing in comparison to Nadal, Muster was a non factor at RG with the exception of 1995.

Roger beat players that are more capable than your Moyas and Kafelnikov of the 90s........from Robredo to Davydenko and Ferrer; you just will never know because both Roger and Nadal are that much better...rememeber, sucking ass in every surface but clay doesn't make you a claycourt great.

Pete better than Roger? Yes on grass and only grass.......5 consecutive UO TOP Pete, 3 AO TOP Pete......3 consecutive RG finals TOP Pete, even 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals Top Pete in the consistency department; blame Krajicek and Roger himself for that cookie.

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 didnít so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didnít 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? Wasnít it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didnít 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, doesnít really always cut it.

Yes Roger is better than Courier, Sergi and Muster and Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi and Gomez.......Roger's game doesn't dissapear on clay if you haven't noticed. Roger is a formidable claycourter with more options, more intelligence and a more agressive style....he hit winners from all over the court, plays defense only bested by Rafa and shoudl I mention that forehand again. Just because Roger has no RG due to Nadal, doesn't automatically makes every player who won RG before him a better claycourter....as far as I'm concern, since 2005 only one player with a pretty unique weapon has figure out Roger on clay......Courier and Sergi in their best days as RG champs LOST many matches to 40+ ranked players.......and Kuerten?

are Clavet #35, Dosedel #51, Santoro #69 , Fromberg #89, Gumy #75, Mantilla #16, Costa #54 , Pioline #16 , Gustafsson #31, Corretja #9, Rio #3, Safin #116, Puerta#95, Vicente #62, Hernandez #192, Lapentti #99 Rios #13, Santopadre #108, Moya #6, Medvedev #100, Spadea #29, Norman #49, Chela #129, Kucera, Norman #4 and Mirnyi #54 claycourt greats? ALL THESE PLAYERS BEAT GUGA HIMSELF during 1997-2001 and that's where your baseless argument about Roger losing in the 90s like Pete on clay get's DEBUNKED.............all those 90s greats were losing to nobodies while Roger is losing to only one FREAK and one FREAK only

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. Itís 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 donít play the injury or the overplayed cardÖ.just so we are clear and on the same page.

You can focused on energy independence for all I  care...............like ripping Nadal apart will hurt him someway or any of his fans who have been torture since 2004, go on but don't look for excuses if your wishes fail to materialize YET again...........of all the fans in the world, the Sampras lunatics top the balance with insecurity and a feeling of self proclaimed defender of a legacy who doesn't need any defending. :rofl_2:
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 11:14:30 PM by huntingyou »

Offline falcon

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 4938
  • Gender: Female
  • cooooooooooooooool
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #233 on: November 24, 2008, 11:19:45 PM »
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!



Exactly....that's what I'm trying to say...for me Fed is far better than Sampras on clay...the results show that and besides that Sampras is an American who never trained on clay and here is Fed who actually grew up on European clay...so that says for itself...but then there are no big claycourters of the calibre of the 90's in this era....the names I've mentioned and a few more...none of these however are as good as Rafa too....so its an in-between thing...


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 #234 on: November 24, 2008, 11:24:50 PM »
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!



Exactly....that's what I'm trying to say...for me Fed is far better than Sampras on clay...the results show that and besides that Sampras is an American who never trained on clay and here is Fed who actually grew up on European clay...so that says for itself...but then there are no big claycourters of the calibre of the 90's in this era....the names I've mentioned and a few more...none of these however are as good as Rafa too....so its an in-between thing...

We will never know.......Rafa cleans 99% percent of every clay tournament he enters since 2005 and Roger cleans the other side of the draw 85% of the time.

Impossible is you ask me to ask any player to become a Clay Legend when you already have two playing and one of them is already consider the GOAT of clay at age 22.

Offline TennisVeritas

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #235 on: November 25, 2008, 02:03:27 AM »
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 thatís sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just donít make a sweeping statement that itís the toughest cause it isnít. 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.

You just don't quit; do yo? After being out class many times in the same thread about the same topic you keep coming for more.

YOU dismiss the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all.....who are you? You don't even understand claycourt tennis what makes you the authority all of sudden. I will take a wild guess and assume you don't play tennis yourself.........there is no bailout on clay; there is no serve that can hide your weakness and holes in your game.....on clay you think, you work hard and the strongest at the end will be the last standing....simple; if is the toughest Slam to win? Some people might think that way since many great players failed miserible at RG with Sampras leading the pack.

About Nadal and hardcourts.......well, he has been quite successfull so far with many big titles and victories over tough opponenents......now, IS he more successful on clay and grass? Yes and because of his overwhelming success on natural surfaces the man is being judge by the likes of you with a pretty big stick. Don't you think you should wait at least until Nadal get out of his prime? At 22, there will be many tries for him......and because I'm not Nostradamus I will just say wait and see......get your popcorn ready because the wait might not take too long.....certainly shorter than waiting for Pete and his one dimensional game winning at RG.

Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles during his time........ever heard of Los Angeles? Borg also won big titles on HC and came very close against JMac at the UO finals......

Second of all, thereís a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I canít 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 thatís 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 didnít 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 didnít have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, MoyaÖin fact, the list is countless and it goes on   :rofl_2: and he would have struggled just as much as Pete to win one RG title. Still, Peteís 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 thatís what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldnít take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Peteís record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

If you only use records to make assumptions about players then why keep this argument in the first place? IF You were to pay a little attention to Roger's game on clay and then watch Sampras......it would be CLEAR to realize that Roger is just light years ahead of Pete and we can start with movement if you are looking for specific reasons, then follow with Roger's semi-western topspin forehand vs Sampras flat eastern forehand and finally the strategy employ by both players is quite the opposite.....probably Pete never had a high IQ to beging with; who knows?

The 90s weren't never flooded with claycourt greats........the 90s were flooded with players who could play on clay but SUCK in every other surface; call it what you want but great's they weren't unless you are talking about Guga which in that case...Pete never had the chance to get killed by him anyways. Pete never fought a clay great for a RG titles and when he finally made SF he got killed by a player even more pathetic on that surface than himself........losing to Delgado, Schuller and company doesn't help your argument and when he lost to Courier past 1993...the guy was a shadow of himself anyways; nothing in comparison to Nadal, Muster was a non factor at RG with the exception of 1995.

Roger beat players that are more capable than your Moyas and Kafelnikov of the 90s........from Robredo to Davydenko and Ferrer; you just will never know because both Roger and Nadal are that much better...rememeber, sucking ass in every surface but clay doesn't make you a claycourt great.

Pete better than Roger? Yes on grass and only grass.......5 consecutive UO TOP Pete, 3 AO TOP Pete......3 consecutive RG finals TOP Pete, even 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals Top Pete in the consistency department; blame Krajicek and Roger himself for that cookie.

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 didnít so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didnít 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? Wasnít it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didnít 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, doesnít really always cut it.

Yes Roger is better than Courier, Sergi and Muster and Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi and Gomez.......Roger's game doesn't dissapear on clay if you haven't noticed. Roger is a formidable claycourter with more options, more intelligence and a more agressive style....he hit winners from all over the court, plays defense only bested by Rafa and shoudl I mention that forehand again. Just because Roger has no RG due to Nadal, doesn't automatically makes every player who won RG before him a better claycourter....as far as I'm concern, since 2005 only one player with a pretty unique weapon has figure out Roger on clay......Courier and Sergi in their best days as RG champs LOST many matches to 40+ ranked players.......and Kuerten?

are Clavet #35, Dosedel #51, Santoro #69 , Fromberg #89, Gumy #75, Mantilla #16, Costa #54 , Pioline #16 , Gustafsson #31, Corretja #9, Rio #3, Safin #116, Puerta#95, Vicente #62, Hernandez #192, Lapentti #99 Rios #13, Santopadre #108, Moya #6, Medvedev #100, Spadea #29, Norman #49, Chela #129, Kucera, Norman #4 and Mirnyi #54 claycourt greats? ALL THESE PLAYERS BEAT GUGA HIMSELF during 1997-2001 and that's where your baseless argument about Roger losing in the 90s like Pete on clay get's DEBUNKED.............all those 90s greats were losing to nobodies while Roger is losing to only one FREAK and one FREAK only

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. Itís 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 donít play the injury or the overplayed cardÖ.just so we are clear and on the same page.

You can focused on energy independence for all I  care...............like ripping Nadal apart will hurt him someway or any of his fans who have been torture since 2004, go on but don't look for excuses if your wishes fail to materialize YET again...........of all the fans in the world, the Sampras lunatics top the balance with insecurity and a feeling of self proclaimed defender of a legacy who doesn't need any defending. :rofl_2:

Spot on huntingyou great stuff..I will simply ad two elements:

1) Pete was not fighting a countless list of clay court specialists..Most of the time Pete was not there to fight against them..Once again, have a look to their H2H against these "great" clay court specialists...

For instance, Guga: Pete NEVER had the chance to play against him on clay..NEVER..

Muster..A SINGLE MATCH ON CLAY and this was in '91..Give us a break..And this list can go on and on..

Moya..NO MATCH ON CLAY AS WELL (at the contrary have a look of the H2H of this player against FED very instructive..In there you have three clay matches all of them on the FED side..)

2) FED has being a born on clay player it is just a LEGEND (even if FED has said that this was his first outdoor surface):

The man is Swiss and in Switzerland (I can assure you, given that I spent my entire life in this country) 7/8 months a year you just cannot play outdoor Tennis (it is not like being from Majorca in which outdoor Tennis can be done till November and start in February) :

FED spent most of his junior career on indoor (medium /fast ) surfaces..This explains why, IMO, the guy has a very good record on indoor, why he likes indoor conditions and why he started with a very classic attacking Tennis game (his plan A on grass BTW and this till in '01 was the S&V) ..

Emma, Give us a break on that side too!! The man has already achieved plenty of great results on clay and out of that surfaces.. :)) :)) Some of his records are already better than the Pete's ones so..Give us a break!!
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 02:41:53 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

Offline Start da Game

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #236 on: November 25, 2008, 03:04:26 AM »
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 thatís sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just donít make a sweeping statement that itís the toughest cause it isnít. 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.

You just don't quit; do yo? After being out class many times in the same thread about the same topic you keep coming for more.

YOU dismiss the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all.....who are you? You don't even understand claycourt tennis what makes you the authority all of sudden. I will take a wild guess and assume you don't play tennis yourself.........there is no bailout on clay; there is no serve that can hide your weakness and holes in your game.....on clay you think, you work hard and the strongest at the end will be the last standing....simple; if is the toughest Slam to win? Some people might think that way since many great players failed miserible at RG with Sampras leading the pack.

About Nadal and hardcourts.......well, he has been quite successfull so far with many big titles and victories over tough opponenents......now, IS he more successful on clay and grass? Yes and because of his overwhelming success on natural surfaces the man is being judge by the likes of you with a pretty big stick. Don't you think you should wait at least until Nadal get out of his prime? At 22, there will be many tries for him......and because I'm not Nostradamus I will just say wait and see......get your popcorn ready because the wait might not take too long.....certainly shorter than waiting for Pete and his one dimensional game winning at RG.

Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles during his time........ever heard of Los Angeles? Borg also won big titles on HC and came very close against JMac at the UO finals......

Second of all, thereís a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I canít 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 thatís 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 didnít 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 didnít have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, MoyaÖin 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, Peteís 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 thatís what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldnít take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Peteís record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

If you only use records to make assumptions about players then why keep this argument in the first place? IF You were to pay a little attention to Roger's game on clay and then watch Sampras......it would be CLEAR to realize that Roger is just light years ahead of Pete and we can start with movement if you are looking for specific reasons, then follow with Roger's semi-western topspin forehand vs Sampras flat eastern forehand and finally the strategy employ by both players is quite the opposite.....probably Pete never had a high IQ to beging with; who knows?

The 90s weren't never flooded with claycourt greats........the 90s were flooded with players who could play on clay but SUCK in every other surface; call it what you want but great's they weren't unless you are talking about Guga which in that case...Pete never had the chance to get killed by him anyways. Pete never fought a clay great for a RG titles and when he finally made SF he got killed by a player even more pathetic on that surface than himself........losing to Delgado, Schuller and company doesn't help your argument and when he lost to Courier past 1993...the guy was a shadow of himself anyways; nothing in comparison to Nadal, Muster was a non factor at RG with the exception of 1995.

Roger beat players that are more capable than your Moyas and Kafelnikov of the 90s........from Robredo to Davydenko and Ferrer; you just will never know because both Roger and Nadal are that much better...rememeber, sucking ass in every surface but clay doesn't make you a claycourt great.

Pete better than Roger? Yes on grass and only grass.......5 consecutive UO TOP Pete, 3 AO TOP Pete......3 consecutive RG finals TOP Pete, even 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals Top Pete in the consistency department; blame Krajicek and Roger himself for that cookie.

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 didnít so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didnít 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? Wasnít it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didnít 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, doesnít really always cut it.

Yes Roger is better than Courier, Sergi and Muster and Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi and Gomez.......Roger's game doesn't dissapear on clay if you haven't noticed. Roger is a formidable claycourter with more options, more intelligence and a more agressive style....he hit winners from all over the court, plays defense only bested by Rafa and shoudl I mention that forehand again. Just because Roger has no RG due to Nadal, doesn't automatically makes every player who won RG before him a better claycourter....as far as I'm concern, since 2005 only one player with a pretty unique weapon has figure out Roger on clay......Courier and Sergi in their best days as RG champs LOST many matches to 40+ ranked players.......and Kuerten?

are Clavet #35, Dosedel #51, Santoro #69 , Fromberg #89, Gumy #75, Mantilla #16, Costa #54 , Pioline #16 , Gustafsson #31, Corretja #9, Rio #3, Safin #116, Puerta#95, Vicente #62, Hernandez #192, Lapentti #99 Rios #13, Santopadre #108, Moya #6, Medvedev #100, Spadea #29, Norman #49, Chela #129, Kucera, Norman #4 and Mirnyi #54 claycourt greats? ALL THESE PLAYERS BEAT GUGA HIMSELF during 1997-2001 and that's where your baseless argument about Roger losing in the 90s like Pete on clay get's DEBUNKED.............all those 90s greats were losing to nobodies while Roger is losing to only one FREAK and one FREAK only

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. Itís 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 donít play the injury or the overplayed cardÖ.just so we are clear and on the same page.

You can focused on energy independence for all I  care...............like ripping Nadal apart will hurt him someway or any of his fans who have been torture since 2004, go on but don't look for excuses if your wishes fail to materialize YET again...........of all the fans in the world, the Sampras lunatics top the balance with insecurity and a feeling of self proclaimed defender of a legacy who doesn't need any defending. :rofl_2:

wow, so you are back to the first gear, once again..........why do you keep on insulting the players of the 90s? if you personally don't like SNV and those players of the 90s, keep that feeling within you..........according to you, these buffoons like robredo, davydenko, hewitt etc. are better than bruguera, muster, courier, kuerten etc. on clay?  man, it's a shame if you talk any more lesser about those clay legends............they are someones who dedicated their lives to clay and they know how a french open victory tastes...........for your kind information, specialists (people whom you refer to as sucking on 2 surfaces and playing on the other surface) were on all surfaces in the 90s, not just clay and that makes competition far tougher than playing in the same way on all surfaces...........SNV for grass and fast hardcourts, ruthless sluggers from the back court on clay...........all those specialists fought hard when their times came every year and made lives difficult for the top players...........see, i agree that the quality of tennis has been on the rise since last year or two, but insulting the greats of the 90s is a sin...........

and yes, someone as great as kuerten lost to some lower ranked players..........so, how does that indicate that he is useless on clay? tell me one thing..........i don't know how to explain this but taking cricket for instance, whom would you prefer? batsman who sometimes gets out for a duck and some times scores a 60 ball 100 OR someone who always scores a 80 or 90 ball 50?  essentially, what i am trying to say is, i prefer players who can show some guts and have highs though they have had lows, rather than routine players who get to a point and go down to same players time and again...........that is hopeless in my opinion and hence i don't like these hopeless characters like davydenko, hewitt, robredo etc.

i agree fully with emma that pete did care less about clay..........the amount of clay tennis he played itself suggests the same to even a causal follower of the game..........but i don't deny that he was wrong in doing so...........that is stupidity, what sampras did..........see, federer might be better than sampras on clay according to some people, may be it is true as well..........but i don't care, because i am not convinced that sampras tried his best on clay..........but like i said earlier, any day, i will take those thrilling 5 set victories of sampras over bruguera and courier than those runner plates federer has, which he got by going down to one and only genuine clay great, nadal, again and again...........

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 #237 on: November 25, 2008, 03:15:10 AM »
@emma
i think we cannot argue if they cannot agree that players like bruguera, muster and courier are clay greats...........haha what are they if they aren't clay greats? and they are being compared to davydenko and robredo...........it's an understatement that all this is hilarious..........actually, both the camps here are making it difficult for me to continue by taking digs at my favorite players pete and rafael continuously..........both are my favorites and i like both surfaces..........but even from a neutral perspective, i can say that pete could play on clay but he din't give his best...........federer might be better than pete on clay according to some people, but not to me anyway, for obvious reasons.......... 
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 #238 on: November 25, 2008, 03:22:44 AM »
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 thatís sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just donít make a sweeping statement that itís the toughest cause it isnít. 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.

You just don't quit; do yo? After being out class many times in the same thread about the same topic you keep coming for more.

YOU dismiss the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all.....who are you? You don't even understand claycourt tennis what makes you the authority all of sudden. I will take a wild guess and assume you don't play tennis yourself.........there is no bailout on clay; there is no serve that can hide your weakness and holes in your game.....on clay you think, you work hard and the strongest at the end will be the last standing....simple; if is the toughest Slam to win? Some people might think that way since many great players failed miserible at RG with Sampras leading the pack.

About Nadal and hardcourts.......well, he has been quite successfull so far with many big titles and victories over tough opponenents......now, IS he more successful on clay and grass? Yes and because of his overwhelming success on natural surfaces the man is being judge by the likes of you with a pretty big stick. Don't you think you should wait at least until Nadal get out of his prime? At 22, there will be many tries for him......and because I'm not Nostradamus I will just say wait and see......get your popcorn ready because the wait might not take too long.....certainly shorter than waiting for Pete and his one dimensional game winning at RG.

Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles during his time........ever heard of Los Angeles? Borg also won big titles on HC and came very close against JMac at the UO finals......

Second of all, thereís a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I canít 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 thatís 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 didnít 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 didnít have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, MoyaÖin 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, Peteís 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 thatís what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldnít take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Peteís record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.

If you only use records to make assumptions about players then why keep this argument in the first place? IF You were to pay a little attention to Roger's game on clay and then watch Sampras......it would be CLEAR to realize that Roger is just light years ahead of Pete and we can start with movement if you are looking for specific reasons, then follow with Roger's semi-western topspin forehand vs Sampras flat eastern forehand and finally the strategy employ by both players is quite the opposite.....probably Pete never had a high IQ to beging with; who knows?

The 90s weren't never flooded with claycourt greats........the 90s were flooded with players who could play on clay but SUCK in every other surface; call it what you want but great's they weren't unless you are talking about Guga which in that case...Pete never had the chance to get killed by him anyways. Pete never fought a clay great for a RG titles and when he finally made SF he got killed by a player even more pathetic on that surface than himself........losing to Delgado, Schuller and company doesn't help your argument and when he lost to Courier past 1993...the guy was a shadow of himself anyways; nothing in comparison to Nadal, Muster was a non factor at RG with the exception of 1995.

Roger beat players that are more capable than your Moyas and Kafelnikov of the 90s........from Robredo to Davydenko and Ferrer; you just will never know because both Roger and Nadal are that much better...rememeber, sucking ass in every surface but clay doesn't make you a claycourt great.

Pete better than Roger? Yes on grass and only grass.......5 consecutive UO TOP Pete, 3 AO TOP Pete......3 consecutive RG finals TOP Pete, even 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals Top Pete in the consistency department; blame Krajicek and Roger himself for that cookie.

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 didnít so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didnít 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? Wasnít it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didnít 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, doesnít really always cut it.

Yes Roger is better than Courier, Sergi and Muster and Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi and Gomez.......Roger's game doesn't dissapear on clay if you haven't noticed. Roger is a formidable claycourter with more options, more intelligence and a more agressive style....he hit winners from all over the court, plays defense only bested by Rafa and shoudl I mention that forehand again. Just because Roger has no RG due to Nadal, doesn't automatically makes every player who won RG before him a better claycourter....as far as I'm concern, since 2005 only one player with a pretty unique weapon has figure out Roger on clay......Courier and Sergi in their best days as RG champs LOST many matches to 40+ ranked players.......and Kuerten?

are Clavet #35, Dosedel #51, Santoro #69 , Fromberg #89, Gumy #75, Mantilla #16, Costa #54 , Pioline #16 , Gustafsson #31, Corretja #9, Rio #3, Safin #116, Puerta#95, Vicente #62, Hernandez #192, Lapentti #99 Rios #13, Santopadre #108, Moya #6, Medvedev #100, Spadea #29, Norman #49, Chela #129, Kucera, Norman #4 and Mirnyi #54 claycourt greats? ALL THESE PLAYERS BEAT GUGA HIMSELF during 1997-2001 and that's where your baseless argument about Roger losing in the 90s like Pete on clay get's DEBUNKED.............all those 90s greats were losing to nobodies while Roger is losing to only one FREAK and one FREAK only

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. Itís 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 donít play the injury or the overplayed cardÖ.just so we are clear and on the same page.

You can focused on energy independence for all I  care...............like ripping Nadal apart will hurt him someway or any of his fans who have been torture since 2004, go on but don't look for excuses if your wishes fail to materialize YET again...........of all the fans in the world, the Sampras lunatics top the balance with insecurity and a feeling of self proclaimed defender of a legacy who doesn't need any defending. :rofl_2:

wow, so you are back to the first gear, once again..........why do you keep on insulting the players of the 90s? if you personally don't like SNV and those players of the 90s, keep that feeling within you..........according to you, these buffoons like robredo, davydenko, hewitt etc. are better than bruguera, muster, courier, kuerten etc. on clay?  man, it's a shame if you talk any more lesser about those clay legends............they are someones who dedicated their lives to clay and they know how a french open victory tastes...........for your kind information, specialists (people whom you refer to as sucking on 2 surfaces and playing on the other surface) were on all surfaces in the 90s, not just clay and that makes competition far tougher than playing in the same way on all surfaces...........SNV for grass and fast hardcourts, ruthless sluggers from the back court on clay...........all those specialists fought hard when their times came every year and made lives difficult for the top players...........see, i agree that the quality of tennis has been on the rise since last year or two, but insulting the greats of the 90s is a sin...........

and yes, someone as great as kuerten lost to some lower ranked players..........so, how does that indicate that he is useless on clay? tell me one thing..........i don't know how to explain this but taking cricket for instance, whom would you prefer? batsman who sometimes gets out for a duck and some times scores a 60 ball 100 OR someone who always scores a 80 or 90 ball 50?  essentially, what i am trying to say is, i prefer players who can show some guts and have highs though they have had lows, rather than routine players who get to a point and go down to same players time and again...........that is hopeless in my opinion and hence i don't like these hopeless characters like davydenko, hewitt, robredo etc.

i agree fully with emma that pete did care less about clay..........the amount of clay tennis he played itself suggests the same to even a causal follower of the game..........but i don't deny that he was wrong in doing so...........that is stupidity, what sampras did..........see, federer might be better than sampras on clay according to some people, may be it is true as well..........but i don't care, because i am not convinced that sampras tried his best on clay..........but like i said earlier, any day, i will take those thrilling 5 set victories of sampras over bruguera and courier than those runner plates federer has, which he got by going down to one and only genuine clay great, nadal, again and again...........




You didn't  understand anything that I said.

1) I never said Kuerten sucked....I even said he is the only claycourt Great from Pete Era
2) I never insulted 90s players........saying for example, Sergi was a claycourt specialist because he sucked in the other surfaces is a FACT not an insult.
3) I like SnV and the 90s player.....I just don't exagerate their achievements to make Sampras look better.
4) Competition is more tougher when you are GOOD in all surfaces...not just 1...and that's why Roger vs Nadal is a great rivarly because they challenge each other in all surfaces, the same goes for Novak and all the top players. Muster taking vacations during grass season wasn't good for tennis nor did make competition tougher....it actually made it weaker.

5) Kuerten losing to all those lower ranked payers PROVE Roger's greatness on clay since he doesn't lose to lower ranked players and if a GREAT like Kuerten wasn't capable of putting Roger consitent number on clay years after year...then imagine Roger playing in the 90s with inconsistent claycourters which is the norm outside of Nadal includin this era.

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1
« Reply #239 on: November 25, 2008, 03:25:46 AM »
@emma
i think we cannot argue if they cannot agree that players like bruguera, muster and courier are clay greats...........haha what are they if they aren't clay greats? and they are being compared to davydenko and robredo...........it's an understatement that all this is hilarious..........actually, both the camps here are making it difficult for me to continue by taking digs at my favorite players pete and rafael continuously..........both are my favorites and i like both surfaces..........but even from a neutral perspective, i can say that pete could play on clay but he din't give his best...........federer might be better than pete on clay according to some people, but not to me anyway, for obvious reasons.......... 

"Your side" is getting destroy in this argument.....I advice you to keep your "Pete is better than Roger on clay" to yourself.....it would give more credibility as an intelligent poster!

I mean it......I like many of your post unless your Pete fanatical side blinds you from Facts!