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

[Start da Game]

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.

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, 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.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

where were you when kuerten took federer out in straight sets? that's what i am insisting, the lack of clay court specialists...........it's not that competition is better if you have same kind of players on all surfaces...........actually, surface specialists make a hell of a difference..........they wait for their time all year long and just go for the kill when their time comes..........one of the reasons why players like sampras and kuerten have had losses to lower ranked players...........these days, top players like nadal, federer and djokovic would have already faced the same things over and over and hence are easily able to nudge everyone out on clay, just as on other surfaces...........but the thing which seems a set back to me when you talk about who's great on clay is, both federer and djokovic going down to nadal always time and again..........yes, they both are cleaning up everyone in their sights but when they get to nadal, the story is always the same.........at least djokovic is showing some threatening signs to nadal...........but federer? that makes me feel that specialists are hell of a competition and the reason why top players got defeated by them  some times in the 90s...........

anyway, i think i have made all my points clear...........and it's difficult for me to talk from one side as clay and grass both are my favorite surfaces..........

[Start da Game]

@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!

hunting, i never said that.........i even said that may be federer is better on clay...........but you already know why i cannot be sure..........

[sadi]

@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!

Shankar an intelligent poster!!!!!!!!!

[TennisVeritas]

@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!

hunting, i never said that.........i even said that may be federer is better on clay...........but you already know why i cannot be sure..........

well the majority of us can do it quite easily: FED is better than Pete on clay PERIOD. No discussion on that.

I mean,FED has never lost early RG rounds by the hands of these Guys (if you want to define them " clay court specialists") I am happy for you:

'95 Gilbert Schaller
'97 Magnus Norman
'98 Ramon Delgado

Add moreover a shameful defeat by Champion in '91..And then now provide me an equivalent, i.e. these sort of early lost by the hands of nobody players in the case of FED : I am ready to wait a while  ..

BTW..Do not move out of RG..The rest of Pete's results on clay are even more risible..

e.g. Do you remember Santoro in Monte Carlo...

[Clay Death]

@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!

hunting, i never said that.........i even said that may be federer is better on clay...........but you already know why i cannot be sure..........

well the majority of us can do it quite easily: FED is better than Pete on clay PERIOD. No discussion on that.

I mean,FED has never lost early RG rounds by the hands of these Guys (if you want to define them " clay court specialists") I am happy for you:

'95 Gilbert Schaller
'97 Magnus Norman
'98 Ramon Delgado

Add moreover a shameful defeat by Champion in '91..And then now provide me an equivalent, i.e. these sort of early lost by the hands of nobody players in the case of FED : I am ready to wait a while  ..

BTW..Do not move out of RG..The rest of Pete's results on clay are even more risible..

e.g. Do you remember Santoro in Monte Carlo...

no question about it. Fed is light years ahead of sampras on dirt. its just no contest. sampras does have the italian open title in hand but other than that, he was pretty much a failure on dirt.

fed had at least 4 titles in hamburg (masters series) and 3 finals in a row at roland garros.

Fed`s game is well suited for all surfaces while sampras was best on fast grass and fast hard courts.

[monstertruck]

I can hardly wait for the Aussie Open....

[Dallas]

I can hardly wait for the Aussie Open....

Thank you monstertruck.  The other posters seem to have forgotten that the title of this thread is:

ATP - 2009 Australian Open: January 19-Feb. 1 and not Pete vs Roger!

[TennisVeritas]

I can hardly wait for the Aussie Open....

Thank you monstertruck.  The other posters seem to have forgotten that the title of this thread is:

ATP - 2009 Australian Open: January 19-Feb. 1 and not Pete vs Roger!

Thanks Dallas:After reading part of this thread I was sure that this was the main match expected down there..And on clay BTW 

[monstertruck]

Just seems like nearly every thread turns into a b**ch session amongst the same posters over the same few topics...

It certainly isn't nearly as much fun as when I first signed on here.

[Emma]

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.       Nice to see it vindicated that I am already doing my job, without even really starting to try yet to boot, all the better.   

 

[Emma]

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.

If I could I would sleep all day and all night; if possible forever!

I have problems with sleeping so I crave for it nonstop.

[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.

You're cool Emma.   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  

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.

Thank you, and now we have three people who think the same. I don't think some people are capable of exploring of the grey areas of life. I guess it's beyond their mental capability.

[dmastous]

Just seems like nearly every thread turns into a b**ch session amongst the same posters over the same few topics...

It certainly isn't nearly as much fun as when I first signed on here.

You will note the lack of posts from many of the old timers in the Tennis Discussion forum these days.....

[monstertruck]

Just seems like nearly every thread turns into a b**ch session amongst the same posters over the same few topics...

It certainly isn't nearly as much fun as when I first signed on here.

You will note the lack of posts from many of the old timers in the Tennis Discussion forum these days.....

My original post was quite a bit  longer and noted such.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how things were allowed to get to this point.
Must be Pres. B's fault!

[dmastous]

Just seems like nearly every thread turns into a b**ch session amongst the same posters over the same few topics...

It certainly isn't nearly as much fun as when I first signed on here.

You will note the lack of posts from many of the old timers in the Tennis Discussion forum these days.....

My original post was quite a bit  longer and noted such.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how things were allowed to get to this point.
Must be Pres. B's fault!

My personal feeling is there is nothing wrong with what is happening. It is what it is, to quote a local coach.
Just because it's not my cup of tea doesn't mean it's bad. The bottom line is there is no way to control the nature of the threads unless you have more control of the membership. But this isn't a private forum, it's public. I may not like where it's going, but I have no control over where it's going. Scooter does have limited control, but he can't change it unless he wants to lock it down, and make it his own private playground. That's no answer either. Besides he wouldn't do it, it's not his nature.
So falling back on Bill again..... it is what it is. 

[huntingyou]

Hey guys...you can open a "Comparison Forum" and delete each thread that deviate from today's tennis.

Is always the same case........Pete fans argue about his legacy while Roger fans defend his competition while Nadal fans defend his place in tennis.

You will never stop that unless you go private but even then, the discusion will resume once something happens in the tennis world.

I have noticed that went people just get outplay in a discussion and can't defend their argument.......they complain about the state of affairs.

[monstertruck]

Hey guys...you can open a "Comparison Forum" and delete each thread that deviate from today's tennis.

Is always the same case........Pete fans argue about his legacy while Roger fans defend his competition while Nadal fans defend his place in tennis.

You will never stop that unless you go private but even then, the discusion will resume once something happens in the tennis world.

I have noticed that went people just get outplay in a discussion and can't defend their argument.......they complain about the state of affairs.

Yeah, sort of like the democrats prior to the election....   Excellent point H4U!

[dmastous]

Hey guys...you can open a "Comparison Forum" and delete each thread that deviate from today's tennis.

Is always the same case........Pete fans argue about his legacy while Roger fans defend his competition while Nadal fans defend his place in tennis.

You will never stop that unless you go private but even then, the discusion will resume once something happens in the tennis world.

I have noticed that went people just get outplay in a discussion and can't defend their argument.......they complain about the state of affairs.

That's pretty much what I said. Only I didn't take a shot.
The bottom line for me is I don't care whether Sampras or Federer, or Laver was better. I don't care to compare eras or players. I enjoy tennis as a sport, more playing than watching. The endless arguments and chest thumping that has been going is incredibly tedious and boring.

[Emma]

Some of you are complaining like school girls. I for one have no problems what discussions take place where. You will never see me going to a thread and say, "oh, this is not the right place to do this or do that or say this or say that." I live and let live. Plain and simple. Rules are always meant to be broken anyway. I also don't get all bent out of shape if things don't go my way. I do everything for fun. I am in finance so I have a very busy work life. With market being fluctuating all the time, it's not pretty. After I get home, I am pretty tired and not often enough I feel the need to argue. So I will say things when and if I feel like it or won't at all, but it will be hardly because I am cornered. Just don't work too hard on you posts as you never know what kind of mood I will be in. Oh and I am very secure in every possible way--even as Pete fan. You have to be or else it will take the fun out of you.

My advice - just relax and take it easy. I am telling you, life is too short.

[huntingyou]

Hey guys...you can open a "Comparison Forum" and delete each thread that deviate from today's tennis.

Is always the same case........Pete fans argue about his legacy while Roger fans defend his competition while Nadal fans defend his place in tennis.

You will never stop that unless you go private but even then, the discusion will resume once something happens in the tennis world.

I have noticed that went people just get outplay in a discussion and can't defend their argument.......they complain about the state of affairs.

Yeah, sort of like the democrats prior to the election....   Excellent point H4U!

I find democrats as amussing as Republicans....the sad part is for the most part they have a higher IQ which make their failures more miserable.

I'm fine with getting rid of Pelosi, Reid, Barnes, Todd and all those incompetents good for nothing. My hope is the President-Elect knows who he is dealing with and will put them in their place! If not......we are all screw!