Roger has competition and most of them are not mentally weak. Lets face it you just dont like him, that is obvious just from reading your posts, and dont like that he is going to break Sampras's records and would rather somebody else be winning as he gets closer to taking those records away.
I COULDN"T CARE LESS if roger wins 100 majors.
what I don't like is the HYPE based on a dominance over a CLEARLY weak period in tennis.
little by little -- unless you have MISSED IT -- the pundits that jumped onto his bandwagon early are realizing and remarking that --- as connors put it:
"ROGER IS SURROUNDED BY PLAYERS WHO JUST LET HIM RUN AWAY WITH IT.....HE COULDN'T BE IN A BETTER POSITION....IF I WAS ROGER, I WOULD BE VERY , VERY GRATEFUL".
as McEnroe said on BBC radio THIS year in wimbledon -- when pressed by difference callers to QUITE sidestepping the issue:
"WE HAVE TO ADMIT that there really isn't ALL that great a competiiton nowadays, especially at the top".
"Pete just ahd that much bigger of a game than roger. and at their peaks, Pete would beat roger -- pete just wouldn't permit roger to get comfortable at all."
"I maintain that the game that I played -- a mixed game , an attacking game -- which pete player much bigger and better than me -- would beat the best baseliner -- and roger is a baseliner".
little reported -- of course -- but I heard it myself, live. i was laughing so hard because McEnroe tried for a whole half hour to say it-= untlil different callers cornered him and told him basically :
"we've watched all these players since borg or laver and we live around here -- just stop beating around the bush and say what you REALLY think" and gave McEnroe -- separately
3 crucial question:
"IS roger's competition REALLY that good?"
"What would YOU do if you played today , with the raquets, young again, against ROger?"
"AT their peaks -- who would win, Roger or Pete?"
anyone can check with BBC if they keep these in Archives.
it was a radio -= live call in session just after a semis match of roger, i believe.
in the end -- mcenroe - one of the leading voices about how "good roger is and the best ever"
eventually had to ADMIT the TRUTH that HE and many of them CLEARLY are sitting on ....
it only takes a PRECISE questioning to put them on the hotspot. to be as firthright as
say -- WILANDER? or CONNORS?
and stop avoiding to "rock the boat" shall we say?
the "boat" being "roger is the best ever, and has such GREAT competition".
and boromir just put a quote there -- i didn't even realize Wilander added that recently:
at their best "if you are talking about the level pete played when he played well -- there is no way roger would beat him".
there is a little noticed remark or , rather, REACTION -- of roger that is UNCHARACTERISTICALLY lacking in CONFIDENCE
when he was asked pointedly once -- this year:
"Roger with all your accomplishments now and everyone talking about how good you are -- who do you think is really better? you or pete?"
took some moments to answer, nd haltingly -- very uncharacteristic of him -- responded :
"aaa..uhm. well.....i don't know, you have to ask others, aaaa......mmm ...welll.... maybe him... i don't know, i don't know".
NO ROGER DEAR -- YOU DO KNOW -- you were taken aback by how DIRECT THE QUESTION was laid TO YOU just when EVERYONE thinks YOU are and you began to BELIEVE the hype!
but deep in your consciousness you KNOW you ARE lucky to have met pete OR many of his rivals in their DECLINE
along with so many6 mediocrities and burnouts surrounding you !
do i "hate roger?:"
nope -- i simply abhor the HYPE!