Re: TENNIS; Sampras Loses Cool, Match, Slam Chance (Sorry it's painful to read)

On 30 huhti, 18:25, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:23:36 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc



<micha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30 huhti, 17:55, ahonkan <ahon...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:23 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 30, 9:19 am, ahonkan <ahon...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:14 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"ahonkan" <ahon...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Apr 30, 8:25 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He was nervous and played a bad match in the twilight of his career.
How does that disqualify him as a GOAT candidate? Did Federer's
miserable performance against Fish disqualify him as a GOAT candidate?

Joe Ramirez

Maybe if Fish beats him at a slam and not a tuneup?

oh yes because we forget Fed doesn't bother trying at tuneups, just like he
didn't bother trying to win Monte Carlo, what a joke.

Not my point. I only underlined distinction between losing at a
tuneup to an in-form player who went on to reach the final (Fish)
v losing to losing at a slam to an ordinary player in indifferent
form
who promptly lost in the next round.
If Fish beats Fed in R1 at the FO and then goes on to lose in R2,
the comparison would be fair.

At the 2003 FO, Federer (no. 5 seed) lost in R1 to Luis Horna
(straight sets). In R2, Horna lost to Verkerk. That fair enough for
you?

Joe Ramirez

Fair enough.
As long as you realize that 2003W was the birth of Super-Fed
whereas Sampras was at his peak when he lost to the likes of
Galo Blanco.
If it needs repetition, my point was that Fed's loss to Fish in a
tuneup was not a fair comparison to Pete's loss to Gaudenzi
at FO. I never said anything about either loss damaging GOAT
credentials.
I am not a slammist and therefore in terms of sustained,
all-round, total dominance, Fed far outshines Pete.
I am sure Whisper will respond with his usual irrelevant
'7 W vs 5, 5 USO vs 4' stuff, but we'll ignore it as always.

It is still simple.

Pete is current GOAT just because his numbers.

Fed can be GOAT sometime.

Fed has had the most incredible several season in a row (03-07). Borg
had similar numbers and similar domination but it did no last. We will
see whether Fed keeps going on.

All the greats get creds for their doings...Connors for his longevity,
Lendl for his consistency, Agassi for his winning all big ones, Mac
for his great 84...Fed has magnificent 03-07 in his bag but it still
lacks against Sampras just because he is with his numbers fighting the
same numbers Sampras had (winning the same slams with quite similar
mixtures).

To surpass Sampras this year Fed has to use magic wand. Next year it
is a kind of a possibility.

.mikko

Sampras is goat by the numbers ONLY if you take the good and ignore
the bad.

Otherwise it's Borg.

I had Borg GOAT until Sampras got his last USO. I do not like Sampras
but I cannot fight against his numbers.

..mikko
.

Relevant Pages