Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: "bob" <stein100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:56:13 -0400
"Habib" <andrew.reys@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8a4213c3-e658-4f99-90d7-fe9717aa848a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, "bob" <stein...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:"StephenJ" <sjar...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2a64402f-3b4f-4660-a6ae-9bf6d39b6bfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 16, 7:08 pm, "bob" <stein...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "StephenJ" <sjar...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:a1f606d4-e90e-4df4-8849-180a716ea8d3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > On Sep 15, 4:45 pm, "bob" <stein...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> truth be told, nobody ever played to his own peak more consistently
> >> than
> >> federer. nobody close. his consistency is >absolutely amazing.
> >> the only questions we have is if his best beats rafa's best anywhere
> >> and
> >> if
> >> it beats sampras/mac's best on grass.
> >> i honestly think no on both accounts.
> >truth be told, those are pointless questions.
>> mathematically, sure. but i know you're not a mathematics prof, please
>> don't
>> tell me you're a 'humanities' prof either? :-) but in reality opinions
>> (not
>> mine necessarily) are very important on this.
>How so? Everyone says Fed is goat, or just about everyone. These are
>pointless questions from a goat perspective.
because they're liable to change their minds - mathematics won't change, but
opinions will.
and the opinions that will change just MAY be top level analysts, former
champs, etc.
>> >Pete was absolutely brilliant in his ability to capitalize on the >> >main
>. >chance when it presented itself. He was often bounced early from
>> >slams, but when a favorable path or draw developed, or when he was
> >>playing particularly well, he was killer at exploiting it all the way
> >>through to the title.
>> he was killer at winning Wimbledons and fast HC USOs. and not by >> chance -
>> because he had a great ability to focus, no chokes when it counted, >> and
>> his
>> style played incredibly well on fast courts (very good on med courts
>> too).
>> it was a choice - not a chance.
> .. but Fed's style plays incredibly well on fast surfaces too. He won
*5 straight* Ws and USOs, for crissakes.
that's irrelevant to the previous paragraph though.
>> >Looking at thoseslam-match won stats, anyone would infer that Federer
>> >won 7-8 more slams than Sampras, instead of just one. Fed's all-court
> >>genius game which put him in a position to win far more slams than
> >>Sampras ended up just barely surpassing Pete - an astonishing
> >>testament to Pete's ability to strike when the iron was hot.
>> fed might get 20 yet, no?
> nope. I'd say it's 50-50 that Fed has won his last slam. He's fading
pretty quickly and new guys are on the rise.
:-) fed's playing his best stuff for 2 more yrs, he promised, and he made 4
finals this yr.
i see 1 more wimbledon in him for sure - because he wants it very badly.
other than that, he may end up with 18, but i think 16 for sure, 50/50 for
17.
bob
Bit of a surprising prediction - 50/50 for 17 seems slightly short
when you consider that he's just about averaged 2/year since 2003.
the clowns returned their masks.
bob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: CloudsRest
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: StephenJ
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- References:
- Slam points earned in 2009
- From: Vrai Cinico
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: StephenJ
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: bob
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: StephenJ
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: bob
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: StephenJ
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: bob
- Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- From: Habib
- Slam points earned in 2009
- Prev by Date: Re: JMDP or Nadal: who gave Roger the biggest drubbing?
- Next by Date: Re: JMDP or Nadal: who gave Roger the biggest drubbing?
- Previous by thread: Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- Next by thread: Re: Slam points earned in 2009
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|