Following the request by Mr Motawalla, I hereby announce my retirement from first class blogging on rediff. I would like to reiterate though, that losers will be learned Tennis fans like Anurag Rathore and bango-tango.
Re: I retire
by bango tango on Jun 16, 2010 11:23 PM
dont worry Mr.Vasudevan..thr r some pathetic persons who comment like as if they know more tennis than the greats of tennis ..just like a guy called Super Hero... he argues that sampras defeated Federer after he retired....pathetic is that he doesnt understand the meaning of an exhibition match..but i ve seen that match n i know how they were playing so casually....
finally, let all those people shout from the top of the world but they cant take away millions of records of ROGER "THE GOD" FEDERER...
Sampras's carrer coincided with 4-5 all time great players. A great rivarly was going on in Wimbledon between Edberg and Boris Becker.And then there was Agassi.Jim courier was in peak with 4-5 titiles. Sampras came just trahsed everyone. Logically speaking, my point is about the quality of the competitors. Dont say,Its Federers greatness that he didnt allow anyone else to come up. He won 16 titiles and Sampras 14. Sampras opponents edberg-agassi-becker-courier each have 5-8 titles too. Look at federers opponents, how consistent they are.Sure federe wins the slams,but they should make to finals,semi-finals consistently. I can easily say there was no constant top 10 players when FED was swiping. He can take 1 position, but not all top 5 right?.. go see stats..in atp website, u can see players rankings for any given time. Just the last 2 years, Nadal has risen, we have Murray,Djokovic. Now he has competition. The real competitors who are in constant top 10.But when he has competiiton he is not that great.and is clearly second to Nadal.
Well ur so called great Hewitt and Roddick, who is stopping them from becoming no.2 players? Are they loosing in Finals to Fed?
Dont just look at 16 vs 14 titiles. Even a kid can say Fed is greater if you are looking only at that stat.
Re: Sampras
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 02:05 AM
Sampras was a GREAT PLAYER on grass & hard courts....BUT HE WAS A "faltu/pathetic" PLAYER ON CLAY....
no one has a mastery of tennis on all surfaces like GOD FEDERER...
Re: Sampras
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 02:03 AM
yes, ur Sampras could reach FO final at least once also...best performance was SF , only once... 2nd thing, Sampras used to loose matches from players ranked way below 50v; when he was at the peak ....the same never happened to Federer during his prime time... 3. The players were not physically strong during Sampras time...n also modern day tennis demands a huge lot of physical strength....
4. during Sampras time, Wimbledon Grass courts were fast enuf to suit his kind of play....the newly laid grass at wimbledon is comparatively slower...
FINALLY MR. SUPER HERO , DO U KNOW MORE TENNIS THAN BORG, SAMPRAS, WILANDER ETC....WHEN THE GREATS OF TENNIS HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT god federer IS THE GREATEST, DO WE NEED UR CERTIFICATION ??????
EVEN NADAL SAID THAT IF SOME ONE SAYS THAT FEDERER IS NOT THE GREATEST, THEN DOES NOT ANYTHING OF TENNIS...u r one of them...
Re: Re: Sampras
by super hero on Jun 15, 2010 05:36 AM
Very silly .wat else do you expect Nadal and Sampras to say when asked about Federer. Do you think they will say "No. We are greater"
In 2005, TENNIS Magazine named Sampras the greatest tennis player for the period 1965 through 2005, from its list, "The 40 Greatest Players of the TENNIS Era".
They even have a detailed analysis on the topic. If you look at that list there are 7 contemporaries of Sampras in that list of 40. There is officially, 'Tennis Hall of fame and Tennis Greatest Player', let them revise it and then you can speak.
Your comparison of Sampras vs Federer was pathetic and similar was your understanding about Tennis. Lot of things changed including Racquet in Tennis. Earlier players have mainly two types of racquest one suited for serve and volleys and other suited of baseline play. Players had to choose. Now they have lighter,stronger and more efficient ones.Just go read online. You simply cant compare the games between different eras. I think this is too much for you to understand.
If you think I am in minority for taking Sampras side, you are simply IGNORANT
Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by Sudden Lee on Jun 15, 2010 09:54 AM
As far as shot making talent goes, Federer is supreme!But i do buy ur argument that racquets have changed dramatically. When I used a Wilson Pr-Staff Classic in the 90s, it was supposed to be one of the best in the world. It now feels like a wooden racquet compared to the Heads and Babolats nowadays. However, there was no distinction b/w raquets used for serve and volley and for baseliners- thats a bit silly!U had the option of stringing ur raquet to different levels of tension according to ur style of play. this is still prevalent.
Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 15, 2010 02:41 PM
Mr.Super hero - your prejudice against Federer is obvious when you talk of a different era, playing equipment etc. Eras apply when you compare Borg to Federer. As far as Sampras and Federer, there is not much of a difference in the era and the equipments, as Sampras played till the first half of this decade even as Federer started slowly but steadily climbing the ladder. `No competition' for Federer is an oft repeated comment by Fedex baiters. Using the same logic, shall we say there are no competitors for Nadal on clay (that being Federer's least favourite surface) as the opponents faced by Fedex and Rafa till date are the same. To expect Fedex to win now, because competition has improved is illogical, because he is almost 29 and age has certainly slowed him down. Fedex dominated not because there was no competition, but because he was a genius. Hewitt, who was at his peak in the early part of this decade wen Fedex made his entry, could not win against him once Fedex started dominating the tennis scene. The same Hewitt beat him the other day at Halle! May be your knowledge of tennis is greater and you are a genius in analysis, but Fedex is a far greater genius as a tennis champion and certainly does not need certificates from `super hero' for his greatness!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by super hero on Jun 15, 2010 10:31 PM
I think you have a very short memory. Read above Bango tnagos comments abt modern day tennis and abt times when Sampras used to play. My mention of different eras was a retaliation for his understanding. Coming to being prejudiced, lets see how Federer fans fare. Here is the simple fact. Nadal rose like any other tennis great in 6 years. He won FO,Wim, Olympics Gold, ATP Finals world tour and then Autralian Open.Enroute he dethroned fed as No.1 and maintained a huge distance. This is when Fed is 26-27 and is in his peak and No 1. Then he got injured, Fed won FO. Roddick made to Wim finals. Fed was no 1. Can anyone of you dare to accept that this is not coincidence that Fed picked his clay game when Nadal is down. and when Nadal is back fully fit, he became No 1 in three months. So anyone can see the pattern here. Can anyone of u federer fans accept that Nadal is better than Fed atleast until his first half of the career. If you dont then u are prejudiced. Well whether Nadal's knees hold long enough or not is a different thing.We are not talking about predictions. Because we dont think so. Also about your argument that even Nadal doesnt have competition in clay is true. But you cannot deny the greatness in winning FO in first appearance beating world no 1. Wim finals in thrid attempt. And finally pushed aside the so called 'Greatest' to become no 1. Just listen to yourself, Fed is greatest but the one who dethroned in his peak is not. hahha
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 11:07 PM
ur fav sampra had vomitted playing 5 set matches (agnst Corretja @ US open , agnst Courier @ US open)....
had he played during this time, he could have played max 3 months in a yr just like "chaddi puller"...
Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 11:00 PM
YES n ABS YES...HOW COME sampras can SAY HE IS GREATEST WHEN HE COULD NOT MAKE IT TO FO FINAL ????WHEN HE USED TO GET DEFEATED BY PLAYERS RANKED WAY BELOW 100 (e.g, from L Paes when his rank was 103) ...
how come the "Chaddi Puller" can say hez greatest when he complains of too many hard court tournaments...he cant make it to the US final once...
i feel pity on ur knowledge, ur arguments....u r a damn cheap guy on the knowledge of tennis....
finally, samparas was considered to be greatest till 2005 ...not till 2010 :-) ... i seriously doubt wdr sampras could ve won so many matches on the MODERN DAY PHYSICALLY DEMANDING TENNIS...had FEDERER played 20 yrs back , he would have won all the slams...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by Sudden Lee on Jun 17, 2010 07:45 PM
I think u shud stop this arguement as ppl here clearly have biases, eg bang-a-buck who keeps 'vomitting' the fact tht Pete puked in a match against Corretja....obviously, for a guy like him who has never played tennis, puking is a form of physical weakness and has nothing whatsoever to do with de-hydration and lack of salinity in the body and the fact that it cusd happen to anyone on a given day. All said and done, Roger is def the best all court player as Pete favoured faster surfaces and Nadal the slower ones. Also, i think a key part of Nadal's success is his incredible fitness and the ability to turn defence into offence. I don't know if u ppl have realised this but Nadal plays better when he is given targets and angles, and as such, I think he wud have struggled against players like Lendl and Wilander. I wud also loved to have seen him play Guga on clay as Nadal's strength wud have been Guga's strength too (forehand crosscourt to backhand of Guga). Since all these deliberations are not possible, there is no point in bellowing abt ur favourites.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampras
by bango tango on Jun 16, 2010 11:06 PM
hehehheeee...u r really pathetic...i ve seen that match in the stadium itself :-) ... do u know the meaning of an exhibition match ???? they just play casullay making some f9 4 spectators...
assuming a match btwn sampras & Federer @ their peak, Federer would have thrashed him 9 out of 10 times, one loss would have happened on grass :-)
In tennis, every no.1 player takes 3-4 years to start winning after becoming pro.
Search for "Federer–Nadal rivalry" in wiki and see the table at the bottom.
Federer, end of first 4 yrs = 0 slams end of 5th yr = 1 slam end of 6 yr = 4 slams
And thats about right for every great player. Even sampras took 4 years to settle.
But Nadal, end of 1st yr = 0 slams end 2 yr = 1 slam end of 3 yr = 2 slams end of 4 = 3 end of 5 = 5 end of 6 = 6 slams..
This is when he became no.1 and won FO,Wimbledon and Aus open.Yes he is injured and he is back now. If you think every jack and jill defeated Nadal till now, go back and see Federer's first 5 years and see whom all defeated him.
Nadal is a prodigy. Just go and look at Federers performance in Wimbeldon alone from the start of his career. 1R ( first round exit), 1R,QF,1R, WON Nadal at Wimbledon: 3R,2R,F,F,won
if nadal is king of clay, then Federer is also the GOD of Grass....in fact, hez master of all courts.... if a player can win 73 matches on grass out of the last 75, he desrves to be called as the GOD OF GRASS COURT TENNIS...
Sport is not just about winning. It is enjoying the sport itself fully. It's funny that when Nadal & Federer themselves are great admirers of each others' game...why are we all talking this? Also remember Nadal himself says if any body thinks he is greater than Federer, you do not know what's tennis...so..guys..enjoy Fedex as long as he lasts...the sheer magic
"What has become clear though is that having achieved so much in the game and ripped up most of the game's records, Federer's intensity levels have dropped."
I agree with the writer here. I think after wining the french open Federer had nothing more special to achieve. Then he got twin. Now, he is all happy in his life and loses don't hurt him anymore. Whatever, what a player he's been all the years! I was not used to watch tennis but started after getting known about him. Always a treat to watch. I'm sure he'll win atleats 4-5 grand slams in future! Wish him a happy life!
Re: intensity level!
by Sagar Mulay on Jun 14, 2010 12:52 PM
4-5 more GS will take more time than it used to, what with others not fearing him anymore.I am saying this based on the fact that Roger's standards have slipped in the last 2 years and it was just shocking how he won 2 GS in 2009. It was more a case of Haas and Potro not winning their matches they should have won in French and Roddick not being able to produce the winning punch in Wimbledon. Afterall the last game of the match was the only time he lost his serve.
Re: intensity level!
by Sreekumar kumaran on Jun 14, 2010 12:55 PM
Even though Federer won more grand slam than sampras and considered as greatest player in the history of tennis , there is some outcomings. He achieved all these when there is not a strong opponent. look agassi almost retired and sampras also in his last stage of career when fedrer came and others like roddick, hewitt and all not that much talented.. so when Finally Nadal came federer started losing matches.. nadal leeds fedrer till now. when sampras was number one he was always challenged by agassi and Lendel by Becker and Edburg.. so federer is only chmapion of his time and never greatest player of tennis history, which suits to Sampras and Born berg.
Re: Re: intensity level!
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 12:25 AM
Sree , u dont know anything...shut ur mouth...do u expect every era of tennis to have the same kind of players ???? had Federer been beaten up by Roddick, Hewitt, u would have said that he was playing wd tougher opponents.....rather Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian r no mock in tennis.... Federer has played in the era of : 1. Roddick - boasting of fastest serves 2. Fernando Gonzalez - the fearsome forehands tennis has ever seen 3. Hewitt(b4 his operation)- a finest grass court player 4.Davydenko - at 5'10" , the quickest court coverage player 5.Soderling/nalbandian- the big hitting guys...
fyi...after last yr's loss to Federer in the FO final, soderling had said I'm not that a bad player that some1 can defeat me 10 times consecutively....in fact, apart from Federer, no one can defeat continously so many times...
Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by Sreekumar kumaran on Jun 15, 2010 03:24 PM
Dear friend u had given the specification for each players roddick, Fernado gonzales etc but anyone is consistent?. answer is no one.. so when Nadal came and became consistent from 2005 onwards fedrer started losing to him and finally his No.1 position. so iam saying Federer is great and complete player of his time but not greatestas some people says.
Re: Re: intensity level!
by naveen dhanerwal on Jun 14, 2010 01:08 PM
*shocked* Sree, Nadal has been here for 6-7 years now and he has won just 7 titles but at the same time Federer won almost every title except french, has been in all semifinals and finals but what about your so called talented Nadal? It's rubbish to say Federer didin't face storng opponent but he made them look less talented with his sheer class! Man, playing every semifinal for 23 times and 20 or 21 finals out of them isn't a joke! If it's then why didn't anybody else did so? yaar, if you can't accept someone's maestro then atleast plaese..don't discredit his achievements!
Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by Raghu Veeru on Jun 14, 2010 04:19 PM
I think you are not getting the point. He has played 23 semifinals y bcos there were not enough challengers to test him. Only Nadal could do it. Nadal has beatern him 14 times out of 21 times.
Except Nadal no one could dominate him. Please understand the view point, rather than simply boasting the facts
Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by naveen dhanerwal on Jun 14, 2010 04:38 PM
That's what i'm saying raghu dear! If Nadal is that much talented, he should have played in every semifinal and final as did Federer. 23 semifinals in trot means a period of 6 years! How many finals and semifinals Nadal has played in this period? The fact is only Nadal (for some reasons) is beating Federer but no one else and on the other hand Nadal is being beaten by many! His 14-7 records looks better because of his dominance on clay court. I don't know exactly but someone said once that on clay it's 12-2! So on rest courts Federer is 5-2!
Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 12:34 AM
if ur so called greats have played so many matches in the modern day physically demanding tennis , they would have fainted :-) ... Remember, Federer played 756 matches without retiring...tell me a player who has played that many mathes without getting injured....FEDERER IS THE FITTEST EVER PLAYER OF TENNIS... the so called great sampras used to vomit during 5 set matches ( agnst Alex Corretja @ US open & agnst Courier @ US open)...
how many matches were being played on hard courts during Borg/Lendl/Laver era ????how many were played on deco turfs ???? in fact, Aus/US open were played on grass courts....
Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by Sreekumar kumaran on Jun 15, 2010 03:43 PM
Hi Naveen,
i admit Nadal came to ATP rankings for 6 years but when he became gud player and started winning trophies? that is from 2005 onwards. Then what happened to federer? did he is the same player?. No he started losing and finally lost his No.1 spot to nadal. Nadal is not at all complete player like fedrer and sampras, he is physically strong and plays with his muscle power but finally what it matters whether he won matches. If federer is such a great player he has to dominate Nadal. but we often see the helpless Federer in front of Nadal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by naveen dhanerwal on Jun 15, 2010 04:46 PM
Sree....try to understand what i'm saying dude! Since 2005, 22 grand slams have been played, nadal won 7 of them, I think Roddick or Murrey won 1, rest 13-14 won by Federer, what does this show to you? Federer was in every final in clay against nadal, but was nadal there in other courts finals against federer? Grand slams- Federer-14, Nadal 7!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by naveen dhanerwal on Jun 15, 2010 04:49 PM
@ Sree.. Nadal is right from the time since Federer had started wining his grand slams! So there is no point in saying that Federer didn't face strong opponent!
Re: Re: intensity level!
by prashant sharma on Jun 14, 2010 01:55 PM
sreekumar;s comment is pathetic. that is all i have to say. i cant even criticize this sad comment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by jackue baumer on Jun 14, 2010 06:14 PM
Sree is spot on.The greats of the game are all gone and you cannot compare federers and nadals to them.Though i think these two would have worked even harder if there were players like landl ,borgs and even sampras
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by bango tango on Jun 15, 2010 12:29 AM
@Jackue...i doubt wdr ur so called greats could have lasted for so many yrs to the modern day physically demanding tennis.... Remember, Federer played 756 matches without retiring...tell me a player who has played that many mathes without getting injured....FEDERER IS THE FITTEST EVER PLAYER OF TENNIS... the so called great sampras used to vomit during 5 set matches ( agnst Alex Corretja @ US open & agnst Courier @ US open)...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: intensity level!
by super hero on Jun 15, 2010 01:46 AM
Completely agree with sree! In tennis, every no.1 player takes 3-4 years to start winning after becoming pro.
Search for "Federer–Nadal rivalry" in wiki and see the table at the bottom.
Federer, end of first 4 yrs = 0 slams end of 5th yr = 1 slam end of 6 yr = 4 slams
And thats about right for every great player. Even sampras took 4 years to settle.
But Nadal, end of 1st yr = 0 slams end 2 yr = 1 slam end of 3 yr = 2 slams end of 4 = 3 end of 5 = 5 end of 6 = 6 slams..
This is when he became no.1 and won FO,Wimbledon and Aus open.Yes he is injured and he is back now. If you think every jack and jill defeated Nadal till now, go back and see Federer's first 5 years and see whom all defeated him.
Nadal is a prodigy. Just go and look at Federers performance in Wimbeldon alone from the start of his career. 1R ( first round exit), 1R,QF,1R, WON Nadal at Wimbledon: 3R,2R,F,F,won
Re: Re: Come on Fredie
by Shiva MS on Jun 14, 2010 11:09 PM
yeah we ll see about that!! Last year may players peaked like cilic, del potro, soderling and davydenko. This year not many are around. Djokovic seems to be fading away and Murray has never been the same player again after that loss at oz open. Nadal has won the french. Nobody ever doubted he will win there. But french open is the only thing nadal has won many times. It remains to be seen what he will do here at the wimbledon. Beating federer in a best of 5 set match that not many have been able to realize. Good luck to rafa and federer. I have a feeling both andy roddick and murray will be sniffing their chances here. With other players fading and federer and rafa not exactly at their best, this is a great time for roddick or murray to break through. I wont be surprised if Rafa fails to win at wimbledon. Lets see
