OT- French Open tennis

[huskiesnyc]

Nadal beats Djokovic to win his 9th French Open title. He also tied Pete Sampras for his 14th Major and only 3 behind Federer on the all time list. If he stays healthy I think he has a good chance to win 20.

 

[sammydabiz]

In other news...

I took two poops yesterday

 

[BUHusky]

Nadal just padding his resume as the greatest of all time.

 

[huskiesnyc]

Nadal just padding his resume as the greatest of all time.

What's amazing is he also has 6 runner ups and lost some due to injury. Federer cleaned up a bunch of slams during the true "black hole" of tennis where he just needed to get by guys like Roddick. I still think Sampras was the best but Nadal is making a serious case

 

[husky99]

Nadal is amazing but falling apart with injuries

 

[BUHusky]

What's amazing is he also has 6 runner ups and lost some due to injury. Federer cleaned up a bunch of slams during the true "black hole" of tennis where he just needed to get by guys like Roddick. I still think Sampras was the best but Nadal is making a serious case

Exactly. The Roddick/Safin/Hewitt years weren't exactly a golden era for the sport, rather, as you correctly pointed out it was more of a black hole in which Fed piled up some gaudy numbers. Though it's crazy to think the only people Federer has ever lost to in a major final are Rafa (6 times) and Del Po. He beat Djoker the one time they played in a final and has owned Murray in their 3 encounters.

I'd definitely put Sampras top 5, maybe even top 3, but his complete failure on clay prevents him from being any higher on my list. Rafa and Fed have both proven their abilities on all surfaces, both one major each away from a double career grand slam.

 

[BUHusky]

Nadal is amazing but falling apart with injuries

Sure various injuries have cost him time over the years, and his back probably cost him the Aussie Open title this year, but he just won the French for the 9th time and has 14 majors overall. I wouldn't exactly call that "falling apart with injuries".

 

[huskiesnyc]

Exactly. The Roddick/Safin/Hewitt years weren't exactly a golden era for the sport, rather, as you correctly pointed out it was more of a black hole in which Fed piled up some gaudy numbers. Though it's crazy to think the only people Federer has ever lost to in a major final are Rafa (6 times) and Del Po. He beat Djoker the one time they played in a final and has owned Murray in their 3 encounters.

I'd definitely put Sampras top 5, maybe even top 3, but his complete failure on clay prevents him from being any higher on my list. Rafa and Fed have both proven their abilities on all surfaces, both one major each away from a double career grand slam.

Sampras played against much better players than Fed with guys like Agassi, Courier, McEnroe, Lendle, Edberg, Becker, and Rafter. You honestly can't even compare the level of competition. There were also several clay court specialists like Kuerten, Muster, Brugera and many others that don't exist today. Pete's clay court results aren't much different than Federer's

 

[husky99]

Sure various injuries have cost him time over the years, and his back probably cost him the Aussie Open title this year, but he just won the French for the 9th time and has 14 majors overall. I wouldn't exactly call that "falling apart with injuries".

Good call.

 

[BUHusky]

Sampras played against much better players than Fed with guys like Agassi, Courier, McEnroe, Lendle, Edberg, Becker, and Rafter.

You can't be serious. Sure, Agassi, Rafter, and Courier were all rivals with Sampras. But McEnroe?!? Wrong era... They played 3 times total and never on clay. And Lendl? Or Edberg? Sampras never played them on clay either. Becker? Sampras played him on clay only once (in Rome) and beat him.

You honestly can't even compare the level of competition.

Yeah you're right. Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are way better competition than Agassi, Rafter, and Courier. It's not even close.

There were also several clay court specialists like Kuerten, Muster, Brugera

Sampras actually never played Kuerten on clay, beat Muster the one and only time they played on clay (which was at the French), and went 1-1 with Brugera the only 2 times they ever played on clay (which was also at the French).

Pete's clay court results aren't much different than Federer's

I'm a huge Rafa fan and don't find myself defending Fed much, but this statement is just outrageous. (I'm also a Sampras over Agassi guy, but can accept that for as amazing Sampras was on grass and hard, he was an terrible clay courter). Fed has 1 title and 4 runner ups at the French. Sampras got to the semifinals of the French just once. Federer is probably the 2nd best clay courter of his generation (though Djokovic is making a case for that spot now) and would have won multiple times at Roland Garros if Rafa wasn't around. Sampras couldn't tie his shoe laces on clay. Federer's clay court results are light years ahead of Sampras's and the numbers support that fact.

p.s.
http://www.stevegtennis.com is an awesome resource for H2H records.

 

[Hoophound]

Sampras played against much better players than Fed with guys like Agassi, Courier, McEnroe, Lendle, Edberg, Becker, and Rafter. You honestly can't even compare the level of competition. There were also several clay court specialists like Kuerten, Muster, Brugera and many others that don't exist today. Pete's clay court results aren't much different than Federer's

That was the golden age of tennis. Becker and Agassi were two of the most talented players of all time. I wish both had played regularly and seriously in their prime. The sky was the limit.

I loved the beginning of the Becker/Sampras/Agassi/Chang era along with the end of the Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg era. Just as the older guys left, Courier and others came along. I was a kid and enjoyed watching the game, especially big Wimbledon matches in the AM and legendary U.S. Open matches in the PM. As I've aged, I have abandoned tennis as a spectator sport. The characters just don't seem as compelling but I presume it is just my tastes changing rather than the players themselves.

 

[huskiesnyc]

You can't be serious. Sure, Agassi, Rafter, and Courier were all rivals with Sampras. But McEnroe?!? Wrong era... They played 3 times total and never on clay. And Lendl? Or Edberg? Sampras never played them on clay either. Becker? Sampras played him on clay only once (in Rome) and beat him.


Yeah you're right. Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are way better competition than Agassi, Rafter, and Courier. It's not even close.


Sampras actually never played Kuerten on clay, beat Muster the one and only time they played on clay (which was at the French), and went 1-1 with Brugera the only 2 times they ever played on clay (which was also at the French).


I'm a huge Rafa fan and don't find myself defending Fed much, but this statement is just outrageous. (I'm also a Sampras over Agassi guy, but can accept that for as amazing Sampras was on grass and hard, he was an terrible clay courter). Fed has 1 title and 4 runner ups at the French. Sampras got to the semifinals of the French just once. Federer is probably the 2nd best clay courter of his generation (though Djokovic is making a case for that spot now) and would have won multiple times at Roland Garros if Rafa wasn't around. Sampras couldn't tie his shoe laces on clay. Federer's clay court results are light years ahead of Sampras's and the numbers support that fact.

p.s.
http://www.stevegtennis.com is an awesome resource for H2H records.

Dude I'm shocked at how far off base you are and I honestly don't even feel like responding. I posted that Sampras played in a much more competitive era (which is accurate). You bring up zero valid points because Pete did play against guys like Edberg and McEnroe in grand slams. How is that the wrong era? Federer had a free pass for a good six years and as soon as Nadal and Djokovic came on the scene he fell off and got dominated. There was a lot more resistance when Pete played and that was the point I made.

 

[intlzncster]

Dude I'm shocked at how far off base you are and I honestly don't even feel like responding. I posted that Sampras played in a much more competitive era (which is accurate). You bring up zero valid points because Pete did play against guys like Edberg and McEnroe in grand slams. How is that the wrong era? Federer had a free pass for a good six years and as soon as Nadal and Djokovic came on the scene he fell off and got dominated. There was a lot more resistance when Pete played and that was the point I made.

The point was, Sampras came along at the tale end of those guys' (Mac, Edberg, Lendl) careers. And Federer only had a few years before those other two. Fed won his first GS in 2003. Rafael Nadal won his first GS in 2005, just two years later. Fed beat Djoko in the final of US Open in 2007, just four years after Fed's first (and Djoko won his first GS in 2008).

Federer regularly played against the greatest tennis player of all time, and one of the top 10 in Djoko. And he still managed 17 GS's and 7 more runner-ups.

 

[BUHusky]

Dude I'm shocked at how far off base you are and I honestly don't even feel like responding. I posted that Sampras played in a much more competitive era (which is accurate). You bring up zero valid points because Pete did play against guys like Edberg and McEnroe in grand slams. How is that the wrong era? Federer had a free pass for a good six years and as soon as Nadal and Djokovic came on the scene he fell off and got dominated. There was a lot more resistance when Pete played and that was the point I made.

Straw man much? You brought up that original list of names as a means to somehow rationalize why Sampras didn't find success on clay. I just pointed out that he barely ever played many of the guys on your list (clay or not, grand slam or not), so bringing up their names didn't really support your argument. Sampras stunk on clay because of he didn't have a game to adapted to clay. Not because of his era.

Also, Sampras played McEnroe once in a grand slam (and 3 times total). That hardly makes them part of the same era... By that logic Sampras and Federer are in the same era because they played once at Wimbledon...

And Federer had a free pass for 6 years? And fell off once Rafa and Djoker came on the scene? What?!? I'm not sure if you believe any of the stuff you're typing or are just trolling. Federer won his first major in 2003 and Rafa came on the scene in 2005. Djoker made his name in 2007 and Murray did in 2008. How is that 6 years? And Federer won 11 of his 17 majors in the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era. That's not exactly falling off...

Though I should have known you couldn't be taken seriously because you think that 1 semifinal versus 1 title and 4 runner ups "aren't much different". Yikes... You must be trolling.

 

[Kitaman]

In other news...

I took two poops yesterday

Come on man, no need to go there. Just because you don't enjoy watching men in tight shorts chasing balls doesn't mean others don't. If you feel that way then you better not go to the Village in the summer, where the sport is played on the sidewalks and in bars everyday.

 

[BUHusky]

The point was, Sampras came along at the tale end of those guy's (Mac, Edberg, Lendl) careers. And Federer only had a few years before those other two. Fed won his first GS in 2003. Rafael Nadal won his first GS in 2005, just two years later. Fed beat Djoko in the final of US Open in 2007, just four years after Fed's first (and Djoko won his first GS in 2008).

Federer regularly played against the greatest tennis player of all time, and one of the top 10 in Djoko. And he still managed 17 GS's and 7 more runner-ups.

I'm a huge Rafa ran, and I do think that Federer's first bunch of majors came during that "black hole" between good eras, but I still acknowledge that's Fed's beaten a lot of great players to get a majority of the slams. All of the big 4 have done that. That's why it's such a great (and brutal) era. Nadal (GOAT imo), Federer (solid #2), Djokovic (top 10 and rising), and Murray (TBD) all play each other so often, it's insane. No other generation had their top players play each other with such frequency. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[intlzncster]

I'm a huge Rafa ran, and I do think that Federer's first bunch of majors came during that "black hole" between good eras, but I still acknowledge that's Fed's beaten a lot of great players to get a majority of the slams. All of the big 4 have done that. That's why it's such a great (and brutal) era. Nadal (GOAT imo), Federer (solid #2), Djokovic (top 10 and rising), and Murray (TBD) all play each other so often, it's insane. No other generation had their top players play each other with such frequency. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It's actually funny, but Nadal is so good that people actually look at Federer's game now and are like "meh". Some of that has to do with the fact he is so machine-like, economical and effortless, but the facts are that he's playing against absolute studs. It's crazy.

 

[huskiesnyc]

Straw man much? You brought up that original list of names as a means to somehow rationalize why Sampras didn't find success on clay. I just pointed out that he barely ever played many of the guys on your list (clay or not, grand slam or not), so bringing up their names didn't really support your argument. Sampras stunk on clay because of he didn't have a game to adapted to clay. Not because of his era.

Also, Sampras played McEnroe once in a grand slam (and 3 times total). That hardly makes them part of the same era... By that logic Sampras and Federer are in the same era because they played once at Wimbledon...

And Federer had a free pass for 6 years? And fell off once Rafa and Djoker came on the scene? What?!? I'm not sure if you believe any of the stuff you're typing or are just trolling. Federer won his first major in 2003 and Rafa came on the scene in 2005. Djoker made his name in 2007 and Murray did in 2008. How is that 6 years? And Federer won 11 of his 17 majors in the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era. That's not exactly falling off...

Though I should have known you couldn't be taken seriously because you think that 1 semifinal versus 1 title and 4 runner ups "aren't much different". Yikes... You must be trolling.

The point I was making was that Sampras played against much better competition than Federer, which you clearly disagree with. No problem fellow Husky fan, but you are wrong and don't know anything about tennis.