Early Wimbledon Talk

[atttomole]

I would, still,take a young Sampras or Safin during his first USO title being more talented

The two you mentioned were amazing too. Are you saying that they lost their talent as they aged?

 

[the AntiPusher]

The two you mentioned were amazing too. Are you saying that they lost their talent as they aged?

Yes..FatherTime took away Pete's lower core especially his back and legs. Safin knees and lack of focus drove him out way too soon.

 

[atttomole]

Yes..FatherTime took away Pete's lower core especially his back and legs. Safin knees and lack of focus drove him out way too soon.

True. Sampras was an excellent serve and volley player, and Safin was a brilliant baseliner, but Roger can do both, and more.

 

[the AntiPusher]

True. Sampras was an excellent serve and volley player, and Safin was a brilliant baseliner, but Roger can do both, and more.

Young Pete's serve was the best weapon ever in the game of tennis..his 2nd serve was the 2nd best weapon also. Sampras was able to annihilate the best return of serve and one of the best baseliners ever in Agassi..Sampras deep and flat strokes may have been kryptonite to Federer ability to attack.

 

[Busted]

Yes..FatherTime took away Pete's lower core especially his back and legs. Safin knees and lack of focus drove him out way too soon.

Safin's "lack of focus?" Let's call a spade a spade - he was a headcase. Beautiful game...but he was mercurial and knicked in the knob...

 

[El Dude]

Here are the latest odds after the warm-up tourneys of second week are over.

Everybody with 1% or more chance is listed below.

The odds listed below are the highest available for each player listed among various betting houses.

1. Federer 5/2
2. Andy 4
3. Rafa 5
4. Novak 13/2
5 Raonic 16
6. Cilic 20
7. Sasha 22
8. Kyrgios 25
9. Grigor 28
10. Stan 33
11. Thiem 40
12. JMDP 50
13. Tsonga/Nishikori 80

The odds seem fairly on the mark. It is not very clear as to whether JMDP will even play at Wimbledon.

I almost agree with the order, but would swap Andy and Rafa, put Cilic ahead of Raonic, and Stand ahead of Grigor and mayb Kyrgios. I'd probably also put Tsonga ahead of Delpo.

 

[atttomole]

Young Pete's serve was the best weapon ever in the game of tennis..his 2nd serve was the 2nd best weapon also. Sampras was able to annihilate the best return of serve and one of the best baseliners ever in Agassi..Sampras deep and flat strokes may have been kryptonite to Federer ability to attack.

Agassi is not Roger. Agassi was a good returner of serve, but he didn't have a serve of his own. Roger is a baseliner who has a very good serve, and he can play serve and volley when he has to. They played a single match in 2001 and Roger won in 5 sets. Yes, Sampras destroyed good baseliners like Agassi, but Roger has a different skill set that would have troubled Sampras.

 

[Busted]

Young Pete's serve was the best weapon ever in the game of tennis..his 2nd serve was the 2nd best weapon also. Sampras was able to annihilate the best return of serve and one of the best baseliners ever in Agassi..Sampras deep and flat strokes may have been kryptonite to Federer ability to attack.

Somewhere I have a US Open video of a Federer\Roddick match - 2007 QFs maybe? Agassi was a guest a commentator and McEnroe asked him to explain the difference between playing Sampras and Federer since he'd played both at the height of their game. Agassi said the difference was that Fed can squeeze you from any part of the court at any time. That when you played Sampras - you could play on equal terms and then suddenly Sampras would play great for 30 seconds and you'd be down a break. That you could play a good match against Sampras and lose 7-5, 6-4 - or you could play a bad match against Sampras and lose by the same score because Pete didn't play aggressive on EVERY point. He sort of meandered along and then dropped the hammer to win the set. Conversely Agassi said you could play a great match or a crappy match against Federer - and he could still beat you 6-1, 6-1. That you'd be thinking you were playing great tennis and look at the scoreboard and wonder what the hell just happened. I remember the 2006 Tour Finals match against James Blake...Blake was playing some pretty good tennis...and he got thumped 6-0, 6-3, 6-4 and the last 2 sets weren't even as close as they look. I tell this annecdote because I used to watch Pete's matches - especially at Wimbledon - and just shake my head that someone that good could play a 120 minute match - and be so deadly boring for 119 minutes of it. I'd watch tennis with family memebers and they'd get annoyed because I wouldn't let them turn the channel - but nothing interesting was happening in the match! Then years later I heard Agassi's explanation - and it all clicked in place. Sampras kind of lulled you into thinking things would continue along on an even kiel - and then drop the hammer. Federer, in his heyday, could not be arsed with that. He just dropped the hammer at will. He's starting to do that a bit more these days, too, and maybe it's because he knows that retirement is only a year or two away. Whatever the reason - it's good to see him throwing caution to the wind and being super aggressive again.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Agassi is not Roger. Agassi was a good returner of serve, but he didn't have a serve of his own. Roger is a baseliner who has a very good serve, and he can play serve and volley when he has to. They played a single match in 2001 and Roger won in 5 sets. Yes, Sampras destroyed good baseliners like Agassi, but Roger has a different skill set that would have troubled Sampras.

Pete was past his prime by then however Roger did win the match..Pete also lost to George Basel, remember him..I doubt any of us do. Pete was so lethal that even Becker conceded he had no answers.True Roger has turned out to be a better player and have longevity whereas Pete declined in his late 20s. Your statement was Roger was the most talented ever, for my money and eyes Sampras had something that was unique, a serve that could bomb consistently at 125-129 mph for 5 sets..Heck he even hit some bombs like that when he puked his guts up during a US Open match vs Alex Cor. He had an emotional breakdown about the tragic news that his coach had brain cancer and he still dropped those bombs on Jim Courier..its just my opinion and I understand why you feel Roger is the most talented ever.

 

[Carol]

 

[Busted]

Here are the latest odds after the warm-up tourneys of second week are over.

Everybody with 1% or more chance is listed below.

The odds listed below are the highest available for each player listed among various betting houses.

1. Federer 5/2
2. Andy 4
3. Rafa 5
4. Novak 13/2
5 Raonic 16
6. Cilic 20
7. Sasha 22
8. Kyrgios 25
9. Grigor 28
10. Stan 33
11. Thiem 40
12. JMDP 50
13. Tsonga/Nishikori 80

The odds seem fairly on the mark. It is not very clear as to whether JMDP will even play at Wimbledon.

Let's get real here. There are 4 people with a chance of winning Wimbledon - Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal - in that order. Why people continue to act like one of these other PRETENDERS is finally going to step up is beyond me. Yes, someone will get upset along the way - but ultimately 1 of the 4 will win Wimbledon. Hopefully that will be Federer. He'll probaby be the #3 seed and in Murray's half of the draw - which don't bode well for Andy IF they both make it that far. How many years has it been now since he was able to break Roger's serve in a tournament? 2014 Cinci? Kinda embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be one of the best returners in the game.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Somewhere I have a US Open video of a Federer\Roddick match - 2007 QFs maybe? Agassi was a guest a commentator and McEnroe asked him to explain the difference between playing Sampras and Federer since he'd played both at the height of their game. Agassi said the difference was that Fed can squeeze you from any part of the court at any time. That when you played Sampras - you could play on equal terms and then suddenly Sampras would play great for 30 seconds and you'd be down a break. That you could play a good match against Sampras and lose 7-5, 6-4 - or you could play a bad match against Sampras and lose by the same score because Pete didn't play aggressive on EVERY point. He sort of meandered along and then dropped the hammer to win the set. Conversely Agassi said you could play a great match or a crappy match against Federer - and he could still beat you 6-1, 6-1. That you'd be thinking you were playing great tennis and look at the scoreboard and wonder what the hell just happened. I remember the 2006 Tour Finals match against James Blake...Blake was playing some pretty good tennis...and he got thumped 6-0, 6-3, 6-4 and the last 2 sets weren't even as close as they look. I tell this annecdote because I used to watch Pete's matches - especially at Wimbledon - and just shake my head that someone that good could play a 120 minute match - and be so deadly boring for 119 minutes of it. I'd watch tennis with family memebers and they'd get annoyed because I wouldn't let them turn the channel - but nothing interesting was happening in the match! Then years later I heard Agassi's explanation - and it all clicked in place. Sampras kind of lulled you into thinking things would continue along on an even kiel - and then drop the hammer. Federer, in his heyday, could not be arsed with that. He just dropped the hammer at will. He's starting to do that a bit more these days, too, and maybe it's because he knows that retirement is only a year or two away. Whatever the reason - it's good to see him throwing caution to the wind and being super aggressive again.

Wasnt Agassi on crack during his time vs Pete in their heyday, Lol. Seriously, Agassi played Federer when he was way past his prime. True there was nothing great about watching a lot of Pete's matches. True also that Pete took breaks off during points.,how many times have we seen an opponent with a 0-40 advantage over Pete and 3 minutes later Pete had found a way to win the game by serving those bombs.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Let's get real here. There are 4 people with a chance of winning Wimbledon - Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal - in that order. Why people continue to act like one of these other PRETENDERS is finally going to step up is beyond me. Yes, someone will get upset along the way - but ultimately 1 of the 4 will win Wimbledon. Hopefully that will be Federer. He'll probaby be the #3 seed and in Murray's half of the draw - which don't bode well for Andy IF they both make it that far. How many years has it been now since he was able to break Roger's serve in a tournament? 2014 Cinci? Kinda embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be one of the best returners in the game.

Even at present form Djokovic and Murray will not loose before the 2nd week unless they run into a Krygios but he isn't healthy physically or mentally. Roger has some ghost who troubles him on grass Berdych and JowillieTs but both players are in major declines so Roger can sleep and rest peacefully.

 

[Busted]

Wasnt Agassi on crack during his time vs Pete in their heyday, Lol. Seriously, Agassi played Federer when he was way past his prime. True there was nothing great about watching a lot of Pete's matches. True also that Pete took breaks off during points.,how many times have we seen an opponent with a 0-40 advantage over Pete and 3 minutes later Pete had found a way to win the game by serving those bombs.

Crack? Andre's insulted. It was crystal meth. And Agassi wasn't talking about just himself - he meant in general. Agassi, though, like Federer was still very competitive at 34-35 with much younger players, so even though he was past his prime - he was still winning enough to make Slam Finals and semis.

Don't get me wrong about Pete - I used to root for him...but ya gotta admit...a lot of his matches were boring as hell. But, you just gave a great example of what Agassi was talking about - you thought you had an opening and them BOOM - Sampras elevated his game and dropped the hammer.

I see Carol posted a highlights reel of that 2007 USO match with Roddick but that's not the right commentary. The video I'm talking about is from the USA Network with McEnroe, Ted Robinson and Agassi. It was the full match and maybe it's been pulled for copyright reasons.

 

[Busted]

Even at present form Djokovic and Murray will not loose before the 2nd week unless they run into a Krygios but he isn't healthy physically or mentally. Roger has some ghost who troubles him on grass Berdych and JowillieTs but both players are in major declines so Roger can sleep and rest peacefully.

ITA that it's unlikely any of them will lose before the 2nd week...but I also think Djokovic is playing Eastbourne because last weekend he suddenly had a Sam Querrey flashback. Normally he doesn't play any warm-up events at all, so that's a sign to me his confidence is still not that great.

To my mind Kyrgios - if he's healthy - is probably somone who could take out any of the 4 if he's in their quarter. The question is an continues to be - can he back up a big win with another one - and another one and another one. Because he's going to have to take out at least 2, possibly 3, of the top 4 to win it. And I just don't see that from him mentally. Plus he's injured again, so that's not going to help his confidence. Then again - maybe he'll finally get tired of seeing Sasha Zverev playing the top guys in Masters 1000 and 500 event finals and suck it up.

 

[El Dude]

Let's get real here. There are 4 people with a chance of winning Wimbledon - Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal - in that order. Why people continue to act like one of these other PRETENDERS is finally going to step up is beyond me. Yes, someone will get upset along the way - but ultimately 1 of the 4 will win Wimbledon. Hopefully that will be Federer. He'll probaby be the #3 seed and in Murray's half of the draw - which don't bode well for Andy IF they both make it that far. How many years has it been now since he was able to break Roger's serve in a tournament? 2014 Cinci? Kinda embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be one of the best returners in the game.

I would disagree with your order, slotting Nadal ahead of Novak and maybe Andy. If they all make the QFs, then Rafa is definitely ahead of those two, assuming similar form to what we've been seeing.

But as for the pretenders, I think it is "real" to consider someone other than the Big Four winning, for several reasons:

1) Roger is 35, and the other three all have questions - Rafa's struggles on grass, Andy and Novak's current form
2) The "pack" is a bit closer than it was a year or two ago
3) Zverev's win at Rome opened the door from a hair to a crack
4) A fast court like Wimby = more potential for upsets, especially by hard-hitters/big servers

The bottom line: the chances of upset to any and all of the Big Four are the greatest they've ever been at a Slam, in my opinion. That said, one of them is still likely to win - but as a group it isn't like 95-99%, its like 90%.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Crack? Andre's insulted. It was crystal meth. And Agassi wasn't talking about just himself - he meant in general. Agassi, though, like Federer was still very competitive at 34-35 with much younger players, so even though he was past his prime - he was still winning enough to make Slam Finals and semis.

Don't get me wrong about Pete - I used to root for him...but ya gotta admit...a lot of his matches were boring as hell. But, you just gave a great example of what Agassi was talking about - you thought you had an opening and them BOOM - Sampras elevated his game and dropped the hammer.

I see Carol posted a highlights reel of that 2007 USO match with Roddick but that's not the right commentary. The video I'm talking about is from the USA Network with McEnroe, Ted Robinson and Agassi. It was the full match and maybe it's been pulled for copyright reasons.

i recall that commentary by Agassi and its legitimacy is pure. Question for one set for your welfare, 22-25 Sampras or Federer at that same age

 

[the AntiPusher]

I would disagree with your order, slotting Nadal ahead of Novak and maybe Andy. If they all make the QFs, then Rafa is definitely ahead of those two, assuming similar form to what we've been seeing.

But as for the pretenders, I think it is "real" to consider someone other than the Big Four winning, for several reasons:

1) Roger is 35, and the other three all have questions - Rafa's struggles on grass, Andy and Novak's current form
2) The "pack" is a bit closer than it was a year or two ago
3) Zverev's win at Rome opened the door from a hair to a crack
4) A fast court like Wimby = more potential for upsets, especially by hard-hitters/big servers

The bottom line: the chances of upset to any and all of the Big Four are the greatest they've ever been at a Slam, in my opinion. That said, one of them is still likely to win - but as a group it isn't like 95-99%, its like 90%.

El Dude..who is playing good tennis in the top ten or 20 right now? Berdych, Nishokori, JowillieTs, Krygios and the rest haven't had a good tennis season. Dimitrov can't keep it together for more than one tournament, do get me started about the illegitimacy of Pouille and we saw how Sasha got destroyed today.. Thiem game has transferred over from the clay..so all that is left is a 36 year Fed, 31 year old Rafa and two 30 year twins Djokovic and Murray who are having career worst years. Heck, Cilic and Feli odds should be up higher but I don't trust either in a best of 3 format. FatherTime and the resurgent Rafa or resurrected Novak are Roger's only obstacles, IMO.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Crack? Andre's insulted. It was crystal meth. And Agassi wasn't talking about just himself - he meant in general. Agassi, though, like Federer was still very competitive at 34-35 with much younger players, so even though he was past his prime - he was still winning enough to make Slam Finals and semis.

Don't get me wrong about Pete - I used to root for him...but ya gotta admit...a lot of his matches were boring as hell. But, you just gave a great example of what Agassi was talking about - you thought you had an opening and them BOOM - Sampras elevated his game and dropped the hammer.

I see Carol posted a highlights reel of that 2007 USO match with Roddick but that's not the right commentary. The video I'm talking about is from the USA Network with McEnroe, Ted Robinson and Agassi. It was the full match and maybe it's been pulled for copyright reasons.

Crystal Meth , its just crack to me..i am just ole school

 

[Moxie]

I would disagree with your order, slotting Nadal ahead of Novak and maybe Andy. If they all make the QFs, then Rafa is definitely ahead of those two, assuming similar form to what we've been seeing.

But as for the pretenders, I think it is "real" to consider someone other than the Big Four winning, for several reasons:

1) Roger is 35, and the other three all have questions - Rafa's struggles on grass, Andy and Novak's current form
2) The "pack" is a bit closer than it was a year or two ago
3) Zverev's win at Rome opened the door from a hair to a crack
4) A fast court like Wimby = more potential for upsets, especially by hard-hitters/big servers

The bottom line: the chances of upset to any and all of the Big Four are the greatest they've ever been at a Slam, in my opinion. That said, one of them is still likely to win - but as a group it isn't like 95-99%, its like 90%.

With respect to @Busted, the notion that only the Big 4 have a realistic chance to win Wimbledon is a failure of imagination, and a bit ignoring the year in real-time. Except for Federer, there's a percentage chance for any of the other 3 to be upset in the first week. Chances go up exponentially if they don't, obviously. Here is where each must show how much they want it. Because: who else? Much talk of Kyrgios, and I like him for a Wimbledon one day, but his hip issue is likely no joke. Sasha Zverev has exposed that his grass game is still lacking a lot of fine points, specifically net chops, even as much as he doesn't lack for ambition and the ability to learn quickly. Everyone keeps shoe-horning Del Potro into the odds race, but...seriously? Maybe he'll be "back" by the USO, but he's not winning Wimbledon. I don't care for Cilic, but I think he should be considered a higher possibility than maybe anyone outside of the Big 4. Then, maybe Stan. As to your #4, I think we may see a lot of upsets and craziness in the first week.