Most Improbable Slam Championships

[Murat Baslamisli]

Ricardo, here is what I initially wrote:

"Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion."

What is the problem?

Whatever...

you know the problem, already listed. Here it goes again, 'with no clay resume to speak of, before AND "AFTER".....' HOW ABOUT 1995 RG FINAL as a clay resume? try deny that!!

whatever....

Ok, 1995 final is a great accomplishment. Now, you tell me how many RG winners you know of that has never played a final during the European clay court season? Don't you find it a bit odd at least?

 

[Ricardo]

here is what Goran was like at that stage, up till Wimbledon that year he played 13 tournaments and was 1st round loser in 6 of those and in the 5 tournaments leading up to Wimbledon he lost 4 consecutive 1st round and won exactly one match..... the guy was not playing like a ATP player, his tennis was simply bottom of a bin. Thats why it was the most amazing thing what he did a week later (beating Roddick, Rudzeski, Safin, Henmen and Rafter, 5 quality grass players in a row!) considering he couldn't even touch them only days prior.

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, here is what I initially wrote:

"Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion."

What is the problem?

Whatever...

you know the problem, already listed. Here it goes again, 'with no clay resume to speak of, before AND "AFTER".....' HOW ABOUT 1995 RG FINAL as a clay resume? try deny that!!

whatever....

Ok, 1995 final is a great accomplishment. Now, you tell me how many RG winners you know of that has never played a final during the European clay court season? Don't you find it a bit odd at least?

yes it's odd and very improbable but your claim for saying no resume before/after was simply, incorrect.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

As far as clay resumes go, who do you think has a better one Ricardo? Ferrer or Chang?

 

[Ricardo]

As far as clay resumes go, who do you think has a better one Ricardo? Ferrer or Chang?

who cares it's not the point of this discussion, it's not about comparing whose resume is better. a relevant question would be, do you think RG final was something or not? as far as clay resume goes.

also was his RG win still a fluke to you?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I already said RG final was something. And I already admitted very clearly no slam is ever a fluke when you win 7 games fair and square. Now, I am trying to understand what is a good clay resume according to you, since it IS a part of our little discussion here. That's why I asked who you consider to have a better resume on clay between David and Chang.

 

[Ricardo]

I already said RG final was something. And I already admitted very clearly no slam is ever a fluke when you win 7 games fair and square. Now, I am trying to understand what is a good clay resume according to you, since it IS a part of our little discussion here. That's why I asked who you consider to have a better resume on clay between David and Chang.

no you said he didn't have something before and after on Euro tour and that's what i disagreed, but good to see you corrected yourself here. Good you also just corrected yourself that a Slam win is not a fluke, better late than never!

I don't care whoever has 'better' resume, it's simply irrelevant to my point. My point has always been that you made the wrong claim.

 

[Kieran]

Ricardo, you know what he meant, don't be such a pedant tool...

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, you know what he meant, don't be such a pedant tool...

he specifically claimed that Chang didn't have it before and after, i didn't make it up. Besides what does this have to do with you? you should be busy trying to figure out who can serve better and why Rafa's serve isn't better than Ivo's :snigger

 

[Kieran]

Ricardo, you know what he meant, don't be such a pedant tool...

he specifically claimed that Chang didn't have it before and after, i didn't make it up. Besides what does this have to do with you? you should be busy trying to figure out who can serve better and why Rafa's serve isn't better than Ivo's :snigger

You know what he meant, and when it comes to Chang, you know he's right. There was no need for your usual "silliness..."

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I already said RG final was something. And I already admitted very clearly no slam is ever a fluke when you win 7 games fair and square. Now, I am trying to understand what is a good clay resume according to you, since it IS a part of our little discussion here. That's why I asked who you consider to have a better resume on clay between David and Chang.

no you said he didn't have something before and after on Euro tour and that's what i disagreed, but good to see you corrected yourself here. Good you also just corrected yourself that a Slam win is not a fluke, better late than never!

I don't care whoever has 'better' resume, it's simply irrelevant to my point. My point has always been that you made the wrong claim.

Well, he HAD nothing before, so that point stays the same. As far as After, I conceded the Rg final.
If you can put me aside for a sec and also get over yourself , why are you having such a hard time quantifying the clay resume of Chang? You seem to think it is pretty good. Just humour me, compare it to other RG winners, or none winners like David, Novak, Almagro, Rios...Where do you put him?

 

[ftan]

Delpo in 2009 .. a teenager .. a rising star yes .. but a grand slam winner .. I didnt think so

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I can't think of any more on top of the ones already mentioned. Ivanisevic probably gets my vote. I always assumed without doing any reading on it that he had a wildcard because he was returning from an injury.

 

[Moxie]

Delpo in 2009 .. a teenager .. a rising star yes .. but a grand slam winner .. I didnt think so

This one I find a surprising addition. Delpo was nearly 21 when he won the USO, not to completely split hairs, but he was one that a lot of people pegged for the top of the game. He did have a very good 2009. I know there are plenty that growl that Federer lost that particular match, and, in retrospect, Del Potro would be slamless at this point, if he had. But I find it MORE surprising to think that Juan Martín may end up being a one-Slam wonder, rather than that he ever got one in the first place.

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, you know what he meant, don't be such a pedant tool...

he specifically claimed that Chang didn't have it before and after, i didn't make it up. Besides what does this have to do with you? you should be busy trying to figure out who can serve better and why Rafa's serve isn't better than Ivo's :snigger

You know what he meant, and when it comes to Chang, you know he's right. There was no need for your usual "silliness..."

I know what he said, about "fluke" and "no resume before and after" - who cares what he 'meant'? I am not his shrink and unlike you, i don't qualify something by making it up.

Again, when someone calls a slam winner a 'fluke', i know he is NOT right. and the claim Chang had no resume "Before/after", that's blatent making up and it is also NOT right - but of course you would disagree, you love making it up more than anyone.

 

[Moxie]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Murat said nothing about a "fluke." You brought the word in, so you must really stop putting it in his mouth. He's only made the case for Chang's win as "improbable." There's no reason for you to try to chase him down and shoot him over it. Chang turned pro in 1988 and won the French in 1989…you don't find that surprising, and perhaps, unprecedented? Make your case for Chang, but there's no need to insult Murat for making the point.

 

[Ricardo]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Murat said nothing about a "fluke." You brought the word in, so you must really stop putting it in his mouth. He's only made the case for Chang's win as "improbable." There's no reason for you to try to chase him down and shoot him over it. Chang turned pro in 1988 and won the French in 1989…you don't find that surprising, and perhaps, unprecedented? Make your case for Chang, but there's no need to insult Murat for making the point.

this is what he said

ricardo Wrote:
(Yesterday 09:21 AM)1972Murat Wrote:
Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.


NOW YOU HAPPY? when i said Chang didn't FLUKE it out of nowhere, he SAID he TOTALLY DID. I don't put word in anyone's mouth, like what you just accused me of.

Note also he said NO clay resume to speak of before AND AFTER?

I am sorry, but you guys need to stay with the facts - obviously you never could do that right Moxie? just your forte.... and i know why.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Delpo in 2009 .. a teenager .. a rising star yes .. but a grand slam winner .. I didnt think so

That was a painful one for sure, but he did have a bit of a build up coming to US Open, no? I mean he defended the Washington title beating Roddick in the final, and than he made the Montreal final beating Roddick and Nadal on the way. Lost to Murray in the final.

So he was headed in the right direction but yeah, it was an unexpected win in the finals. Especially winning the two TBs against Roger.

 

[Ricardo]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

now just show everyone, Chang totally did WHAT?

fluked it? thanks for shutting up Moxie and Kieran.

I simply disagreed that he 'fluked' a slam and had "no clay resume before and AFTER", its nothing against you. Just didn't expect the usual tennis illiterate suspects would want to make an argument out of it :lolz:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Ricardo, I know what I said , you know what I meant when I said "he totally did" and you can believe whatever you choose to believe. It is all good. I maintain he had NO clay resume before RG and yes, I give him credit for making another RG final. You brought the word "fluke" to the discussion, talking about his next RG finals as if it could be the reason for him winning the initial one after the fact!

I am still waiting for you to rate his clay resume against other clay courters and you are silent about that. Why?