2016 Wimbledon

[nuraman00]

So Pete won two clay titles and has the distinction of winning Rome that Fed never won. Also his year end no.1 six straight times is untouched. I believe Fed was close and maybe a few matches away from getting it so he could tie Pete.

This says 3 clay titles:

Pete Sampras career statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10.

July 20, 1992 Kitzbühel, Austria Clay Alberto Mancini 6–3, 7–5, 6–3
28. May 9, 1994 Rome, Italy Clay Boris Becker 6–1, 6–2, 6–2
54. April 27, 1998 Atlanta, USA Clay Jason Stoltenberg 6–7(2–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)


It looks like that Atlanta tourney isn't the one that we currently have on hard courts in July.

Rome is legit, though:

1994 Italian Open – Men's Singles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also had to beat Correjta, a future 2-time FO Finalist.

 

[nuraman00]

So Pete won two clay titles and has the distinction of winning Rome that Fed never won. Also his year end no.1 six straight times is untouched. I believe Fed was close and maybe a few matches away from getting it so he could tie Pete.

I don't think FED was that close:

List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 - 2007 was 4 years in a row.

He also did it in 2009 (made all 4 GS Finals, winning 2).

But, in 2008, he did make 3 Finals, but won only 1, while Nadal won 2.

Final standings were 1335 for Nadal, 1041 for FED.

2008 ATP Tour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess you can say that he would have done it if he'd won 2008 Wimbledon, but I don't know, I'd say just let Nadal have that one.

If I'm doing to play the "if" game, I'd rather have had FED not lose to Safin in 2005, especially when he had match point in the 4th set, and tried a between the legs shot, and lost the point. He would go on to lose the match.

That "if he would have won a match" scenario is closer, IMO. It wouldn't have changed his year end result, as he was already # 1. But it would have added more to his career, as he likely would have beaten Hewitt in the Finals, and then had 5+ majors at 3 GS (AO, Wimbledon, USO).

Also, as for Sampras ending year end # 1, he didn't have much competition for other players that could consistently make GS Finals, like Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal do.

 

[nuraman00]

Like a previous poster stated, Murray was reading the serve. Milos also looked a bit tight. Pulled up on some shots and even an overhead. Murray was hot the whole tourney and looked like he would take this title early on. He blew away everyone he faced except for 1 match. Well done.

Asking a random question.

Is Murray better than McEnroe, if Murray's career ended today?

 

[Old Lion]

Asking a random question.

Is Murray better than McEnroe, if Murray's career ended today?

You will have to be more specific. Better how? Singles only? Stats only?

 

[nuraman00]

You will have to be more specific. Better how? Singles only? Stats only?

Singles only.

Total career accomplishments? Overall degree of complete game?

McEnroe has 7 majors, 4 more Finals, 8 more SFs.

Murray has 3 majors, 8 more Finals, 9 more SFs. Arguably against better competition, which might make up some of the difference.

Another side note. I'm glad Murray was able to win Wimbledon this time, without skipping the French Open.

 

[cezero]

I know you didn't ask me, but I like giving my opinions.

For me, at this point in Andy's career, he's not in the same conversation with McEnroe. McEnroe was an idiot for not going to Australia when he was at his peak. He would've won at least a couple, I'm thinking.

Outside of majors, Johnny Mac won a lot of titles, too. 70+ compared to Murray's 30.

 

[Old Lion]

Singles only.

Total career accomplishments? Overall degree of complete game?

McEnroe has 7 majors, 4 more Finals, 8 more SFs.

Murray has 3 majors, 8 more Finals, 9 more SFs. Arguably against better competition, which might make up some of the difference.

Another side note. I'm glad Murray was able to win Wimbledon this time, without skipping the French Open.

From an accomplishment standpoint it is tough. Andy has probably already played more then JMc. He had slightly better competition. Remember Mc had Connors, Lendl, Borg and the beginning of the Agassi/Sampras era. Like Borg, Mc lost interest (once he got married) in the game. Murray could win almost as many majors, but it will be a toss up numbers wise, but I will go with Mc.

Form a pure talent perspective, Mc had more natural overall talent with the racket. Maybe the best ever from that standpoint. Maybe thats why he did not appreciate it as much as others do.

Cant compare physically. Newer generations have always been more fit.

 

[bksballer89]

Sam is up to #29 in the world.

 

[nuraman00]

I know you didn't ask me, but I like giving my opinions.

For me, at this point in Andy's career, he's not in the same conversation with McEnroe. McEnroe was an idiot for not going to Australia when he was at his peak. He would've won at least a couple, I'm thinking.

Outside of majors, Johnny Mac won a lot of titles, too. 70+ compared to Murray's 30.

Wow. I didn't realize the difference was that big.

What year, give or take, did all of the top players start consistently going to the AO? As in, by this year, it had been 2 or 3 years with all of the healthy top players attending it.

Also, what channel broadcasted it in the 90s? I think in 2003, 2004, it was still split between ESPN and NBC.

If I remember correctly, there was always an awkward delay between the Womens SFs and the Men's SFs. I believe NBC used to show the Womens SFs Wednesday evening, and then either both Mens SFs, or the 2nd Mens SFs, super tape delayed Friday evening. I seem to recall an awkward feeling on that 2nd week Thursday, not having any tennis to watch.

 

[nuraman00]

From an accomplishment standpoint it is tough. Andy has probably already played more then JMc. He had slightly better competition. Remember Mc had Connors, Lendl, Borg and the beginning of the Agassi/Sampras era. Like Borg, Mc lost interest (once he got married) in the game. Murray could win almost as many majors, but it will be a toss up numbers wise, but I will go with Mc.

Form a pure talent perspective, Mc had more natural overall talent with the racket. Maybe the best ever from that standpoint. Maybe thats why he did not appreciate it as much as others do.

Cant compare physically. Newer generations have always been more fit.

Thanks. I only saw Mac in the early 90s, when he was almost about to retire.

Becker, Thomas Muster, Edberg, Courier were also there overlapping a little.

 

[Old Lion]

Thanks. I only saw Mac in the early 90s, when he was almost about to retire.

Becker, Thomas Muster, Edberg, Courier were also there overlapping a little.

Yes Becker and Edberg too of course. They basically overtook the tour in the mid 80s from Mc & Co. Becker might have been 1 of the main reason Mc fizzled out too. No more easy grass titles.

 

[cezero]

Sam is up to #29 in the world.

nice accomplishment for him.

he's unlikely to be much of a factor at any big tournament again, but very nice for him.

 

[Hs0022]

Mac used to be in awe of Becker, the chain of awe for others extend from Boris to Pete to Federer and finally to Nadal. That man has jumped on so many bandwagons and condemned the previous ones is what pissed me off about him as a commentator. That said we should use commentating as a criteria and wait for Murray to retire and get in the box before declaring who is greater. And it will be Murray hands down i bet. Cause I have found British commentators to be far better than your average American dude.

 

[Hs0022]

This says 3 clay titles:

Pete Sampras career statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10.

July 20, 1992 Kitzbühel, Austria Clay View attachment 135997 Alberto Mancini 6–3, 7–5, 6–3
28. May 9, 1994 Rome, Italy Clay View attachment 135998 Boris Becker 6–1, 6–2, 6–2
54. April 27, 1998 Atlanta, USA Clay View attachment 135999 Jason Stoltenberg 6–7(2–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)


It looks like that Atlanta tourney isn't the one that we currently have on hard courts in July.

Rome is legit, though:

1994 Italian Open – Men's Singles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also had to beat Correjta, a future 2-time FO Finalist.

I meant Fed was maybe one or two matches from tying Pete's overall six years no. 1, NOT consecutive (which will remain unbroken in my opinion), fed has five years done that, and Nadal stopped him from getting that record as well as two calendar year slams.

 

[bksballer89]

 

[Hs0022]

Berdy poo ahead of Fed in the race at 8. Un-freakin-believable!

 

[Hs0022]

 

[bksballer89]

US Open singles champs to earn record $3.5M

 

[nuraman00]

Berdy poo ahead of Fed in the race at 8. Un-freakin-believable!

He made the QFs at the FO, while FED registered 0 points.

 

[Hs0022]

I got a friend request on Facebook from Pete Sampras. Not sure who this person is but maybe Pete found me looking up his records!!