Official "sarcastic" US Open thread

[Sarcastic]

Very much a chicken or the egg argument there. Not a whole lot of room for other greats to profile themselves when a prime Federer barely leaves anything on the table. And then there is Nadal right after Federer, very much on his way himself to reaching that same status.

If you look at the guys Sampras beat in the finals, though, it's not more impressive than Federer's. There is Agassi, but do you really think guys like Michael Chang, Ivanisevic and Pioline are better than guys like Roddick, Djokovic or Hewitt?

I don't see it.

Courier, prime Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, and Muster were all better than Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt.

All three of those guys are total head cases, and completely lose it in the tough moments. Aside from them, there is no one else in this era even worth mentioning. That is why this era is so weak.

[bokes15]

Courier, prime Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, and Muster were all better than Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt.

All three of those guys are total head cases, and completely lose it in the tough moments. Aside from them, there is no one else in this era even worth mentioning. That is why this era is so weak.

And i'd venture to say that Nadal when it's all said and done is going to be a better player than Agassi, so both players can't be discounted individually.

[Sarcastic]

And i'd venture to say that Nadal when it's all said and done is going to be a better player than Agassi, so both players can't be discounted individually.

Nadal and Federer are better than all those guys, yes. I am not arguing against them. They both will finish top 5 all time. After them, there is nothing else though.

[boozehound]

Nadal and Federer are better than all those guys, yes. I am not arguing against them. They both will finish top 5 all time. After them, there is nothing else though.

clearly you have never seen me play tennis.

[LJJ]

Courier, prime Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, and Muster were all better than Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt.

All three of those guys are total head cases, and completely lose it in the tough moments. Aside from them, there is no one else in this era even worth mentioning. That is why this era is so weak.

Courier was a beast for about three years, only relevant for maybe one year of Sampras' reign. Becker as a shell of his former self during Sampras' prime.

All of the other guys you mentioned (save Agassi) don't even remotely have the resume's to back you up.

The more you argue the less I see it. These were the giants during Sampras' prime that made his era so much stronger than Federer's era? Thomas Muster? Really?

[bokes15]

Nadal and Federer are better than all those guys, yes. I am not arguing against them. They both will finish top 5 all time. After them, there is nothing else though.

So you call guys like Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin as nobody while you list guys like out of prime Becker, one title winning Muster, 2 time champ Kafelnikov, Stich who only won once and in 91, etc etc... Based on the people you've given as examples i'd say it's fairly even.

[Sarcastic]

Becker was not a shell, nor out of prime. He was in his mid 20s in the 1990s. He didn't hit 30 until 1997. Kafelnikov and Muster both were ranked number 1. Stich was a great player who got up as high as the number 2 in the world, and was always a force at Wimbledon.

Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt have been some of the most inconsistent players of all time. All three have absolutely great games, but don't have the mental strength nor dedication to keep it up.

[bokes15]

Becker was not a shell, nor out of prime. He was in his mid 20s in the 1990s. He didn't hit 30 until 1997. Kafelnikov and Muster both were ranked number 1. Stich was a great player who got up as high as the number 2 in the world, and was always a force at Wimbledon.

Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt have been some of the most inconsistent players of all time. All three have absolutely great games, but don't have the mental strength nor dedication to keep it up.

Sampras won the majority of his titles between 1995 and 2000. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Becker won 5 of his 6 slam titles between 1985-91, also not a opinion.

[bdreason]

Please continue this argument in this thread, not in the U.S. Open thread.

[Sarcastic]

Sampras won the majority of his titles between 1995 and 2000. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Becker won 5 of his 6 slam titles between 1985-91, also not a opinion.

That doesn't mean he wasn't competitive during that time. He was still making appearances in finals, and semi finals during that time, unlike guys like Hewitt and Roddick who are already out of the US Open this year in the first week.

[bokes15]

That doesn't mean he wasn't competitive during that time. He was still making appearances in finals, and semi finals during that time, unlike guys like Hewitt and Roddick who are already out of the US Open this year in the first week.

Hewitt's career was derailed by injuries, but in his prime he was one of the best counter punchers in the game. Roddick has been pretty consistent his entire career and has regularly found himself in the top 10 year after year making quarters, semi's, and finals, with the occasional early exit. But of course if you're judging his entire career based on his play after his epic loss to Federer at Wimbledon 09 then I would be able to see how that comment is justified.

[LJJ]

That doesn't mean he wasn't competitive during that time. He was still making appearances in finals, and semi finals during that time, unlike guys like Hewitt and Roddick who are already out of the US Open this year in the first week.

Dude, before you start posting more I have some vital information for you:

These days resources are readily available. There are these geeks who put all this data on a site called wikipedia. We can fact check what you say in about 1,27 seconds.

Just sayin'. Before you start spouting more random shit that can't be backed up.

[undertaker21]

Dude, before you start posting more I have some vital information for you:

These days resources are readily available. There are these geeks who put all this data on a site called wikipedia. We can fact check what you say in about 1,27 seconds.

Just sayin'. Before you start spouting more random shit that can't be backed up.

I know right? I've checked up on a TON of shit that he pulled out of his ass and found it to be false or made up. It's just getting pathetic at this point that he won't give it up.

[Sarcastic]

Hewitt's career was derailed by injuries, but in his prime he was one of the best counter punchers in the game. Roddick has been pretty consistent his entire career and has regularly found himself in the top 10 year after year making quarters, semi's, and finals, with the occasional early exit. But of course if you're judging his entire career based on his play after his epic loss to Federer at Wimbledon 09 then I would be able to see how that comment is justified.

Roddick has lost early at Wimbledon 5 times in 10 years, in a tournament he should do very well at. At the US Open, other than winning it in 2003 before Fed took off, he has not gotten past the quarter finals. At the Aus Open, he has made 4 semis, but also lost early on about 3 times too. Never made a final there. I won't even list the French Open.

Hewitt was really good in 2001 and 2002, but since then really hasn't been much of a factor in anything else. He has made a final here and there, but there has been almost no consistency from him.

[Sarcastic]

Dude, before you start posting more I have some vital information for you:

These days resources are readily available. There are these geeks who put all this data on a site called wikipedia. We can fact check what you say in about 1,27 seconds.

Just sayin'. Before you start spouting more random shit that can't be backed up.

Everything I said is completely backed up by fact. I didn't say he won some shit like the Mars Open or something.

Becker was ranked in the top 6 in 1996, and top 3 in 1995. He was still a factor.