http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2006/12/10/92/10240359.txt

Sampras has also picked up his game since his return in April as I expected he would once he got into his rythm. I think he's won all his exbitions since August including beating Todd Martin and Jim Courier. If he was willing to travel he could cause real damage in the Masters Tour of Champions.

Sampras also comfortably defeated an on-form Roddick in an exhibition after the US Open. He's yet to rule out a return to Wimbledon this year, and if he got some serious practice in I really wouldn't see anyone being able to stop him winning it.

I'd also love to see him enter the Tour of Champions - with rumours that Chang and Krajicek (I think) are also interested, it really would be like a return to the heyday of the 1990s. I'd prefer to watch matchups like Goran v Pete and Krajicek vs Chang over the snooze-fest of current tennis any day.

You might want to look up a chap called Federer. He might have something to say about it. And you know that too Wise, but keep winding people up if it pleases you.

To be completely honest if Sampras could get himself back to anywhere near his best form (which I severely doubt at his age) him against Feds at Wimbledon would be a mouth watering contest.

As for the tour of champions, he would win nearly every tournament should he decide to play I think. At 35 that's a much better age to be playing in that tour than 30 year old Rios. And to be honest, I'd see him beating Rios easily.

Is this the BBC board? What return to Wimbledon?

Let's just enjoy the fact that Sampras is playing again and hope he returns to England one day to play an exhibition at Queens or Royal Albert Hall.

Slowly but surely it does seem to be turning into the beeb board, I agree.

I'm sure that Nick & co. will prevent it turning into the beeb board.

There are many fans of Sampras on CC. However, those who are fans of Sampras aren't usually so small minded to be anti Federer with it.

Sadly there are a few now here who can't separate the two and the board is admittedly a little worse for it.

Laurie, going back to your original posting, I think that Sampras would be a huge asset to the masters' tour. And yes he probably would beat most if not all of the players on that tour as he was better than most of them when he was playing, and most of them were from the time when he was dominant.

But for anyone to say that he could still cut it on the ATP tour is quite frankly delusional, a ludicrous idea. Dream on! roflmao

Wise, you really produced some interesting post on this board, but recently you (and the others) seem to be getting back to your old tricks. You've got to realize that you are getting close to being banned from this board with these kind of posts which are just intended to wind people up.

You know as well as I do that Sampras had trouble winning Wimbledon even before he retired. He knows this as well, and imo is quite unlikely to return. I reckon he'd still be able to cause some damage in the early rounds, but I'd be rather surprised if he made the quarters.

Well, it's a matter of preference, isn't it? As much as I like Goran --- he's a funny guy --- I didn't think today's final against Harhuis really was all that exciting (ace, ace, ace ...) compared to what we see on the tour today. Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but the fact that the condition and the styles were different shouldn't delude you into thinking that this style of game could work in today's era.

One of the commentators made an interesting point during yesterday's match: he reckoned that after the new racquets came in, people at first didn't know what to do with them, and basically it became just hitting the ball harder and harder, whereas by now people have really figured out how to use them fully, and the baseline game, parting shots etc. have really improved.

That would mean that the S&V would have eventually faded more, even without efforts to slow down the courts. Of course, there is no way to test this theory, but I found it interesting.

Pete Sampras (at around 10% of his peak level of play) had a close battle with Robby Ginepri and even managed to beat Andy Roddick, the US Open finalist, in an exhibition. There is little doubt that if Pete put his mind to the task and made a return to the tour he could do a lot of damage (he'd make the top five on his grass/hardcourt results alone). It was said recently by tennis expert, John Lloyd, that Goran Ivanisevic could still beat most players on a fast surface with his serve alone. Sampras' serve was better, plus his ground game and volleys would still be effective. If the rumours are true and the greatest of all time makes a sensational comeback to the tour at Wimbledon, he'd easily make the finals due to his serve and volley game.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Sampras could still be one of the best, even at such a late age. Jimmy Connors made the US Open semi-finals at the age of 38, and Ken Rosewall/Pancho Gonzalez were still having great results into their forties. Pete's only problem after 2000 was motivation due to having achieved his goals i.e. 7 Wimbledons, 13 slam titles. If he came back now, he'd have a rival in Federer and his desire would be just as high as it was in the nineties. If a clay player can take a set (almost two) from Federer in the Wimbledon final, who can possibly say that the grasscourt king wouldn't take not just one, but two and probably three?

I see the "cut and paste" function on your PC is working well.

Just like a 5/6 year younger Sampras easily made the final in 2001 and 2002, eh?

Lets face it - since the only people spreading the rumours are you, Anal and your fellow travellers, and Sampras himself has said "realistically it's not going to happen" it's farily unlikely that the rumours are true.

Andy, now who's conveniently ignoring things? The fact is, Sampras, having broken all the important records in tennis, and settled down with his beautiful wife, had no motivation for the game at all. When people started to criticise him, he was fired up and was like a blazing inferno when he stormed to US Open victory in 2002 despite being way past his peak.

We've already heard of Pistol Pete's dissatisfaction at the lack of depth in the current era, so he'd have a point to prove. It's not a dead cert that he'd win Wimbledon, but his game doesn't require maximum fitness, and I don't think anyone on the current tour would have an answer to his almost unstoppable serve volleying. There'd most likely be a few tie-breaks in his first round matches, but if the draw was kind and he got on a roll, I'm convinced he'd be equally unstoppable as he was during that famous final US Open.

Right. he was pretty unstoppable in 2001-2 .He only had an ageing and fading Agassi for opposition .And lost at Wimbledon to a 19-year old rookie called Federer , and someone called Bastl.
But to answer the original post , yes it would be exciting to have Sampras on the seniors tour . Agassi as well .

So what are you suggesting? That Sampras had such little motivation and regard for his own legacy that he couldn't get himself in gear to beat a non-entity like Bastl? On grass? At Wimbledon?

How you can look at Sampras' results in team tennis this year, and argue that his game doesn't require full fitness is just beyond me.

Face facts - just like Rios, if Sampras really thought he could be regularly competitive on the tour still then he'd be out there doing it - not mucking about in exhibitions with Elton John, and a collection of wannabe's, has-beens and never-were's in WTT.

With all due respect to everyone, why bother to argue the same things over and over gain every day, almost every hour of every day, first on the BBC board and now this one? Some arguing about Sampras' place in history and when Sampras will return and rule again (Lazarus anyone?) the others arguing that Sampras was whooped by two Swiss men in 2001 and 2002.

Don't you guys get sick and tired arguing the same things over and over again? It's like groundhog day.

The post about the newer raquets is indeed by imightyjeditribble was nteresting. What I find more intersting is Sampras had more success on hardcourts than grass towards the end of his career - hardcourts was his first love and what he grew up on.

The media have always been fixated with Sampras' serve and then volley. But that article pointed out that Sampras' ground game against Ginepri was very strong. And I remember saying on Beeb that Sampras really rediscovered his baseline game in 2002 which helped him to win the US Open. Against Haas and Roddick, and Agassi he used that play of staying back on second serve, hitting the kick serve to the backhand on the ad court, getting the return and running around his backhand to hit a forehand down the line for a winner. Thaat's the sort of play Sampras had been famous for in the 1990s and then neglected it bacause he served volleyed so much on grass but brought it back in 2002.

Hi Big Al, I'm Donnay 141 from BBC board. Remember me?

Yes, I remember Donnay, and Laurie before that on the old boards, suspected you were one and the same. I always enjoyed your posts about Sampras , even as an Agassi fan . :)
As for your other comments about the same old discussion, yes we know its boring , its just hard not to reply sometimes to the outrageous statements by the well-known WUMs from the Beeb. :wacko:

Laurie, with all due respect, this has generally been a very harmonious board over the last 7-8 months, and the arguments have only arisen when Chetanpv, Dr Sincere and Wise Analyst started posting here when the plug was finally pulled on the beeb 'five live' board .

Just check the archives and you will see what I mean.

It is however, Nick's board and of course will abide by his judgment. But certainly they have added an element of needle to the ATP section of the board that previously wasn't there.

Well, ok then, fair enough.

Please, call me Laurie

Post duly edited :ok:

I just kinda second what petalp said (hi btw :hug: ). I trust that Nick and the rest of the mods are keeping an eye on the situation, and if it all gets a wee bit boring, then i think they'll do something. If it is getting to you, then PM one of the mods and let them know if you think it's getting a bit too much - they do listen (honest.... :) )

It's ok, I'm the new kid on the block here so it's not my place. I was making an observation more than anything else but a lot of people enjoy the argument so that's fine.

It seems a very good forum here by the way. :ok:

I think that Jo put it more eloquently than I did (hey Jo btw! :hug: )

I would also add that the fact that you're a new kid on the block doesn't make your opinions any less valid. First impressions can be quite telling and are important to note.. :)

Glad that you like the board btw. It is generally a friendly place with a lot of excellent posters, honest!

why thank you m'dear :D

In a very beeb-stylee i'm gonna say I agree with your post. Laurie, you have as much right as any of us to say what you like about the board or the posts that are being made. :)

Also, I remember you from the BBC board, but can't remember exactly who your favourite players were and important stuff like that??? ;)

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue]Well, my favourite all time player is Mr Sampras. My favourite all time female player Is Monica Seles. I also like Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Krajicek, Conchita Martinez, Davenport, Venus, Mary Pierce. I'm also a huge fan of Ameile Mauresmo and Svetlana Kuznetsova. I started a website for Kuznetsova in October, svetlana kuznetsova Any Kuzy fans here are welcome to sign up to the forum there.

I also have another site Tennis dvd clips which has proved pretty popular over the last few months.

I love to attend tennis tournaments. I've been going to Wimbledon since 1995 and Roland Garrois since 2004. I've also been To Queens many times and Paris Bercy twice. There's hardly any great player I haven't seen play live in that time.

ah, yes, you have the amazing dvd clips website which i plan to frequent in order to actually get to see some clips of tennis..... :D good work there :D

my favourite players are Federer and Safin, and i don't really follow the women's tour to be honest.....

Yes, I've heard about your tennis clips!! :ok:

I can't seem to get them to work on my applemac pc tho.. :( :badpc:

I like Sveta too, and especially Amelie.. Re: Sveta site, there are a few fans of Sveta on CC, so might be an idea for you to post this as a link? Maybe the resources section of the board?

Petalp, I have a tecchie friend. I'll ask him about apple macs. You should be able to see the clips on that format. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Can you point me to the resources section?

Laurie, the link is as follows:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/Centre_Court/in...hp?showforum=71


Just click on new topic and post away..

Thanks for checking out issue re: Applemac! :ok: It would be great to be able to see your clips, as they always look so inviting to view :)

get a proper computer man!!!!! roflmao

roflmao

:badpc:

(salute) yes ma'am!!!

*wonders if this fancy pants applemac powerbook would make a decent placemat for evening meals*

Thanks petalp, I've posted a link.

To be honest, I think Sampras has looked quite good in his exhibition matches, and if he gains a bit of confidence from them, I don't think him taking a stab at playing Wimbledon is out of the questions. I don't think he'd win it, but he wouldn't be a pushover either. He does, after all, have the all-time record for grand slam wins, and he's not all that old. He's about a year and a half younger than Agassi.

Hello Laurie,

interesting point about Sampras's ground game. I'm afraid I almost completely missed the great man playing, as I wasn't following tennis during that time :doh:

And to think that I was in New York in September 2002 :doh:

Regarding this board: I can only agree with what petal and jo have already said: it's usually a very friendly board, and we all get along. (Even if we are rooting for different players during the same match ;) )

We even have a friendly Fed-worship thread, to counter the Fed-bashing that used to happen on the beeb ... seems to have goten a bit quiet though since the beeb board died :blink:

It might have to be be revived come the Australian Open, what do you reckon guys B)

I believe the Mods' approach to the board is to give everyone a chance, no matter what their previous posting behavior on other boards. However, if they continue causing trouble on here, they'll be gone. :admin:

I suspect this has already happened to some people who were making some noise on here after the beeb closed. If Dr. Sincere, Wise_Analyst etc. don't respect the fact that winding people up isn't welcome behavior on here, then I'm afraid they will get the boot to. :ban:

In a way, I would actually be sorry if that's how it turns out: Wise, at least, has actually contributed to some serious tennis discussions, whether you believe it or not. B) I was almost hoping that this might continue - call me an eternal optimist :P

Sure --- I agree. Still, I think he would be hard pushed to make the QF on an average draw these days.

How far do you think he would get if he had Fed's 2006 draw next year? :yikes:

Hi all,

well I guess that the best strategy to calm down the trolls is always the same, i.e. refer to facts and interviews...In this case, let us simply have a close look to the last interview provided by Pete. There you can read:

"Q: Do you get asked more about Roger Federer than yourself?

A: Yeah. How do you think he'll do? How good is he? It will be a comparison for the next number of years. I really think Roger is going to go on and break most of my records. That's OK. I've reached out and offered him congratulations. I've told him how much I admire and respect what he's been doing.

Q: Do you allow yourself to imagine what it would be like to play Federer when you were both in your prime?

A: I think it would be an interesting match-up. Roger is more of a baseliner; he doesn't like to come in to the net as much. I'm all about pace. I think we both would have our fair share of wins. Neither would dominate the other."

The second answer is very interesting for the discussion here: with both in our prime, i.e. in the case of Pete let's say between 93-96 IMO B) and the current FED the match would be close...

Nowadays believe that the same match (even on grass) would be close is just wishful (trolls') thinking :rolleyes: . A match between a quite "old" Pete coming back from nowhere and at the Top FED...Come on :yikes: :

I mean Agassi was able to play some very competitive matches against FED, e.g. USO quarter in 2004 and Final in 2005 but he was never out of Tennis during those years. I do not see why in the case of Pete it should be different and he should be able to come back easily and defeat easily the current top player? Come on be guys let's be serious.. :P

More details about this last interview here:

SAMPRAS INTERVIEW

I am not sure about this at all. Sorry but even at the top of his form, he had some close matches every now and then. The half step he lost since (if not more) plus the quality of today's returns would be simply way too much and I don't think we can draw anything from an exhibition match.

Look at Paul Haaruis giving lessons to the past greats cause he is simply fitter. I think those who believe Sampras can do more than 2 rounds (yes he can through one if lucky) will be up for a surprise I think.

True, it aint going to happen because Sampras won't be going to Wimbledon as a player.

I've always said hardcourts is Sampras' best surface despite the 7 Wimbledon wins. On that surface he has more time to set up his shots especially with his long swing on both sides.

Which is quite ironic coz then in theoretical terms clay should be his favourite surface due to the long nature of his strokes he would then have way more time to prepare but in reality it was his worst surface coz he never could master sliding into his shots.He always slid after hitting the ball :doh:

Hi Dark...

which is related to an additional ironic remark: FED who can definitely nowadays be defined as a great on grass specialist is not coming from that surface at all...

I mean FED has definitely played more Tennis on clay than on grass (and by far) during his junior day... :P

But then why those two great players (Pete & FED) has been able to reach such great results on grass even if this is not his (natural) surface? :rolleyes:

And what about Borg, for instance?
Did he play often on grass during his junior days?...

Grass performances done by some players are just amazing and difficult to explain...At least for me.. :wacko:

Hi guys – Good to read from you.

When you are alluding to "Natural" surface TV, you mean the surface a player grew on? I think the surface a player grows on can help develop some abilities but at the same time there are some inherited, natural abilities which will make you perform well on a given surface.

It is clear for instance that Nadal’s leg speed will be at best demonstrated on slow surfaces while someone with power or quick eye/hand coordination will benefit from a faster surface. Players like Federer or Gasquet never really trained on grass (like most of their competition) and therefore their natural skills like anticipation, quick hands are going to be at an advantage on grass. So I think a “natural” surface for a player is not that much the one he grew up on (Gasquet and Federer on clay) but one your sheer natural (inherited) skills give you an advantage over the competition.

So from what I gather.Grass is Federer's natural surface due to his Natural talent.I also know that he grew up on clay.This I would assume is why his shots are so wonderfully developed.He somehow honed and finetuned them on hardcourts hence his expertise across all surfaces.Also he has a natural apt for producing effortless strokes which leads me to the conclusion that his entire game is one of a natuarl basis.

Nadal however grew up on clay and doesnt really have anything natural about his stroke production or his tennis on the whole other than his natural footspeed.Everyone can practice speed or improve on it not everyone can play effortless natural strokes let alone practice it.If you practice something to "improve" it its deemed unatural!Look at Rusedkis backhand for a prime example!