Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ramshorns]

Except for Todd Martin I never liked any American Tennis players.  They are a bunch of wusses.  All of them Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.  Bunch of cry babies.

I hope you're kidding!  Those are some unbelievably tough athletes mentioned there, both physically and mentally.  BTW, about your all time best list, I can understand you putting Borg at the top (it was unfortunate he retired when he still had a few good years in him; that is probably the reason I place him second), but Lendl at 2?  I definitely agree that Lendl is the most underrated player in the history of the game.  You rarely hear his name mentioned along with some of the other greats, possibly because he was not quite as aesthetically pleasing or entertaining to some, but he was just as effective in his pomp.  However, I certainly cannot rate him above Sampras.  He was extremely consistent, but did not have nearly the same amount of success in the biggest matches, nor did he have near as complete an allround game as Sampras.  At the very best, I would rate Lendl 5th.  More likely, I would rate Rod Laver above Agassi as well, putting him at 4th and sliding Agassi and Lendl down to 5th and 6th.

Do you know Lendl is the only player to have played in the finals of each grandslam atleast twice(19 finals in total).  Sampras and French Open, clueless.  I am not even sure why sometimes he is even mentioned being a great, when you are clueless on one surface and 25% of the season is held on that.

All said and said Borg and Lendl are better accomplished than any of the so called American greats, so 1,2 in my books.

Lendl was a highly underrated player. I think he reached 8 consecutive SEMIS or better in the US open. Despite his immense disliking for Grass he still had a very good record at Wimbledon.

I am sure his "grass is for the cows"  statement will be very much disliked  by the Nagpur Pitch curators. 

Make that 8 straight finals 82-89.  Incredible is'nt it.  Johnny Mc, cries about it to today.  All you have to do is turn on to USA Network.  What a loser!!!!!!!!

[pieterSAN]

Except for Todd Martin I never liked any American Tennis players.  They are a bunch of wusses.  All of them Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.  Bunch of cry babies.

I hope you're kidding!  Those are some unbelievably tough athletes mentioned there, both physically and mentally.  BTW, about your all time best list, I can understand you putting Borg at the top (it was unfortunate he retired when he still had a few good years in him; that is probably the reason I place him second), but Lendl at 2?  I definitely agree that Lendl is the most underrated player in the history of the game.  You rarely hear his name mentioned along with some of the other greats, possibly because he was not quite as aesthetically pleasing or entertaining to some, but he was just as effective in his pomp.  However, I certainly cannot rate him above Sampras.  He was extremely consistent, but did not have nearly the same amount of success in the biggest matches, nor did he have near as complete an allround game as Sampras.  At the very best, I would rate Lendl 5th.  More likely, I would rate Rod Laver above Agassi as well, putting him at 4th and sliding Agassi and Lendl down to 5th and 6th.

Do you know Lendl is the only player to have played in the finals of each grandslam atleast twice(19 finals in total).  Sampras and French Open, clueless.  I am not even sure why sometimes he is even mentioned being a great, when you are clueless on one surface and 25% of the season is held on that.

All said and said Borg and Lendl are better accomplished than any of the so called American greats, so 1,2 in my books.

You are mistaken...Agassi has done this and also won every grand slam unlike Lendl. Also Lendl was bigger crybaby than Agassi.

1992    Wimbledon    Croatia Goran Ivanišević    6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4
1994    U.S. Open    Germany Michael Stich    6-1, 7-6, 7-5
1995    Australian Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
1999    French Open    Ukraine Andrei Medvedev    1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4
1999    U.S. Open (2)    United States Todd Martin    6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
2000    Australian Open (2)    Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov    3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
2001    Australian Open (3)    France Arnaud Clément    6-4, 6-2, 6-2
2003    Australian Open (4)    Germany Rainer Schüttler    6-2, 6-2, 6-1
[edit]

Runner-ups (7)
Year    Championship    Opponent in Final    Score in Final
1990    French Open    Ecuador Andrés Gómez    3-6, 6-2, 4-6, 4-6
1990    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 2-6
1991    French Open    United States Jim Courier    6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 1-6, 4-6
1995    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 5-7
1999    Wimbledon    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 5-7
2002    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6
2005    U.S. Open    Switzerland Roger Federer    3-6, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6

[ramshorns]

Except for Todd Martin I never liked any American Tennis players.  They are a bunch of wusses.  All of them Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.  Bunch of cry babies.

I hope you're kidding!  Those are some unbelievably tough athletes mentioned there, both physically and mentally.  BTW, about your all time best list, I can understand you putting Borg at the top (it was unfortunate he retired when he still had a few good years in him; that is probably the reason I place him second), but Lendl at 2?  I definitely agree that Lendl is the most underrated player in the history of the game.  You rarely hear his name mentioned along with some of the other greats, possibly because he was not quite as aesthetically pleasing or entertaining to some, but he was just as effective in his pomp.  However, I certainly cannot rate him above Sampras.  He was extremely consistent, but did not have nearly the same amount of success in the biggest matches, nor did he have near as complete an allround game as Sampras.  At the very best, I would rate Lendl 5th.  More likely, I would rate Rod Laver above Agassi as well, putting him at 4th and sliding Agassi and Lendl down to 5th and 6th.

Do you know Lendl is the only player to have played in the finals of each grandslam atleast twice(19 finals in total).  Sampras and French Open, clueless.  I am not even sure why sometimes he is even mentioned being a great, when you are clueless on one surface and 25% of the season is held on that.

All said and said Borg and Lendl are better accomplished than any of the so called American greats, so 1,2 in my books.

You are mistaken...Agassi has done this and also won every grand slam unlike Lendl. Also Lendl was bigger crybaby than Agassi.

1992    Wimbledon    Croatia Goran Ivanišević    6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4
1994    U.S. Open    Germany Michael Stich    6-1, 7-6, 7-5
1995    Australian Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
1999    French Open    Ukraine Andrei Medvedev    1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4
1999    U.S. Open (2)    United States Todd Martin    6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
2000    Australian Open (2)    Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov    3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
2001    Australian Open (3)    France Arnaud Clément    6-4, 6-2, 6-2
2003    Australian Open (4)    Germany Rainer Schüttler    6-2, 6-2, 6-1
[edit]

Runner-ups (7)
Year    Championship    Opponent in Final    Score in Final
1990    French Open    Ecuador Andrés Gómez    3-6, 6-2, 4-6, 4-6
1990    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 2-6
1991    French Open    United States Jim Courier    6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 1-6, 4-6
1995    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 5-7
1999    Wimbledon    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 5-7
2002    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6
2005    U.S. Open    Switzerland Roger Federer    3-6, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6

OK so what????Lendl won more Masters than Agassi more overall titles and appeared in more GS finals.  So do not tell me he is more accomplished than Lendl.  Then during his hey day, Lendl dominated his rivalries with Connors and Mc Enroe, where as Agassi always got his butt kicked by Sampras in bigger matches.  So that takes Agassi out being an equal to Lendl and because of Lendl's more overall accomplishments on all surfaces and Sampras's poor sister record on clay takes him out being a greater player than Borg or Lendl.

[pieterSAN]

Except for Todd Martin I never liked any American Tennis players.  They are a bunch of wusses.  All of them Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.  Bunch of cry babies.

I hope you're kidding!  Those are some unbelievably tough athletes mentioned there, both physically and mentally.  BTW, about your all time best list, I can understand you putting Borg at the top (it was unfortunate he retired when he still had a few good years in him; that is probably the reason I place him second), but Lendl at 2?  I definitely agree that Lendl is the most underrated player in the history of the game.  You rarely hear his name mentioned along with some of the other greats, possibly because he was not quite as aesthetically pleasing or entertaining to some, but he was just as effective in his pomp.  However, I certainly cannot rate him above Sampras.  He was extremely consistent, but did not have nearly the same amount of success in the biggest matches, nor did he have near as complete an allround game as Sampras.  At the very best, I would rate Lendl 5th.  More likely, I would rate Rod Laver above Agassi as well, putting him at 4th and sliding Agassi and Lendl down to 5th and 6th.

Do you know Lendl is the only player to have played in the finals of each grandslam atleast twice(19 finals in total).  Sampras and French Open, clueless.  I am not even sure why sometimes he is even mentioned being a great, when you are clueless on one surface and 25% of the season is held on that.

All said and said Borg and Lendl are better accomplished than any of the so called American greats, so 1,2 in my books.

You are mistaken...Agassi has done this and also won every grand slam unlike Lendl. Also Lendl was bigger crybaby than Agassi.

1992    Wimbledon    Croatia Goran Ivanišević    6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4
1994    U.S. Open    Germany Michael Stich    6-1, 7-6, 7-5
1995    Australian Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
1999    French Open    Ukraine Andrei Medvedev    1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4
1999    U.S. Open (2)    United States Todd Martin    6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
2000    Australian Open (2)    Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov    3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
2001    Australian Open (3)    France Arnaud Clément    6-4, 6-2, 6-2
2003    Australian Open (4)    Germany Rainer Schüttler    6-2, 6-2, 6-1
[edit]

Runner-ups (7)
Year    Championship    Opponent in Final    Score in Final
1990    French Open    Ecuador Andrés Gómez    3-6, 6-2, 4-6, 4-6
1990    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 2-6
1991    French Open    United States Jim Courier    6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 1-6, 4-6
1995    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 5-7
1999    Wimbledon    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 5-7
2002    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6
2005    U.S. Open    Switzerland Roger Federer    3-6, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6

OK so what????Lendl won more Masters than Agassi more overall titles and appeared in more GS finals.  So do not tell me he is more accomplished than Lendl.  Then during his hey day, Lendl dominated his rivalries with Connors and Mc Enroe, where as Agassi always got his butt kicked by Sampras in bigger matches.  So that takes Agassi out being an equal to Lendl and because of Lendl's more overall accomplishments on all surfaces and Sampras's poor sister record on clay takes him out being a greater player than Borg or Lendl.

I do agree that Borg was the best in the open era. Poor Lendl could never win Wimbledon....Andre did. Career grand slam...1 of only 5 people to do it. Lendl was good but he did not match up to Andre. Sorry.

[Sahir]

ramshorns,
But eventually, Lendl lost way too many big matches.  He always had a reputation as a choker.  He lost 11 out of 19 grand slam finals-- that is not the record of someone that is better than Sampras.  He consistently choked at the final hurdle.  While I agree he was a better player than his more hyped peers, McEnroe and Connors, no way was he better than Sampras who won 14 Grand Slams.  Lendl only won 8.  Those numbers are not even comparable.  If you look at allcourt play, then Agassi matches up with Lendl very favorably, performing extremely well on all surfaces, even winning grand slams on all surfaces, the only player to ever do so!  Had Lendl ever won Wimbledon, the argument could be made as a more complete player, but without that on his resume, he loses overall. 

BTW, do expand on Sampras as a crybaby-- not fair to just mention it and say you don't want to get into it.

[Sahir]

Poor Lendl could never win Wimbledon....Andre did. Career grand slam...1 of only 5 people to do it. Lendl was good but he did not match up to Andre. Sorry.

And Andre did it in the modern era when the slams included both grass and clay.  That was not the case in the others.

[ramshorns]

Except for Todd Martin I never liked any American Tennis players.  They are a bunch of wusses.  All of them Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.  Bunch of cry babies.

I hope you're kidding!  Those are some unbelievably tough athletes mentioned there, both physically and mentally.  BTW, about your all time best list, I can understand you putting Borg at the top (it was unfortunate he retired when he still had a few good years in him; that is probably the reason I place him second), but Lendl at 2?  I definitely agree that Lendl is the most underrated player in the history of the game.  You rarely hear his name mentioned along with some of the other greats, possibly because he was not quite as aesthetically pleasing or entertaining to some, but he was just as effective in his pomp.  However, I certainly cannot rate him above Sampras.  He was extremely consistent, but did not have nearly the same amount of success in the biggest matches, nor did he have near as complete an allround game as Sampras.  At the very best, I would rate Lendl 5th.  More likely, I would rate Rod Laver above Agassi as well, putting him at 4th and sliding Agassi and Lendl down to 5th and 6th.

Do you know Lendl is the only player to have played in the finals of each grandslam atleast twice(19 finals in total).  Sampras and French Open, clueless.  I am not even sure why sometimes he is even mentioned being a great, when you are clueless on one surface and 25% of the season is held on that.

All said and said Borg and Lendl are better accomplished than any of the so called American greats, so 1,2 in my books.

You are mistaken...Agassi has done this and also won every grand slam unlike Lendl. Also Lendl was bigger crybaby than Agassi.

1992    Wimbledon    Croatia Goran Ivanišević    6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4
1994    U.S. Open    Germany Michael Stich    6-1, 7-6, 7-5
1995    Australian Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
1999    French Open    Ukraine Andrei Medvedev    1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4
1999    U.S. Open (2)    United States Todd Martin    6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
2000    Australian Open (2)    Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov    3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
2001    Australian Open (3)    France Arnaud Clément    6-4, 6-2, 6-2
2003    Australian Open (4)    Germany Rainer Schüttler    6-2, 6-2, 6-1
[edit]

Runner-ups (7)
Year    Championship    Opponent in Final    Score in Final
1990    French Open    Ecuador Andrés Gómez    3-6, 6-2, 4-6, 4-6
1990    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 2-6
1991    French Open    United States Jim Courier    6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 1-6, 4-6
1995    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 5-7
1999    Wimbledon    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 5-7
2002    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6
2005    U.S. Open    Switzerland Roger Federer    3-6, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6

OK so what????Lendl won more Masters than Agassi more overall titles and appeared in more GS finals.  So do not tell me he is more accomplished than Lendl.  Then during his hey day, Lendl dominated his rivalries with Connors and Mc Enroe, where as Agassi always got his butt kicked by Sampras in bigger matches.  So that takes Agassi out being an equal to Lendl and because of Lendl's more overall accomplishments on all surfaces and Sampras's poor sister record on clay takes him out being a greater player than Borg or Lendl.

I do agree that Borg was the best in the open era. Poor Lendl could never win Wimbledon....Andre did. Career grand slam...1 of only 5 people to do it. Lendl was good but he did not match up to Andre. Sorry.

Then by your analogy Borg does not match up as well, because he never won US either.  Hence winning just all majors does not tell the whole story.  There is more.   Look you can have an opinion on Agassi.  That is fine.  See how Andre got beat by Pete in so many big games.  And out of the 8 slams he won the Austrailan 4 times the least of the 4.  Also the finals won by Andre look at the opponents he beat.   Compare that with any of the other greats that won 7 or 8 slams.   Almost everyone else has beaten other great players in bigger events. 

So for you to say Agassi is better than Lendl without weighing in all the factors is a little surprising.   Lendl Won 94 titles when Tennis was at its peak following in the US in the late 70's and the 1980's (Borg-Mc Enroe, Mc-Enroe-Connors, Connors-Lendl, Lendl-Mc Enroe rivalries).  It is a fact.  Go check at the ratings now, no one in US even watches Tennis.  It has fallen so much back even Figure skating if it is on, will draw better ratings than Tennis on a same time slot.  I am not even going to compare it with the 4 major sports and golf.

I hope you consider these elements as well.

[ramshorns]

ramshorns,
But eventually, Lendl lost way too many big matches.  He always had a reputation as a choker.  He lost 11 out of 19 grand slam finals-- that is not the record of someone that is better than Sampras.  He consistently choked at the final hurdle.  While I agree he was a better player than his more hyped peers, McEnroe and Connors, no way was he better than Sampras who won 14 Grand Slams.  Lendl only won 8.  Those numbers are not even comparable.  If you look at allcourt play, then Agassi matches up with Lendl very favorably, performing extremely well on all surfaces, even winning grand slams on all surfaces, the only player to ever do so!  Had Lendl ever won Wimbledon, the argument could be made as a more complete player, but without that on his resume, he loses overall. 

BTW, do expand on Sampras as a crybaby-- not fair to just mention it and say you don't want to get into it.

Then how do you explain Sampras being a choker in the French and other European events.  I would rather be in a final and get beat than lose to a lesser skilled player as Sampras does.  I think all said and done in my books Lendl is a much better overall tennis player than Sampras.

[poondu]

Good debate Pieter , Sahir and Rams. Very interesting. Applause to you.

[Sahir]

Then by your analogy Borg does not match up as well, because he never won US either.  Hence winning just all majors does not tell the whole story.  There is more.   Look you can have an opinion on Agassi.  That is fine.  See how Andre got beat by Pete in so many big games.  And out of the 8 slams he won the Austrailan 4 times the least of the 4.  Also the finals won by Andre look at the opponents he beat.   Compare that with any of the other greats that won 7 or 8 slams.   Almost everyone else has beaten other great players in bigger events. 

So for you to say Agassi is better than Lendl without weighing in all the factors is a little surprising.   Lendl Won 94 titles when Tennis was at its peak following in the US in the late 70's and the 1980's (Borg-Mc Enroe, Mc-Enroe-Connors, Connors-Lendl, Lendl-Mc Enroe rivalries).  It is a fact.  Go check at the ratings now, no one in US even watches Tennis.  It has fallen so much back even Figure skating if it is on, will draw better ratings than Tennis on a same time slot.  I am not even going to compare it with the 4 major sports and golf.

I hope you consider these elements as well.

Borg, as I mentioned earlier, qualifies because of different circumstances-- a much shorter career compared to the others (could have won a lot more).  Besides, you are shifting it to Agassi v. Lendl-- I can understand someone placing Lendl above Agassi (that is close enough, even in my mind), but what I was and still am adamant about is Sampras over Lendl.  I brought up Agassi to point out the flaw in your reasoning that Lendl was better than Sampras just because Sampras didn't do well at the French Open.  If playing well on all surfaces is the parameter, then Agassi did that better than Lendl.  He won just as many Grand Slams as Lendl, including winning them all.  Additionally, Sampras did not lose nearly as many big matches.  So my bone of contention is really Sampras v. Lendl, not Agassi v. Lendl.  BTW, Lendl also is American (a naturalized citizen).

[pieterSAN]

Except for Todd Martin I never liked any American Tennis players.  They are a bunch of wusses.  All of them Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.  Bunch of cry babies.

I hope you're kidding!  Those are some unbelievably tough athletes mentioned there, both physically and mentally.  BTW, about your all time best list, I can understand you putting Borg at the top (it was unfortunate he retired when he still had a few good years in him; that is probably the reason I place him second), but Lendl at 2?  I definitely agree that Lendl is the most underrated player in the history of the game.  You rarely hear his name mentioned along with some of the other greats, possibly because he was not quite as aesthetically pleasing or entertaining to some, but he was just as effective in his pomp.  However, I certainly cannot rate him above Sampras.  He was extremely consistent, but did not have nearly the same amount of success in the biggest matches, nor did he have near as complete an allround game as Sampras.  At the very best, I would rate Lendl 5th.  More likely, I would rate Rod Laver above Agassi as well, putting him at 4th and sliding Agassi and Lendl down to 5th and 6th.

Do you know Lendl is the only player to have played in the finals of each grandslam atleast twice(19 finals in total).  Sampras and French Open, clueless.  I am not even sure why sometimes he is even mentioned being a great, when you are clueless on one surface and 25% of the season is held on that.

All said and said Borg and Lendl are better accomplished than any of the so called American greats, so 1,2 in my books.

You are mistaken...Agassi has done this and also won every grand slam unlike Lendl. Also Lendl was bigger crybaby than Agassi.

1992    Wimbledon    Croatia Goran Ivanišević    6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4
1994    U.S. Open    Germany Michael Stich    6-1, 7-6, 7-5
1995    Australian Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
1999    French Open    Ukraine Andrei Medvedev    1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4
1999    U.S. Open (2)    United States Todd Martin    6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
2000    Australian Open (2)    Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov    3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
2001    Australian Open (3)    France Arnaud Clément    6-4, 6-2, 6-2
2003    Australian Open (4)    Germany Rainer Schüttler    6-2, 6-2, 6-1
[edit]

Runner-ups (7)
Year    Championship    Opponent in Final    Score in Final
1990    French Open    Ecuador Andrés Gómez    3-6, 6-2, 4-6, 4-6
1990    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 2-6
1991    French Open    United States Jim Courier    6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 1-6, 4-6
1995    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 5-7
1999    Wimbledon    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 5-7
2002    U.S. Open    United States Pete Sampras    3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6
2005    U.S. Open    Switzerland Roger Federer    3-6, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6

OK so what????Lendl won more Masters than Agassi more overall titles and appeared in more GS finals.  So do not tell me he is more accomplished than Lendl.  Then during his hey day, Lendl dominated his rivalries with Connors and Mc Enroe, where as Agassi always got his butt kicked by Sampras in bigger matches.  So that takes Agassi out being an equal to Lendl and because of Lendl's more overall accomplishments on all surfaces and Sampras's poor sister record on clay takes him out being a greater player than Borg or Lendl.

I do agree that Borg was the best in the open era. Poor Lendl could never win Wimbledon....Andre did. Career grand slam...1 of only 5 people to do it. Lendl was good but he did not match up to Andre. Sorry.

Then by your analogy Borg does not match up as well, because he never won US either.  Hence winning just all majors does not tell the whole story.  There is more.   Look you can have an opinion on Agassi.  That is fine.  See how Andre got beat by Pete in so many big games.  And out of the 8 slams he won the Austrailan 4 times the least of the 4.  Also the finals won by Andre look at the opponents he beat.   Compare that with any of the other greats that won 7 or 8 slams.   Almost everyone else has beaten other great players in bigger events. 

So for you to say Agassi is better than Lendl without weighing in all the factors is a little surprising.   Lendl Won 94 titles when Tennis was at its peak following in the US in the late 70's and the 1980's (Borg-Mc Enroe, Mc-Enroe-Connors, Connors-Lendl, Lendl-Mc Enroe rivalries).  It is a fact.  Go check at the ratings now, no one in US even watches Tennis.  It has fallen so much back even Figure skating if it is on, will draw better ratings than Tennis on a same time slot.  I am not even going to compare it with the 4 major sports and golf.

I hope you consider these elements as well.

I agree that Agassi did not play greats in a lot of the finals. But he often beat great players in his own half.

Now while you maybe correct in saying that ratings now are not the same as it was 20 years ago, the depth in men's tennis 5-10 years ago was much, much greater than 20 years ago. It is a lot more difficult to get to the second week of slam these days as compared to the mid-eighties.

Borg is an exception because he won 11 slams in 8 playing years which is incredible for the Open era. So I would give him the edge over Sampras for this. I would place Andre third in the list because he completed the slam on 4 different surfaces and that makes him a complete player. Note his excellent Davis Cup record and Masters Series titles (17) that can be used to compared with the likes of Sampras (again looking at Open Era)

I suppose the Lendl debate is also matter of personal preference so we can leave it at that. I do see that Agassi and Lendl are comparable and Lendl should be commended for his revolutionizing the sport with his professional attitude and work ethic.

[ramshorns]

Then by your analogy Borg does not match up as well, because he never won US either.  Hence winning just all majors does not tell the whole story.  There is more.   Look you can have an opinion on Agassi.  That is fine.  See how Andre got beat by Pete in so many big games.  And out of the 8 slams he won the Austrailan 4 times the least of the 4.  Also the finals won by Andre look at the opponents he beat.   Compare that with any of the other greats that won 7 or 8 slams.   Almost everyone else has beaten other great players in bigger events. 

So for you to say Agassi is better than Lendl without weighing in all the factors is a little surprising.   Lendl Won 94 titles when Tennis was at its peak following in the US in the late 70's and the 1980's (Borg-Mc Enroe, Mc-Enroe-Connors, Connors-Lendl, Lendl-Mc Enroe rivalries).  It is a fact.  Go check at the ratings now, no one in US even watches Tennis.  It has fallen so much back even Figure skating if it is on, will draw better ratings than Tennis on a same time slot.  I am not even going to compare it with the 4 major sports and golf.

I hope you consider these elements as well.

Borg, as I mentioned earlier, qualifies because of different circumstances-- a much shorter career compared to the others (could have won a lot more).  Besides, you are shifting it to Agassi v. Lendl-- I can understand someone placing Lendl above Agassi (that is close enough, even in my mind), but what I was and still am adamant about is Sampras over Lendl.  I brought up Agassi to point out the flaw in your reasoning that Lendl was better than Sampras just because Sampras didn't do well at the French Open.  If playing well on all surfaces is the parameter, then Agassi did that better than Lendl.  He won just as many Grand Slams as Lendl, including winning them all.  Additionally, Sampras did not lose nearly as many big matches.  So my bone of contention is really Sampras v. Lendl, not Agassi v. Lendl.  BTW, Lendl also is American (a naturalized citizen).

Sahir, You are not convincing me that Sampras is a better player than Lendl only because of what I saw.  It is more than numbers.  As impressive numbers as Lendl has with more overall titles, it is about the era they played in and the opponents.  Lendl's time was Sandwitched by Borg/MCEnroe/Connors and Wilander/Becker/Edberg all greats in their own right and they will have their chunk of  wins.  Name one player who in 1990's besides Andre had the aura of Pete.  Then Andre lost it in between there.  So to me for no fault of Sampras when he was winning all those Wimbeldons there was no rivalry where as Lendl always had greats breathing down his neck and still made 2 wimbeldon finals and 5 Semi-Finals  on his weakest surface.

PS:-Though Lendl is a citizen, he is kind of like me, does not count for much.

[Sahir]

Then how do you explain Sampras being a choker in the French and other European events.  I would rather be in a final and get beat than lose to a lesser skilled player as Sampras does.  I think all said and done in my books Lendl is a much better overall tennis player than Sampras.

Sampras did not choke nearly as often.  Lendl reached a grand slam final and lost about 60% of the time-- that simply is not the record of the second best of all time.  And it was not just one surface where Lendl choked at the final hurdle consistently, it was everywhere.  He lost 5 times in the U.S. finals, twice at the French, twice Australian, and twice at Wimbledon.  Had he won a few more of those, the debate would be very different, but the fact remains that he was amazingly the consistent over a very long period of time, the most consistent ever, but he was not consistently the best.  He was the most consistent at advancing to the late stages of tournaments, but lost more often than not in the finals.  And if you look at the players he lost against, he was a huge favorite in many of those finals.  He lost to a 17- year old Becker in 1986, lost to Mats Wilander 3 times (Wilander was good, but not that good), and also lost to Pat Cash once.  He would have been a heavy favorite all of these times.  The other losses came against much more competitive opponents, a more experienced Becker a couple of times, Jimmy Connors a couple of times, and McEnroe and Borg once each.

[ramshorns]

Then how do you explain Sampras being a choker in the French and other European events.  I would rather be in a final and get beat than lose to a lesser skilled player as Sampras does.  I think all said and done in my books Lendl is a much better overall tennis player than Sampras.

Sampras did not choke nearly as often.  Lendl reached a grand slam final and lost about 60% of the time-- that simply is not the record of the second best of all time.  And it was not just one surface where Lendl choked at the final hurdle consistently, it was everywhere.  He lost 5 times in the U.S. finals, twice at the French, twice Australian, and twice at Wimbledon.  Had he won a few more of those, the debate would be very different, but the fact remains that he was amazingly the consistent over a very long period of time, the most consistent ever, but he was not consistently the best.  He was the most consistent at advancing to the late stages of tournaments, but lost more often than not in the finals.  And if you look at the players he lost against, he was a huge favorite in many of those finals.  He lost to a 17- year old Becker in 1986, lost to Mats Wilander 3 times (Wilander was good, but not that good), and also lost to Pat Cash once.  He would have been a heavy favorite all of these times.  The other losses came against much more competitive opponents, a more experienced Becker a couple of times, Jimmy Connors a couple of times, and McEnroe and Borg once each.

Sahir: And I do not know about you.  I watched all of those Lendl Finals right from 1981.  That is why I am so amazed that this guy could on all surfaces make it to the SF's or better and then lose if at all to better talent.  No other tennis player had that incredible consistency and discipline.  Hence I rate him as highly as I do.

PS:- And the icing on the cake has been when I met my hero Lendl(Vishy was another) at the enshrinment ceromony into Tennis Hall of Fame in 2001, in Rhode Island.  One of the most down to earth guys you want to be around.  Signing autographs and posing with each and everyone who wanted to.  What a man.

[Sahir]

Sahir, You are not convincing me that Sampras is a better player than Lendl only because of what I saw.  It is more than numbers.  As impressive numbers as Lendl has with more overall titles, it is about the era they played in and the opponents.  Lendl's time was Sandwitched by Borg/MCEnroe/Connors and Wilander/Becker/Edberg all greats in their own right and they will have their chunk of  wins.  Name one player who in 1990's besides Andre had the aura of Pete.  Then Andre lost it in between there.  So to me for no fault of Sampras when he was winning all those Wimbeldons there was no rivalry where as Lendl always had greats breathing down his neck and still made 2 wimbeldon finals and 5 Semi-Finals  on his weakest surface.

PS:-Though Lendl is a citizen, he is kind of like me, does not count for much.

Borg, McEnroe, and Connors all peaked before Lendl was in his prime.  If you take a look at McEnroe versus Lendl early in his career you will notice it was 6-1 in McEnroe's favor.  Similarly, Connors dominated him early as well.  Connors is 6 years older than Lendl-- so he was not really part of the same era.  As far as players that could challenge Sampras at Wimbledon-- there was one of the greatest grass court players of all time, Boris Becker playing very well for many of those years.  For a while, there was the greatest serve and volleyer Stefan Edberg as well.  And in a sense, you are right, it is not all about the numbers, but 14 grand slams still does say a lot.  Besides, maybe I could agree if I had not followed both of their careers closely-- I have.  For mine, Agassi v. Lendl is close, but Sampras v. Lendl is not.  In fact, Sampras won his first U.S. Open in 1990, aged 19, when Lendl was still well and truly around.  Mind you, this was achieved while Sampras was only a shadow of what he would later become-- a much more complete player.

[Sahir]

PS:- And the icing on the cake has been when I met my hero Lendl(Vishy was another) at the enshrinment ceromony into Tennis Hall of Fame in 2001, in Rhode Island.  One of the most down to earth guys you want to be around.  Signing autographs and posing with each and everyone who wanted to.  What a man.

No doubting that-- he has a wonderful reputation as an extremely humble man.  One of the major reasons he is probably not talked about nearly as much as he ought to be was probably because of what a quiet demeanor he had.

[ramshorns]

Sahir, You are not convincing me that Sampras is a better player than Lendl only because of what I saw.  It is more than numbers.  As impressive numbers as Lendl has with more overall titles, it is about the era they played in and the opponents.  Lendl's time was Sandwitched by Borg/MCEnroe/Connors and Wilander/Becker/Edberg all greats in their own right and they will have their chunk of  wins.  Name one player who in 1990's besides Andre had the aura of Pete.  Then Andre lost it in between there.  So to me for no fault of Sampras when he was winning all those Wimbeldons there was no rivalry where as Lendl always had greats breathing down his neck and still made 2 wimbeldon finals and 5 Semi-Finals  on his weakest surface.

PS:-Though Lendl is a citizen, he is kind of like me, does not count for much.

Borg, McEnroe, and Connors all peaked before Lendl was in his prime.  If you take a look at McEnroe versus Lendl early in his career you will notice it was 6-1 in McEnroe's favor.  Similarly, Connors dominated him early as well.  Connors is 6 years older than Lendl-- so he was not really part of the same era.  As far as players that could challenge Sampras at Wimbledon-- there was one of the greatest grass court players of all time, Boris Becker playing very well for many of those years.  For a while, there was the greatest serve and volleyer Stefan Edberg as well.  And in a sense, you are right, it is not all about the numbers, but 14 grand slams still does say a lot.  Besides, maybe I could agree if I had not followed both of their careers closely-- I have.  For mine, Agassi v. Lendl is close, but Sampras v. Lendl is not.  In fact, Sampras won his first U.S. Open in 1990, aged 19, when Lendl was still well and truly around.  Mind you, this was achieved while Sampras was only a shadow of what he would later become-- a much more complete player.

Actually McEnroe is only a year older so that you know.  But I will give you this, he had Lendl's number early on and Lendl turned around and got the better of him.  Also Lendl best years were from 79-89 and he was finishing up when Sampras was starting.  So I will not call Sampras-Lendl matches exactly rivalry.  Even Sampras never talks about it, when one asks about his main rivals.

All said and done like I said Sampras's one dimensional game(not suited to clay at all) and that lack of clue on Clay disqualifies him to being an equal to Lendl in my books, who has done very well on all surfaces.

Also I would think Federer could tame Sampras at Wimbeldon.

We can disagree on that one where I think Lendl is a better tennis player than Sampras.

[Sahir]

Fair enough, agree to disagree-- very nice debate though-- thanks.

[ramshorns]

I need to run guys, need to pick up my son.  Then will go to US Open later in the week and keep you guys posted.  I know I will see that loser Mc Enroe.   Go Nadal......

[ramshorns]

Fair enough, agree to disagree-- very nice debate though-- thanks.

Same here.  Thanks to you, Poondu, Pietersan

[poondu]

Soon it will be retirement time for Sachin , Dravid and VVS  as well. 

[Sahir]

Soon it will be retirement time for Sachin , Dravid and VVS  as well. 

True, but with the changing of the guard come the excitement of the unknown and youthful exuberance.  Who knows?  Maybe the likes of Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, Piyush Chawla, Abid Nabi, and YoMahesh can take India to new heights with veterans like Yuvraj, Sehwag, Dhoni, Pathan, Munaf, and Sreesanth helping them develop.

[fineleg]

Rams,
Sorry if u've already replied with details to this, I will read above as well.
If not, how come Sampras (and Agassi as well) even remotely make the cut to the "crybaby" list honored by such great crybabies like McEnroe and in cricket, Brian Lara.

[ramshorns]

Rams,
Sorry if u've already replied with details to this, I will read above as well.
If not, how come Sampras (and Agassi as well) even remotely make the cut to the "crybaby" list honored by such great crybabies like McEnroe and in cricket, Brian Lara.

Fineleg:I have a rich history of following sports not just Tennis.   NFL, NBA, MLB, Golf, NHL, Track and Field, Soccer(When in Inida), lots of Indoor sports as well.  I know when I see a humble sportsperson.  Often times people mistake questioning a call and contesting it being a cry baby.  That if anything is being competitive.  Micheal Jordan I have seen contested a lots of call.  That does not make him a cry baby.  Being a cry baby has another meaning to it.  It is very subtle and you need to really be on top of things for a period of time to make out if a person is one.  I have seen Agassi and Sampras and for that matter most American Mens tennis players being that in my observation.  I have seen Sampras over the years during the European Clay court season, his bitterness and what not.  Like I said it is very subtle and you would think one show's more class.  Agassi I admit is more humble and down to earth, again this is a change in him over the last 4-5 years which is very welcome.

[Sahir]

Rams,
Sorry if u've already replied with details to this, I will read above as well.
If not, how come Sampras (and Agassi as well) even remotely make the cut to the "crybaby" list honored by such great crybabies like McEnroe and in cricket, Brian Lara.

Fineleg:I have a rich history of following sports not just Tennis.   NFL, NBA, MLB, Golf, NHL, Track and Field, Soccer(When in Inida), lots of Indoor sports as well.  I know when I see a humble sportsperson.  Often times people mistake questioning a call and contesting it being a cry baby.  That if anything is being competitive.  Micheal Jordan I have seen contested a lots of call.  That does not make him a cry baby.  Being a cry baby has another meaning to it.  It is very subtle and you need to really be on top of things for a period of time to make out if a person is one.  I have seen Agassi and Sampras and for that matter most American Mens tennis players being that in my observation.  I have seen Sampras over the years during the European Clay court season, his bitterness and what not.  Like I said it is very subtle and you would think one show's more class.  Agassi I admit is more humble and down to earth, again this is a change in him over the last 4-5 years which is very welcome.

Sure-- I'll give you that Agassi was a crybaby in the earlier part of his career before he matured as a person, but still very much disagree on Sampras being a crybaby.  There is a difference between whining and being disappointed in one's on performance.  Sampras never complained that clay was a bad surface, just a surface he could not deal with very well.  He was always a player that rarely showed any emotion on the court, whether he won or lost.  Even post retirement, you rarely see him in the limelight for anything.  He simply goes about living his quiet lifestyle despite the fact that he married a Hollywood heroine.  In that manner, if you speak of defining class, one could easily call Borg's announcement to auction off his Wimbledon Trophies completely classless, simply because he blew his life earnings on bad investments (read gambling), until he was convinced otherwise by McEnroe.  Not to mention, Borg retired in what can be called a fit of rage as soon as he lost to McEnroe in the Wimbledon final and his streak was ended, despite having plenty of good tennis left in him.

[ramshorns]

Rams,
Sorry if u've already replied with details to this, I will read above as well.
If not, how come Sampras (and Agassi as well) even remotely make the cut to the "crybaby" list honored by such great crybabies like McEnroe and in cricket, Brian Lara.

Fineleg:I have a rich history of following sports not just Tennis.   NFL, NBA, MLB, Golf, NHL, Track and Field, Soccer(When in Inida), lots of Indoor sports as well.  I know when I see a humble sportsperson.  Often times people mistake questioning a call and contesting it being a cry baby.  That if anything is being competitive.  Micheal Jordan I have seen contested a lots of call.  That does not make him a cry baby.  Being a cry baby has another meaning to it.  It is very subtle and you need to really be on top of things for a period of time to make out if a person is one.  I have seen Agassi and Sampras and for that matter most American Mens tennis players being that in my observation.  I have seen Sampras over the years during the European Clay court season, his bitterness and what not.  Like I said it is very subtle and you would think one show's more class.  Agassi I admit is more humble and down to earth, again this is a change in him over the last 4-5 years which is very welcome.

Sure-- I'll give you that Agassi was a crybaby in the earlier part of his career before he matured as a person, but still very much disagree on Sampras being a crybaby.  There is a difference between whining and being disappointed in one's on performance.  Sampras never complained that clay was a bad surface, just a surface he could not deal with very well.  He was always a player that rarely showed any emotion on the court, whether he won or lost.  Even post retirement, you rarely see him in the limelight for anything.  He simply goes about living his quiet lifestyle despite the fact that he married a Hollywood heroine.  In that manner, if you speak of defining class, one could easily call Borg's announcement to auction off his Wimbledon Trophies completely classless, simply because he blew his life earnings on bad investments (read gambling), until he was convinced otherwise by McEnroe.  Not to mention, Borg retired in what can be called a fit of rage as soon as he lost to McEnroe in the Wimbledon final and his streak was ended, despite having plenty of good tennis left in him.

Actually Borg's case was much of a burnout and given too much attention which he disliked, as the causes for his premature retirement.  Sure the American press would make you believe otherwise, hatching such conspiracy theories that he retired because he lost to McEnroe, which was hardly the case.  If anyone knew Borg well or followed him throughout like I did they would not attest to that.  Thank God I do not have to rely on others to make my calls, I believe in my eyes more than what Tom, Dick or Harry has to say, given my immense exposure to sports which I am proud of.  Same on my observations on Sampras.  This is one classless guy who always looked for excuses for his shortcomings on clay and being a baby about it.  I have seen that many a time and that attitude cost him making any advancements at French.

P.S:-I do not want to get into people's personal life's not related to sports.  It is his choice to do what he wants with his miniature trophie's, when it came to putting food on the table.  I would not penalise and call him classless for that just like I would not Sampras if god forbid such things happen to him in life.

[Sahir]

Actually Borg's case was much of a burnout and given too much attention which he disliked, as the causes for his premature retirement.  Sure the American press would make you believe otherwise, hatching such conspiracy theories that he retired because he lost to McEnroe, which was hardly the case.  If anyone knew Borg well or followed him throughout like I did they would not attest to that.  Thank God I do not have to rely on others to make my calls, I believe in my eyes more than what Tom, Dick or Harry has to say, given my immense exposure to sports which I am proud of.  Same on my observations on Sampras.  This is one classless guy who always looked for excuses for his shortcomings on clay and being a baby about it.  I have seen that many a time and that attitude cost him making any advancements at French.

P.S:-I do not want to get into people's personal life's not related to sports.  It is his choice to do what he wants with his miniature trophie's, when it came to putting food on the table.  I would not penalise and call him classless for that just like I would not Sampras if god forbid such things happen to him in life.

Not at all basing it on the American media-- I was not even in the U.S. at the time.  And I never said that was the reason, but saying that one can easily interpret it that way if you want to.  Besides, why do you think I am relying on others-- I assure you I have tremendous exposure to the sports (all the ones you've mentioned and even more), both watching and playing.  I saw Sampras with my own two eyes all my life.  Full or class and no crybaby whatsoever, I say.

[ramshorns]

Actually Borg's case was much of a burnout and given too much attention which he disliked, as the causes for his premature retirement.  Sure the American press would make you believe otherwise, hatching such conspiracy theories that he retired because he lost to McEnroe, which was hardly the case.  If anyone knew Borg well or followed him throughout like I did they would not attest to that.  Thank God I do not have to rely on others to make my calls, I believe in my eyes more than what Tom, Dick or Harry has to say, given my immense exposure to sports which I am proud of.  Same on my observations on Sampras.  This is one classless guy who always looked for excuses for his shortcomings on clay and being a baby about it.  I have seen that many a time and that attitude cost him making any advancements at French.

P.S:-I do not want to get into people's personal life's not related to sports.  It is his choice to do what he wants with his miniature trophie's, when it came to putting food on the table.  I would not penalise and call him classless for that just like I would not Sampras if god forbid such things happen to him in life.

Not at all basing it on the American media-- I was not even in the U.S. at the time.  And I never said that was the reason, but saying that one can easily interpret it that way if you want to.  Besides, why do you think I am relying on others-- I assure you I have tremendous exposure to the sports, both watching and playing.  I saw Sampras with my own two eyes all my life.  Full or class and no crybaby whatsoever, I say.

Ok then to each his own to me Sampras the crybaby extraordinaire and to you he is not.  We again disagree.

[Sahir]

Ok then to each his own to me Sampras the crybaby extraordinaire and to you he is not.  We again disagree.

Ok, but posing a hypothetical-- if someone started calling Laxman a crybaby because he's not selected for ODIs or the previous World Cup from his interviews, and simply based the argument on saying they have seen and followed enough sports to know a crybaby when they see one, would that be acceptable to you?  You cannot just outright label someone like that.

[ramshorns]

Ok then to each his own to me Sampras the crybaby extraordinaire and to you he is not.  We again disagree.

Ok, but posing a hypothetical-- if someone started calling Laxman a crybaby because he's not selected for ODIs or the previous World Cup from his interviews, and simply based the argument on saying they have seen and followed enough sports to know a crybaby when they see one, would that be acceptable to you?  You cannot just outright label someone like that.

Sorry one can label Laxman what they want.  I may not agree with that for I have reasons to believe otherwise.   I think they can do no worse labelling Laxman that way when in essense selectors have done it to him in the last WC.   I have reasons for feeling about Sampras that way.  I gave you the reasons, in lots of interviews live not reported he came across a person who was bitter about his weakness and rather being dismissive about it saying that Wimbeldon was the only thing that mattered to him and others are OK, if he wins or not.  Talk like that will never pass with smart people.

[Sahir]

I gave you the reasons, in lots of interviews live not reported he came across a person who was bitter about his weakness and rather being dismissive about it saying that Wimbeldon was the only thing that mattered to him and others are OK, if he wins or not.  Talk like that will never pass with smart people.

Sure-- it irked him that he could not win the French, but he never gave up on it the way many Spaniards and Agassi early in his career boycotted grass.  He was not like Safin is at Wimbledon.  He always tried to win there, but just could not.  Pretty late in his career he made a run and reached the semifinal of the French.  Even to this day he hopes a serve and volleyer can win the French; he was recently rooting for Henman last year, even calling his former coach Gullickson, Henman's current coach, to tell Tim to keep coming in and playing his natural game.  He was never able to overcome that hurdle, but never gave up trying to do so.  Giving up would have made him a crybaby, not failing to do it.  Besides, great athletes never admit their career is incomplete-- Lendl would not say so without Wimbledon, Borg would not say so without the US, Malone and Barkley would not say so without an NBA championship, and Marino would not say so without a Superbowl victory.  Everyone knows the truth hurts on the inside-- they always play to win everything, but sometimes, that's just not how it works out,  But as long as you gave it your best shot, that ought to be good enough.

[ramshorns]

I gave you the reasons, in lots of interviews live not reported he came across a person who was bitter about his weakness and rather being dismissive about it saying that Wimbeldon was the only thing that mattered to him and others are OK, if he wins or not.  Talk like that will never pass with smart people.

Sure-- it irked him that he could not win the French, but he never gave up on it the way many Spaniards and Agassi early in his career boycotted grass.  He was not like Safin is at Wimbledon.  He always tried to win there, but just could not.  Pretty late in his career he made a run and reached the semifinal of the French.  Even to this day he hopes a serve and volleyer can win the French; he was recently rooting for Henman last year, even calling his former coach Gullickson, Henman's current coach, to tell Tim to keep coming in and playing his natural game.  He was never able to overcome that hurdle, but never gave up trying to do so.  Giving up would have made him a crybaby, not failing to do it.  Besides, great athletes never admit their career is incomplete-- Lendl would not say so without Wimbledon, Borg would not say so without the US, Malone and Barkley would not say so without an NBA championship, and Marino would not say so without a Superbowl victory.  Everyone knows the truth hurts on the inside-- they always play to win everything, but sometimes, that's just not how it works out,  But as long as you gave it your best shot, that ought to be good enough.

Sorry I need to Jump in when I have to.  In the 1988 Wimbeldon, just before it started this is what Lendl Said "Take away all my Grand Slams.   But give me one Wimbeldon".   So that is not true.  Also I am a big Barkley fan.  On Turner sports he always said that just for MJ he would have won a ring and he even went to Rockets to do so.  He regretted not winning one.  So I would not rank Sampras with Lendl and Barkley when it comes to humbleness.  Again it is a difference of opinion.

[fineleg]

Good debate guys,  two different POV's...good debate.

[Sahir]

Sorry I need to Jump in when I have to.  In the 1988 Wimbeldon, just before it started this is what Lendl Said "Take away all my Grand Slams.   But give me one Wimbeldon".   So that is not true.  Also I am a big Barkley fan.  On Turner sports he always said that just for MJ he would have won a ring and he even went to Rockets to do so.  He regretted not winning one.  So I would not rank Sampras with Lendl and Barkley when it comes to humbleness.  Again it is a difference of opinion.

Please tell me you did not just mention Barkley and humble in the same sentence!  That is beyond ridiculous-- he pretty much thinks he is God's gift to Earth-- about the most narcissistic personality you could ever see.  Plus, he was directly asked by Jim Gray in an interview whether his career would be complete without winning an NBA Championship (and this was when he was still playing) and he replied in the affirmative, saying it was not necessary to win a championship to have had a great career.

[ramshorns]

Sorry I need to Jump in when I have to.  In the 1988 Wimbeldon, just before it started this is what Lendl Said "Take away all my Grand Slams.   But give me one Wimbeldon".   So that is not true.  Also I am a big Barkley fan.  On Turner sports he always said that just for MJ he would have won a ring and he even went to Rockets to do so.  He regretted not winning one.  So I would not rank Sampras with Lendl and Barkley when it comes to humbleness.  Again it is a difference of opinion.

Please tell me you did not just mention Barkley and humble in the same sentence!  That is beyond ridiculous-- he pretty much thinks he is God's gift to Earth-- about the most narcissistic personality you could ever see.  Plus, he was directly asked by Jim Gray in an interview whether his career would be complete without winning an NBA Championship (and this was when he was still playing) and he replied in the affirmative, saying it was not necessary to win a championship to have had a great career.

Yeah right Mr.Sampras all cool and Mr. Nice outside is not so clean inside, is he.  I would want more Barkley's on this earth, who are honest and straight forward than all these MR. Clean images whose closets are not so clean as they appear.  In the heat of the battle sure he probably said that, but I saw him admit in many interviews and commentaries he regretted not winning a title.

[Sahir]

Yeah right Mr.Sampras all cool and Mr. Nice outside is not so clean inside, is he.  I would want more Barkley's on this earth, who are honest and straight forward than all these MR. Clean images whose closets are not so clean as they appear.  In the heat of the battle sure he probably said that, but I saw him admit in many interviews and commentaries he regretted not winning a title.

Nothing in the heat of the battle about it-- he was in an interview offcourt!  And what do you mean by Sampras being not so clean inside as opposed to outside and his closet not being clean-- I thought you said you will not get into personal life.  In that manner, we can say Borg appeared very clean on the outside, but it was later confirmed that he was a drug addict on the inside.

[ramshorns]

Yeah right Mr.Sampras all cool and Mr. Nice outside is not so clean inside, is he.  I would want more Barkley's on this earth, who are honest and straight forward than all these MR. Clean images whose closets are not so clean as they appear.  In the heat of the battle sure he probably said that, but I saw him admit in many interviews and commentaries he regretted not winning a title.

Nothing in the heat of the battle about it-- he was in an interview offcourt!  And what do you mean by Sampras being not so clean inside as opposed to outside and his closet not being clean-- I thought you said you will not get into personal life.  In that manner, we can say Borg appeared very clean on the outside, but it was later confirmed that he was a drug addict on the inside.

When you say that Barkley and humble in the same sentence is ridiculous I think I am entitled to calling Sampras a wuss.  I never went into the personal aspect of his life.  Closet does not mean just personal but it can also be a peronality related to sports that is not too obvious to a untrained eye.

[Sahir]

When you say that Barkley and humble in the same sentence is ridiculous I think I am entitled to calling Sampras a wuss.  I never went into the personal aspect of his life.  Closet does not mean just personal but it can also be a peronality related to sports that is not too obvious to a untrained eye.

Are you insinuating my eye is untrained?

[ramshorns]

When you say that Barkley and humble in the same sentence is ridiculous I think I am entitled to calling Sampras a wuss.  I never went into the personal aspect of his life.  Closet does not mean just personal but it can also be a peronality related to sports that is not too obvious to a untrained eye.

Are you insinuating my eye is untrained?

May be not you, but I have seen people like that before who fall for a good politically correct talk and all that means is opposite.

[Sahir]

When you say that Barkley and humble in the same sentence is ridiculous I think I am entitled to calling Sampras a wuss.  I never went into the personal aspect of his life.  Closet does not mean just personal but it can also be a peronality related to sports that is not too obvious to a untrained eye.

Are you insinuating my eye is untrained?

May be not you, but I have seen people like that before who fall for a good politically correct talk and all that means is opposite.

Similarly, I have seen people fall for what people call straight-talking, but all it sometimes represents is a lack of intellectual depth.