Simon wyraźnie nabrał chęci do pisania analiz. Ale mu ciężko być musiało, gdy ustalając drabinkę musiał pominąć nazwisko Marego.

Niektóre kandydatury po prostu śmieszne. Jaki związek mają wyrobnicy Wilander i Courier z Fedem, Samprasem, McEnroe? Gdzie Emerson, który wygrał 12 WS?

Simon był jeszcze wtedy mały, nie widział ich w akcji. Tildena też nie ma, a 10 szlemów ugrał.
Jestem święcie przekonany, że wygra Laver.

Simon Reed: Federer [1] def. Courier [16] 2-1 (6-3 6-7 6-3)

Who's the GOAT? 1-Federer v 16-Courier

Our Who's the Goat? tournament kicks off with a match-up between top seed Roger Federer and rank outsider Jim Courier.

A straight-forward victory for the current world number one?

The contenders.

Roger Federer
Nationality: Swiss
Seeded: 1
Grand Slam titles: 16
Australian Open W (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open W (2009)
Wimbledon W (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
US Open W (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

Jim Courier
Nationality: American
Seeded: 16
Grand Slam titles: 4
Australian Open W (1992, 1993)
French Open W (1991, 1992)
Wimbledon F (1993)
US Open F (1991)

Who would win if both players were playing at their absolute best? (One set hard court, one set clay, one set grass)

Simon Reed's verdict:

This match might look a banker to most, but if they are playing one set on each surface, I think Courier could just sneak the set against Federer on clay.

It's interesting, but I actually think Federer will play better on clay this year than he has has done before because the pressure is now off him since he won at Roland Garros last year.

I sense winning that tournament meant more to him than breaking Pete Sampras's Grand Slam record at Wimbledon.

I think he will play really well at the French Open again this year, and strangely, while we may have already seen the best of Federer in his career, I believe there is more to come from him on clay - he has a great chance of defending his title at Roland Garros.

Having said that, and despite Federer being the second best on clay in the world by some way over the last five years, Courier was an immense clay court player in his time and good enough to trouble the Swiss.

It's a very close call, but I'll give the clay court set to Courier in a tie-break.

At Wimbledon though, I'm afraid it's a gimmie for Federer. Courier might be able to hold serve three times, but he wouldn't be able to win anything else, so I'd have that 6-3 to Federer.

On hard courts, again, with Federer  at his very best it is likely to be a similar story. Courier might get a few holds but little more.

Courier had a very good serve and a huge forehand. It was a different type of forehand to Federer's. The Swiss master has many different forehands he can use and that makes it very difficult to read.

Courier's was slightly easier to read, but it was so strong it meant he could go the distance with anyone. It was cruel forehand, especially when played in-to-out - it was a massive shot.

Courier I suppose was the Andy Roddick of his time, with a powerful serve and forehand that could really hurt - although he was better at implementing that style than Roddick.

However, his backhand, while I wouldn't say was a weakness, was not as strong as his other shots. Federer's backhand has varied in consistency at times, but in Australia it was working better than I have seen it for years, probably better than it has ever been.

So I think Federer's backhand helps him win this match as Courier only really used his backhand to keep the ball in play.

In a hypothetical meeting, I imagine Federer's tactic would be to get on that Courier backhand. Courier would probably try and do something similar but he wouldn't be as good at it.

Final Verdict
Federer wins 2-1
6-3 (hard court), 6-7 (clay court), 6-3 grass.

Taaaa, chciałbym zobaczyć analizę Pana Reeda meczu Sampras - Federer.

Mamy drugi wynik: Becker def. Wilander 2-6 6-2 7-6

Who's the GOAT? 8-Wilander v 9-Becker

Last week's Greatest Of All Time match-up might have been a bit of a one-sided tie - we were actually slightly surprised that Jim Courier polled as well as he did - but this week's match has all the makings of a classic: Swedish great Mats Wilander against Germany's Boris Becker.

Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.

Mats Wilander

Nationality: Swedish

Seeded: 8

Grand Slam titles: Seven

Australian Open: Winner (1983, 1984, 1988)

French Open: Winner (1982, 1985, 1988)

Wimbledon: Quarter-finalist (1987, 1988, 1989)

US Open: Winner (1988)

Boris Becker

Nationality: German

Seeded: 9

Grand Slam titles: Six

Australian Open: Winner (1991, 1996)

French Open: Semi-finalist (1987, 1989, 1991)

Wimbledon: Winner (1985, 1986, 1989)

US Open: Winner (1989)

Real-life head-to-head stats: Becker won 7-3 (Becker won five on carpet, two on hard court; Wilander two on clay, one on hard court). Wilander won all three of their Grand Slam meetings, while Becker made a clean sweep outside the Slams.

Who would win if both players were playing at their absolute best? (One set hard court, one set clay, one set grass)

Simon Reed's verdict:

I've got to be careful what I say on this one, because Mats is a personal friend of mine and I work with Boris at Wimbledon every year!

But I'm not hedging my bets when I say I think it would be an incredibly close, hard-fought affair.

Both players were, in mental terms, raging monsters. Each would fight to the end, never giving up a single easy point, doing their utmost throughout to win.

On clay, though, there's no doubt in my mind that Wilander would come through. He would drive Becker to distraction, wearing him down by getting everything back, being a constant thorn in his side.

Wilander was just so tough mentally and physically, with such street smarts, that he could get under his opponents' skin. He knew full well that people underestimated him and made the most of it, even pulling off the trick of somehow making the man across the net play badly against him.

So gritty was his approach, in fact, that he genuinely revelled in seeing his opponents fading, and openly admitted that he loved seeing physical pain on their faces as he wore them down!

I can't see Becker ever living comfortably with that, and though the German would probably hold a couple of his service games my call is that Wilander wins the clay set 6-2.

On grass, it's the exact opposite. Wilander's game was never really made for tennis's fastest surface and he was never a factor at Wimbledon - as his record shows.

Becker's big serve and more aggressive approach would have easily seen him dominate the Swede.

He had more tools than just those, however. Everyone remembers the way Boris used to dive all over the court, but as well as those spectacular moves he had huge ground strokes on both forehand and backhand. Becker would win the grass set 6-2.

In the hard court set, though, it really is all but impossible to call.

I'd see it as being an incredible battle, because Becker just as much as Wilander was a giant of the mental side of the game.

Becker's serve would mean he wouldn't be broken, Wilander's grit would ensure that the set goes to a tie-break - and I reckon it would be an epic one.

Who would win? Well, I'll probably regret coming down on one side of the fence or the other... but I'm going to go with Becker, 14-12, in the tie-break.

Final Verdict

Becker wins 2-1

2-6 (clay court), 6-2 (grass), 7-6(12) (hard court).

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/1839/

Agassi - Nadal
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2059/

McEnroe - Edberg
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2199/

Vilas - Sampras
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2228/

Drugi wynik ćwierćfinałowy:

Laver def. Connors 6-4 7-5 7-6

Who's the GOAT? 12-Laver v 4-Connors


Laver In the second of our Greatest of All Time quarter-finals, 12th seed Rod Laver takes on fourth seed Jimmy Connors in a clash that spans the ages.

Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.

Rod Laver
Nationality: Australian
Seeded: 12
Grand Slam titles: 11
Australian Open: Winner (1960*, 1962*, 1969)
French Open: Winner (1962*, 1969)
Wimbledon: Winner (1961*, 1962*, 1968, 1969)
US Open: Winner (1962*, 1969)

* denotes amateur titles, preceding the open era

Jimmy Connors
Nationality: American
Seeded: 4
Grand Slam titles: Eight
Australian Open winner (1974)
French Open semi-finalist (1979, 1980, 1984, 1985)
Wimbledon winner (1974, 1982)
US Open winner (1974, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1983)

Simon Reed's verdict
Since these two players are essentially from different eras, this is where judging the GOAT becomes tricky. So you have to go on their respective records, and considering Laver's record was better than anybody's, I can't see beyond the Australian winning through to the semi-finals.
That said, their careers did overlap by a few years, and when they played each other in a one-off $100,000 winner-takes-all Challenge Match at Ceasars Palace in 1975, Connors was victorious, winning 6-4 6-2 3-6 7-5.
But that match came as Laver's career was on the wane while Connors, 14 years his junior, had turned professional only three years earlier.
Put Connors at his peak back on to the wooden racquets or take Laver 10 years on from his best and give him a graphite racquet, you have to say that Laver would have beaten him on every surface, including the grass at Wimbledon.
Had it not been for the years between 1963 to 1968, when Laver was banned from competing in Grand Glams, he would have won many more, for sure. The year he turned pro, he won every single Slam and during his outcast years on the circuit it's not unfair to say he would have gone on and won another seven or eight.
Add them to the 11 he won, and you can see he would have eclipsed Connors, who won only eight.
Laver was a fantastic player at the back, he had a decent serve, a backhand to die for and a super volley. Those attributes helped him complete the Grand Slam twice - once in the pre-Open era and then again in Open era.
Against Connors, the US Open would be the closest set. No one knew how to work a crowd better than Connors, so at his home event it would be frighteningly close, but I think Laver would edge it, possibly on a tie-break.
Connors would have tried every trick in the book, and maybe even some not in the book, but Laver was unflappable and just got on with things.

Final verdict

Laver wins 6-4 (clay) 7-5 (grass) 7-6 (hard)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si … icle/2429/

1/4; Sampras def. McEnroe 76 57 76

Who's the GOAT?: 7-McEnroe v 2-Sampras

In the fourth of our Greatest of All Time quarter-finals, seventh seed John McEnroe takes on second seed Pete Sampras in an intriguing clash.

Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the run down on the two contenders.

John McEnroe
Nationality: American
Seeded: 7
Grand Slam titles: 7
Australian Open: Semi-final (1983)
French Open: Finalist (1984)
Wimbledon: Winner (1981, 1983, 1984) 
US Open: Winner (1979, 1980, 1981, 1984)

Pete Sampras
Nationality: American
Seeded: 2
Grand Slam titles: 14
Australian Open: Winner (1994, 1997)
French Open: Semi-finalist (1996)
Wimbledon: Winner (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000)
US Open: Winner (1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002)

Real life head-to-head: 0-3 Sampras

Simon Reed's verdict

What a fantastic match-up. This one is almost too close to call.

My initial thought is that on grass, you can't look past Sampras, even if it's McEnroe we're talking about.

Sampras won seven Wimbledon titles to McEnroe's three, so you'd have to expect him to win a one-off set. But it would be close and a tie-breaker would most likely be needed to settle it.

McEnroe's serve was an immensely powerful weapon and he would be incredibly tough for Pete to break so I see it going to serve before Sampras's extra winning experience on the grass proves decisive.

On clay, it's a tough one as neither player was that successful on the red stuff. Neither player managed a Roland Garros title, with a semi-final appearance the closest Sampras got.

I would give it McEnroe by a nose, if only because on the one occasion he reached the final in Paris - in 1984 - he played brilliantly against Ivan Lendl and seemed to have the title wrapped up only to let it slip in the end.

And on hard courts, like on the grass, the pair are virtually inseparable. But, again, given his stunning record - five US and two Australian - I'd have to back Sampras.

To watch them at their best against each other would be fantastic: Sampras's muscularity opposed to McEnroe's court craft and speed at the net.

McEnroe would have hustled Pete and put pressure on his backhand but, because of what he achieved, I'm sure Pete would have found a way to win the match.

Final verdict

Sampras wins: 7-6 (grass) 5-7 (clay) 7-6 (hard)

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2560/

1/2: Sampras def. Borg

Who's the GOAT? 2-Pete Sampras v 3-Bjorn Borg

In the second of our Greatest of All Time semi-finals, second seed Pete Sampras takes on third seed Bjorn Borg in a clash that would likely have been a real thriller.

Who will face top seed Roger Federer in the final?

Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.

Pete Sampras

Nationality: American

Seeded: 2

Grand Slam titles: 14

Australian Open: Winner (1994, 1997)

French Open: Semi-finalist (1996)

Wimbledon: Winner (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000)

US Open: Winner (1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002)

Bjorn Borg

Nationality: Swedish

Seeded: 3

Grand Slam titles: 11

Australian Open: Third round (1974)

French Open: Winner (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)

Wimbledon: Winner (1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)

US Open: Finalist (1976, 1978, 1980, 1981)

Simon Reed's verdict

This is a really difficult one to call; they played so far apart, two decades apart, and it's tricky to make a logical analysis of what would have happened.

By the time Sampras was playing the game had moved on and the technology had moved on; the standard rose considerably in that time.

But you have to imagine these two playing at their best, at their peak, when they were both as dominant as each other.

Two of the surfaces are really easy: Borg would've beaten Sampras on clay. He won six French Open titles, four in row.

No-one ruled clay like Borg until Rafael Nadal, so Borg would have won comprehensively on clay, although he would have struggled to break Sampras's serve.

And Sampras would have beaten Borg on hard courts.

Borg never won the Australian Open, and Sampras was a terrific hard court player. He won the Australian Open twice and the US Open five times, so you have to give the hard courts to Sampras.

Grass is so tricky.

As we're talking 'at their peak' I can't imagine anybody beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

At his peak Sampras was the greatest grass court player I've ever seen, and so the American just edges it.

Borg is close: he won Wimbledon five times in a row, so we're talking a tie-break here. But Sampras was such a good tie-break player.

It's a really tricky one, but Sampras edges it

Final verdict

Sampras wins 7-6 (grass) 3-6 (clay) 6-3 (hard)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si … icle/2723/

Who's the GOAT?: Federer the greatest

Roger Federer would overcome Pete Sampras if the two men met at the peak of their powers in a Greatest Of All Time final.

That is the overwhelming verdict of Eurosport-Yahoo! readers after our poll to decide the finest player to pick up a tennis racket.

Out of 25,482 votes cast since last Friday, a whopping 22,809 (90%) of you said that the Swiss master would emerge the victor. Sampras received just 2,673 votes, which equates to 10%. (results as of 8:00am on Thursday)

Federer and Sampras only played each other once on the ATP Tour. That came in the fourth round of the 2001 Wimbledon tournament when Federer outwitted the defending champion in five sets. It seemed to mark a watershed moment in the rich history of the game.

Sampras would never add to his seven Wimbledon titles after such a seismic loss. It would also prove a noteworthy moment on Federer's journey to realising the first of his six triumphs at the All England club.

Of the Majors which Sampras won, the French Open managed to elude him. Federer has looked vulnerable on clay, but he finally completed the career Grand Slam at Roland Garros a year ago. The best Sampras could muster at Roland Garros was a run to the semi-finals.

Eurosport's tennis commentator Simon Reed agreed with the vast majority of your comments. He felt that Federer would have defeated Sampras on clay and hard courts with the American perhaps holding the edge on grass.

If Federer claims Wimbledon this year, he will equal Sampras's seven tournament wins at the venue. Enough of you are already convinced that the Swiss artist already occupies that elevated position.

WHO'S THE GOAT - FINAL POLL RESULTS:

We asked: In the final in our Greatest of All Time series between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras, who would win?

Roger Federer: 89%, 22,839 votes

Pete Sampras: 11%, 2,682 votes

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/20052010/ … atest.html

A to z jakiej racji?

Cicho dzieci, poczekajmy do niedzieli.