PDA

View Full Version : How will history view 1988-2007?


Moose Malloy
05-31-2007, 02:07 PM
Since the Australian Open is removing the Rebound Ace for next years' event, was wondering how some of you will now view a players greatness.

I often hear posters here talk of Agassi being the only player to win slams on all 4 surfaces, will you consider a player of the future to be lesser if they win all 4 on only 3 different surfaces? It seems to be a valid question since many here dismiss laver's slam since it was on only 2 surfaces(though anyone who knows that period knows that the grass at the 3 slams was very different, as different as the differences between the US Open & Rebound Ace)

so will players who played from '88-'07 be considered more versatile or having faced more challenges than players who play from '08 onward?

will talk of there being 4 surfaces in this period disappear altogether?

have the differences between rebound ace & the us open been vastly overrated to begin with?

Every US Open champ since 1988 except Rafter & Roddick has made at least the finals in Australia(& Rodick & Rafter did make the semis)

federerfanatic
05-31-2007, 02:47 PM
I dont think much about the difference between rebound ace and decoturf. I mostly think of 3 main surfaces slams are played on today being hard courts, grass, and clay. In that sense players from 1978-onwards had more challenges then those before IMO, not really so much 1988-2007 when there were 2 supposably different types of hard courts.

The difference in rebound ace and decorturf is very exagerrated IMO. People said Nadal would be unbeatable on rebound ace, even though he has a hard time getting past the quarters on decoturf, yet we see what happened as he struggled to even reach the quarters before being bombed out of the event by a bigger hitter in the quarters, like often happens on decoturf too.

thejackal
05-31-2007, 03:00 PM
before the 70s there were only 2 surfaces - grass and clay

noeledmonds
05-31-2007, 03:12 PM
have the differences between rebound ace & the us open been vastly overrated to begin with?

I feel there is a significant difference between rebound ace and the US Open. Decoturf plays perceptably faster than rebound ace and deco turf has lower bouncing balls that skid off the court more. It is not coinsidence that since 1988 no less than 10 USO championships have gone to Serve and Volley players, while just 4 AO championships have gone to Serve and Volley players. From 1988 to 1999 all USO champions were S&V except for Wilander and Agaasi, while Becker and Sampras are the only S&V players to have won the AO since its conversion to rebound ace.

Modern grass is more similar to decoturf courts than rebound ace to decoturf courts today. Grass has slowed down and the bounce has become far more predictable. Grass no longer changes throughout Wimbledon's 2 weeks (as the grass is maintained to the same level). Grass today plays very much like a decoturf hard court.

noeledmonds
05-31-2007, 03:19 PM
I was led to believe that the new Australian Open surface would still not play like a decoturf hard court anyway, therefore keeping the different surfaces:

But Tiley says the court will continue to play at the same speed as the Rebound Ace surface, saying: "The court characteristics will be very similar to what we achieved in 2007."

He added: "The annual review of the courts had to be more extensive this year because of their age and condition. But once it was established that a major rebuild was required, an exhaustive selection process was undertaken."

Tiley also insisted the court was not classified as hard, maintaining its difference from the other Grand Slam events on the calendar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/australian_open/6703267.stm

Moose Malloy
05-31-2007, 03:20 PM
It is not coinsidence that since 1988 no less than 10 USO championships have gone to Serve and Volley players, while just 4 AO championships have gone to Serve and Volley players. From 1988 to 1999 all USO champions were S&V except for Wilander and Agaasi, while Becker and Sampras are the only S&V players to have won the AO since its conversion to rebound ace.


since 1988, 10 different players have won the US Open. Of those 10, 6 won an Australian on Rebound Ace, 2 made at least the final, 2 made at least the semis. Doesn't sound like there was much of an adjustment for those players.

Moose Malloy
05-31-2007, 03:21 PM
Tiley also insisted the court was not classified as hard, maintaining its difference from the other Grand Slam events on the calendar.

what do you expect him to say? we'll see if they come up with some new name for this new surface by next year.

noeledmonds
05-31-2007, 03:26 PM
since 1988, 10 different players have won the US Open. Of those 10, 6 won an Australian on Rebound Ace, 2 made at least the final, 2 made at least the semis. Doesn't sound like there was much of an adjustment for those players.

Of those 10 who won the USO, 6 have won Wimbledon, 2 have reached multiple finals, and 2 have reached quarter-finals. Very similar to your analysis above for evidence of lack of difference between the surfaces.

noeledmonds
06-01-2007, 06:03 AM
Australian Open-US Open doubles achieved since 1988:
1988 Wilander
2004 Federer
2006 Federer

Wimbledon-US Open doubles achieved since 1988:
1989 Becker
1993 Sampras
1995 Sampras
2004 Federer
2005 Federer
2006 Federer

All implies that Rebound ace plays more differently than Grass to Decoturf courts, particularly modern grass (since it slowed down and bounced evenly etc.).

Note I do not attempt to vastly diminish what Laver achieved with this argument. Laver could only play on the surfaces around at the time. Laver was sublime on 3 surfaces (he was great on hard court too and I have no doubt he would have won a slam on hard court had there been one). Anway even if Laver’s achivements are slightly diminished slightly by lack of a 4th surface he is still so far ahead of anyone (in terms of achievement) that I consider him the greatest.

federerfanatic
06-01-2007, 06:17 AM
Australian Open-US Open doubles achieved since 1988:
1988 Wilander
2004 Federer
2006 Federer

Wimbledon-US Open doubles achieved since 1988:
1989 Becker
1993 Sampras
1995 Sampras
2004 Federer
2005 Federer
2006 Federer

All implies that Rebound ace plays more differently than Grass to Decoturf courts, particularly modern grass (since it slowed down and bounced evenly etc.).

1993 was the year Sampras made that mental transformation into having the self belief and champions mentality to win those big events again and often. As this is the year he went through this process, it is more likely he wins the major events later in the year then early. Plus the other top dogs like Courier and Edberg were still around at the end of the 93 Australian Open, while almost every contender was gone by the quarters of the U.S Open leaving him an almost completely clear path to the title.

In 1995 Sampras was dealing with the initial news of his coach's potentialy fatal illness during the Australian Open, and showed amazing courage and heart to even reach the finals. He was breaking down in tears during some of his matches.

In 2005 Federer was one point away from winning the Australian Open, just one point. The rarity of a Safin playing his absolute best on his best surface of hard courts, is beyond anything he faced at Wimbledon or the U.S Open that year too.

oberyn
06-06-2007, 08:14 AM
Australian Open-US Open doubles achieved since 1988:
1988 Wilander
2004 Federer
2006 Federer

Wimbledon-US Open doubles achieved since 1988:
1989 Becker
1993 Sampras
1995 Sampras
2004 Federer
2005 Federer
2006 Federer

All implies that Rebound ace plays more differently than Grass to Decoturf courts, particularly modern grass (since it slowed down and bounced evenly etc.).

Ahem.

I'm not trying to be flippant here, but I agree with others that the difference between rebound ace and decoturf is greatly exaggerated.

Australian Open-Wimbledon doubles achieved since 1988:

1994 Sampras
1997 Sampras
2004 Federer
2006 Federer

As others have pointed out, the fact that it didn't happen for Sampras in 1995 and Federer in 2005 had little to do with the surface, per se.

vive le beau jeu !
06-06-2007, 03:14 PM
Since the Australian Open is removing the Rebound Ace for next years' event, was wondering how some of you will now view a players greatness.

I often hear posters here talk of Agassi being the only player to win slams on all 4 surfaces, will you consider a player of the future to be lesser if they win all 4 on only 3 different surfaces? It seems to be a valid question since many here dismiss laver's slam since it was on only 2 surfaces(though anyone who knows that period knows that the grass at the 3 slams was very different, as different as the differences between the US Open & Rebound Ace)

so will players who played from '88-'07 be considered more versatile or having faced more challenges than players who play from '08 onward?

will talk of there being 4 surfaces in this period disappear altogether?

have the differences between rebound ace & the us open been vastly overrated to begin with?

Every US Open champ since 1988 except Rafter & Roddick has made at least the finals in Australia(& Rodick & Rafter did make the semis)
mmmh i'd consider we have 3 surfaces since 1988 (as you can guess with the color code on my page) ;)

according to me, considering USO & AO as 2 different surfaces for this period is another level of detail... but is the difference between these 2 surfaces "larger" than between red and green clay, for instance ?... or between australian open and wimbledon grasses ?...
and what about evolution of the surface of a same slam through time ? (and we don't talk yet about the balls that are also very important !)

so i'll stick with the usual first approximation, the basic distinction : hard court, clay court, grass court.
(and carpet also, but this isn't relevant for the slams)

sorry for agassi, but what he did remains cool... ;)

vive le beau jeu !
06-06-2007, 03:22 PM
i found this very interesting link on the ITF website, where they have a list of classified court surfaces :
yes yes i know... i'm one of these maniacs of classifications ! :rolleyes:
http://www.itftennis.com/technical/equipment/courts/courtlist.asp
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/image/staticarticle/IO_6220_staticarticle.JPG
as a complement to my previous post :
according the the ITF classification, both rebound ace and decoturf are listed as "A type" surfaces...

Rasta
06-06-2007, 04:15 PM
Agassi is one of very few to have won all four grand slam events but I haven't heard much talk of four different surfaces. But, winning on both the clay of Roland Garros and the grass of Wimbledon is something to regard as extraordinary. Others have done it but it is a select club.

Frank Silbermann
06-06-2007, 06:24 PM
Jimmy Connors has said that a player cannot be considered truly great until he wins the U.S. Open on all three surfaces.

noeledmonds
08-02-2007, 05:26 PM
In 1995 Sampras was dealing with the initial news of his coach's potentialy fatal illness during the Australian Open, and showed amazing courage and heart to even reach the finals. He was breaking down in tears during some of his matches.

Agassi consitantly performed better than Sampras on rebound-ace, hence his 4 titles compared to Sampras's 2. Sampras was indeed coming through an emotional time early in 1995 but he still lost in 2000 too against an Agassi he beat confertably twice in big matches the previous year on faster surfaces (Wimbledon and Year End Tournament).

In 2005 Federer was one point away from winning the Australian Open, just one point. The rarity of a Safin playing his absolute best on his best surface of hard courts, is beyond anything he faced at Wimbledon or the U.S Open that year too.

Federer was 1 point away from reaching the final not winning the tournament. Hewitt had won 2 slams already and had a home crowd meaning the final would not be a formality to Federer. Safin has performed better considerably better on rebound-ace than the decoturf of the USO. Safin has reached the final of the AO on 3 occasions beating many great players there including Agassi, Federer, Sampras, Hewitt and Roddick. Since Safin's awsome win at the USO in 2000 he has performed relativly poorly at the USO with a semi-final the next year being the only other time Safin has progressed beyond R16 at the USO. Todd Martin and Nalbandian are perhaps the only other notable players Safin has beaten at the USO apart from Sampras. It was no conincidence that Safin performed best at the AO.

As I stated before; Since 1988 no less than 10 USO championships have gone to Serve and Volley players, while just 4 AO championships have gone to Serve and Volley players. From 1988 to 1999 all USO champions were S&V except for Wilander and Agaasi, while Becker and Sampras are the only S&V players to have won the AO since its conversion to rebound ace.

anointedone
08-02-2007, 05:46 PM
Federer was 1 point away from reaching the final not winning the tournament. Hewitt had won 2 slams already and had a home crowd meaning the final would not be a formality to Federer.

Wrong. Any Hewitt-Federer match since mid-2004 the win is a "formality" for Federer. Federer beat Hewitt 9 straight times from the 2004 Australian Open through to the 2005 U.S Open (they havent played since). However the times they played until the 2004 U.S Open you still felt Hewitt had a bit of a fighting chance, although still the heavy underdog. It was at the 2004 U.S Open that Hewitt stopped seeming he had any chance at all when he played Federer. As it was from that day forward he would win 1 of 17 sets over their next 6 matches.

Safin performed a big level down in the final with Hewitt, then his magestic performance in beating Federer by the narrowest of margins in the semis, and he still had a much easier time beating Hewitt then beating Federer.

Federer was indeed 1 point from winning the last 4 Australian Opens. The inevitable outcome of the Hewitt-Federer final does not even merit discussion.

anointedone
08-02-2007, 05:48 PM
Agassi consitantly performed better than Sampras on rebound-ace, hence his 4 titles compared to Sampras's 2. Sampras was indeed coming through an emotional time early in 1995 but he still lost in 2000 too against an Agassi he beat confertably twice in big matches the previous year on faster surfaces (Wimbledon and Year End Tournament).

Sampras was injured in the 2000 semifinal vs Agassi as well, and although John McEnroe, then Davis Cup Captain accused him of faking it, he would miss the next 5 weeks with this injury. Sampras himself said he did not know if he would have been able to play the final had he won, due to this injury, and that it is possible he would have defaulted.

noeledmonds
08-02-2007, 06:04 PM
Wrong. Any Hewitt-Federer match since mid-2004 the win is a "formality" for Federer. Federer beat Hewitt 9 straight times from the 2004 Australian Open through to the 2005 U.S Open (they havent played since). However the times they played until the 2004 U.S Open you still felt Hewitt had a bit of a fighting chance, although still the heavy underdog. It was at the 2004 U.S Open that Hewitt stopped seeming he had any chance at all when he played Federer. As it was from that day forward he would win 1 of 17 sets over their next 6 matches.

Safin performed a big level down in the final with Hewitt, then his magestic performance in beating Federer by the narrowest of margins in the semis, and he still had a much easier time beating Hewitt then beating Federer.

Federer was indeed 1 point from winning the last 4 Australian Opens. The inevitable outcome of the Hewitt-Federer final does not even merit discussion.

Any player, even Federer, can lose to any proffesional ranked in the top 100 on a given day given the right conditions. A player of Hewitt's calibre will always have a chance against anyone, particularly with a home crowd. For all we know Hewitt might have played a completely different match against Federer than the one he played against Safin. Regardless of whether Federer would have won the final, the point is he lost in 2005 to Safin and Federer was not taken to 5 sets at any point during the 2005 SW19 or the USO championships.

Sampras was injured in the 2000 semifinal vs Agassi as well, and although John McEnroe, then Davis Cup Captain accused him of faking it, he would miss the next 5 weeks with this injury. Sampras himself said he did not know if he would have been able to play the final had he won, due to this injury, and that it is possible he would have defaulted.

Sampras never appeared to be struggling physically during the match even when he lost the final set 6-1. Sampras's AO titles are timely in the fact the 1st one was before Agassi played the AO and the 2nd one was during his mental breakdown. Generally Sampras's record is unsuprior to Agassi's at the AO while is far supiroir to Agassi's at the USO.

anointedone
08-02-2007, 06:18 PM
Any player, even Federer, can lose to any proffesional ranked in the top 100 on a given day given the right conditions.

Sure, and on any given day any given person can win a lottery for multiple million dollars. Lets keep it within the realm of reason however. :p

A player of Hewitt's calibre will always have a chance against anyone,

.........except for Federer, he is Fed's personal b$tch ever since 2004.

particularly with a home crowd.

Sorry to the Aussies, you guys are great, but you pale in comparision to the unbelievably hostile U.S Open crowds which Federer was still able to overcome in beating Agassi in those two later years, matches that would have been slaughters without the crowd factor though, so atleast I partialy see your point.

For all we know Hewitt might have played a completely different match against Federer than the one he played against Safin.

What reason is there to believe Hewitt wouldnt play better vs someone like Safin, who he would have much rather played in the final then Federer, regardless how well Safin was playing, and who he no doubt thought he had a better shot of winning against then Federer. There is no reason to think Hewitt, if anything would have been different that is, would not have been much more motivated to play a match that was a real opportunity, rather then an act in futility.

Sampras never appeared to be struggling physically during the match even when he lost the final set 6-1. Sampras's AO titles are timely in the fact the 1st one was before Agassi played the AO and the 2nd one was during his mental breakdown. Generally Sampras's record is unsuprior to Agassi's at the AO while is far supiroir to Agassi's at the USO.

Well that is convenient. One could just as easily say Agassi's AO titles are timely in 1995 where Sampras was under extreme emotional diress, and not himself the whole tournament, struggling the entire way and only making the final on sheer will (nearly went up 2 sets to 1 on Agassi anyway); then in 2000 when was Sampras was injured by his own admission, yet despite this Sampras was up a mini-break late in the decisive 4th set tiebreaker and very close to winning; then in 2001 and 2003 when Sampras was a complete shadow of his former self outside of his final 2 U.S Opens, and not even playing top 10 calibre tennis the vast majority of the time anymore.

Sampras himself said he was definitely "injured". He said he wasnt even sure if he could have played the final had he won. He said in an interview afterwords he may have defaulted the final.
What are you saying, that he was lieing??

Perhaps more convenient for Agassi is he played the Australian Open for the first time in 1995 when he played one of his best years of tennis ever, rather then showing up earlier and getting his butt kicked by guys like Courier and Sampras, who owned him then. Then later on having such sharks as Ferreira, Schuettler, Clement to beat in semis or finals to win some of those later Australians; and the best 2 players he beat by far - Rafter and Sampras, both having physical problems and still only losing in 5 sets.

The Gorilla
08-02-2007, 06:59 PM
who cares?

seriously, you people are beyond obsessed.I hope you are at work.