PDA

View Full Version : Sampras believes his competition was better!


PRADEEPKUMAR MANI
11-23-2007, 09:01 PM
Sampras insists Federer's opposition falls short of the standard of Rafter, Agassi, Edberg, Becker and Courier, who formed the American's main challengers when he dominated in the 1990s and early part of this decade.

"I had more major winners up against me versus the rising stars behind Roger."

http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=1846412007

I don't see why Pete has to be so insecure. He is one of the tennis greats, his legacy lives. Yet he is always condescending in his opinions of Roger's achievements- he always seems to praise Roger, but adds a caveat that implies that Roger has it easier now ("tougher" competition during Pete's time, lack of S & V players, etc.). I don't understand how S & V tennis is an guaranteed recipe for success. It is true that players don't S & V now - but they have become that much better at the baseline. The more he shoots off his mouth like this, the more I lose respect for him.

Some one posted this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A26834592:



The prime years would be 94-97 for Pete, and 04-07 for Roger.

During that time Pete lost to the following "greats"

Courier in French quarters
Jaime Yzaga in R16 US Open
Agassi in Australian finals
Gilbert Schaller in French R128
Mark Phillipousis in Australian R32
Kafelnikov in French semis (his only semis)
Krajicek in Wimbledon quarters
Magnus Norman in French R32
Petr Korda in US Open R16

During his best four years Roger lost to the following "weak era" players:

Kuerten in French R32
Safin in Australian Semis
Nadal in French Semi Finals
Nadal in French Finals
Nadal in French Finals

So what is clear beyond a shadow of doubt is that, Pete lost to players he shouldn't have - Norman, Yzaga, Schaller, Phillippousis


Couldn't agree more!

Morrissey
11-23-2007, 09:05 PM
http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=1846412007

I don't see why Pete has to be so insecure. He is one of the tennis greats, his legacy lives. Yet he is always condescending in his opinions of Roger's achievements- he always seems to praise Roger, but adds a caveat that implies that Roger has it easier now ("tougher" competition during Pete's time, lack of S & V players, etc.). I don't understand how S & V tennis is an guaranteed recipe for success. It is true that players don't S & V now - but they have become that much better at the baseline. The more he shoots off his mouth like this, the more I lose respect for him.

Some one posted this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A26834592:




Couldn't agree more!

He says that because Fed makes his competition look weaker compared to Pete's generation. Fed would have smoked Pete's competition. I can't believe I'm defending the guy.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
11-23-2007, 09:05 PM
ofcourse, he wasnt good enough to stop his peers!, if roddick was playing in petes era, he would have 3 slams, not 1.

Phil
11-23-2007, 09:06 PM
Sampras is correct on this matter. Absolutely, no doubt about it.

superman1
11-23-2007, 09:10 PM
I have to agree. It's a hell of a lot harder to be dominant when the surfaces are all polarized and your opponents all have different styles. Doesn't matter if Yzaga isn't a big name, he was probably on fire that day, and Sampras probably wasn't at his best.

Nickognito
11-23-2007, 09:23 PM
no doubt that Federer in 2003-2007 is better thant Pete in 1993-97.

After that, we have eight years. Sampras' 1990-92 and 1998-2002

In this period Sampras won 25 tournaments, including 2 Us Open, 3 Wimbledon, 2 Masters and 1 Grand Slam Cup, reaching each year at least a grand slam final, and being top10 in 7 years.

if we exclude 2004-2007 period for Federer, the Swiss won 4 atp tournaments, without any grand slam semifinals and being just 1 time a top10.

Federer is yet very young, so let's wait 7 years, and see.

c.

PRADEEPKUMAR MANI
11-23-2007, 09:29 PM
I have to agree. It's a hell of a lot harder to be dominant when the surfaces are all polarized and your opponents all have different styles. Doesn't matter if Yzaga isn't a big name, he was probably on fire that day, and Sampras probably wasn't at his best.

I do not think the surface is that different from what Sampras played. During the 90s, we had 2 fast surfaces (Wimby and USO), 1 med-fast (AO) and 1 slow (FO). Now we have 1 fast (USO), 2 med-fast (Wim, AO) and 1 slow. When you compare, not much has changed..

Most of the guys that sampras lost to (in the above list) were predominantly baseliners. So "different" styles did not seem to have much of an effect on Sampras - seems like only one style did!

IMO, simply the presence of multiple GS winners during an era does not imply that the era was better. It only means that the players during that era were closely matched in terms of ability. It does not tell you anything about the absolute ability of a player. Then you can only draw conclusions about a player's ability based on playing style, weaknesses, etc.

IMO Fed dominates because he is that much better (except nadal on clay) than everyone else, not because his opponents are weak. None of his weapons (bar his FH) is the best in history, yet the sum total of all his weapons exceeds anyone else in history! (Not that I'm presenting new "evidence" in the GOAT/ Fed vs. Samp debate... This has been discussed a lot on these boards, without any conclusion. Just wanted to share my thoughts nevertheless :) )
.

Rob_C
11-23-2007, 10:35 PM
I have to agree. It's a hell of a lot harder to be dominant when the surfaces are all polarized and your opponents all have different styles. Doesn't matter if Yzaga isn't a big name, he was probably on fire that day, and Sampras probably wasn't at his best.

The year Sampras lost to Yzaga was the year he sprained his ankle badly at Wimbledon, and sat out the entire summer hardcourt season, save one doubles tourney, I think Long island, just to kinda get used to the pace of the game before the Open. FYI.

jukka1970
11-23-2007, 10:52 PM
http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=1846412007

I don't see why Pete has to be so insecure. He is one of the tennis greats, his legacy lives. Yet he is always condescending in his opinions of Roger's achievements- he always seems to praise Roger, but adds a caveat that implies that Roger has it easier now ("tougher" competition during Pete's time, lack of S & V players, etc.). I don't understand how S & V tennis is an guaranteed recipe for success. It is true that players don't S & V now - but they have become that much better at the baseline. The more he shoots off his mouth like this, the more I lose respect for him.

Some one posted this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A26834592:

Couldn't agree more!

Ok, I don't care for Sampras at all, but I will say this. In my opinion Sampras isn't condescending about Federer. Sampras does have a lot of respect for Federer. There are times that things are going to look different by the way stuff is printed. At one time I thought Sampras was pretty arogant, but as other posters showed some more interview materials, I changed my view on that. So I would simply say, not to read to much into one specific interview, but judge things on groups of interviews whether in print or in video format, and it's probably better if the group contains both.

Jukka

tHotGates
11-24-2007, 12:44 AM
Sampras is right but he should dial down the talk or come up with a more PC/softer answer to some of these inevitable questions.

MasturB
11-24-2007, 01:09 AM
Seriously, why is Pete so insecure?

He's the GOAT until Fed wins #15 (if that ever happens).

Fed has won all of these slams in a handful amount of years. Sampras won them a bit more spread out in his career.

Of course there's going to be less players Fed is going up against who are winners of majors.

Roddick has a few more slams, Nadal has a few more slams, Joker has a slam, Safin maybe another. Then you can say Fed did it in an era as strong as Pete's, but then again at the same time you say Fed wasn't dominant because he doesn't own those slams.

Rhino
11-24-2007, 05:38 AM
Thats funny because when Pete lost to George Bastl in his last ever Wimbledon match in 2002 he said:
"I still feel like my game is very dangerous - but players are better today".
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2068324.stm

iamke55
11-24-2007, 10:15 AM
I'm sure the guy who designed the Pentium 1 would think the same if the raw numbers measuring such performance didn't exist and there were legions of fanboys who think Civilization 1 actually looks better than Gears of War.

AndrewD
11-24-2007, 01:49 PM
I don't think Sampras is necessarily wrong. Courier, Rafter, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Brugera, Kuerten are better than the current crop - with the exception of Nadal. HOWEVER, Becker (his best years were in the mid-late 80's), Edberg (whose peak years weren't during Sampras's time), Lendl, McEnroe, Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Cash, Wilander and Connors were infinitely better than the guys Sampras had to play against. HOWEVER, that's nowhere near as tough as the early days of pro tennis when you had Laver, Newcombe, Nastase, Gonzalez, Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Roche, Rosewall, etc, etc.

So, Federer mightn't have the tough opposition Sampras faced (forgetting that Courier flamed out within 4 years, Rafter only lasted 5 years at the top, Eberg was done by 92 and Agassi was pretty much AWOL until he hit 30) but Pete was equally lucky when compared to other generations.

cuddles26
11-24-2007, 03:45 PM
I don't think Sampras is necessarily wrong. Courier, Rafter, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Brugera, Kuerten are better than the current crop - with the exception of Nadal. HOWEVER, Becker (his best years were in the mid-late 80's), Edberg (whose peak years weren't during Sampras's time), Lendl, McEnroe, Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Cash, Wilander and Connors were infinitely better than the guys Sampras had to play against. HOWEVER, that's nowhere near as tough as the early days of pro tennis when you had Laver, Newcombe, Nastase, Gonzalez, Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Roche, Rosewall, etc, etc.

So, Federer mightn't have the tough opposition Sampras faced (forgetting that Courier flamed out within 4 years, Rafter only lasted 5 years at the top, Eberg was done by 92 and Agassi was pretty much AWOL until he hit 30) but Pete was equally lucky when compared to other generations.

I would remove Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Kuerten from your first sentence personally. Bruguera and Kuerten are only better then top players of the Federer time on clay, nothing else, in fact on other surfaces they are generally worse. Kafelnikov I dont think is any better either, and am frankly amazed he won 2 slams. However other then that I agree with everything you said.

sargeinaz
11-24-2007, 04:03 PM
I like pete as much as the next guy, but he is starting to sound like a female.
________
MARIJUANA VAPORIZER (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

friedalo1
11-24-2007, 04:08 PM
There were more champions during Sampras time. Edberg, Becker, Lendle, Agassi, goran, rafter and so on. Federer had Hewitt, Nadal, and Roddick.

mattyc
11-24-2007, 04:26 PM
I think comparing generations of tennis players to others is a very stupid idea.

The best players are able to adapt to do what it takes to win. Had Nadal been around when the likes of Agassi and rafter were dominant. He would have adapted and still challenged at the very top of the game. If rod laver was playing these days, he would have adapted physically and technically to challenge the top players nowadays.


All these guys are outstanding talents. Roger, Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, Laver, Connors etc.


If all were in their prime, who knows how the rankings would pan out. I am certain that on the fast courts, the likes of Sampras would have taken out Nadal, but on everything else I am not sure it would be the case.


Whilst it is natural to look for a number 1 and all that, we need to just appreciate all champions for what they bring/brought to the sport. Personally I think Federer has a more complete game than Sampras. Having said that I don't believe one or the other would have been much better than the other in terms of results (apart from the French/clay where Fed would kick sampras' ***.

babolat15
11-24-2007, 05:03 PM
i think pete had better competition also

redclay
11-24-2007, 05:14 PM
Do I have to be the one to point out that many of you on this board have not actually seen the players Sampras played against, except on grainy youtube clips... They were all fantastic talents.

Federer, because of his talent, is able to dominate the current generation in a way never seen before. It's a new development, brought about by all the reasons you guys argue about on here...

For Sampras, he can say what he wants. He's the guys who set the standard for over a decade, and while Federer is right there, and has surpassed S. in many areas, I still have my doubts that he will win more than seven wimbledons. And for me, I guess I'm a little old school, but wimbledon is still the measure that everyone will be looking up in 50 years.

NoBadMojo
11-24-2007, 05:16 PM
I do not think the surface is that different from what Sampras played. During the 90s, we had 2 fast surfaces (Wimby and USO), 1 med-fast (AO) and 1 slow (FO). Now we have 1 fast (USO), 2 med-fast (Wim, AO) and 1 slow. When you compare, not much has changed..


.

I agree w. much of what you said, but dont agree at all that the surfaces arent much different now than then. They've homogenized the surfaces to a larger degree even though they are made of different materials. This then creates less variety and diversity of play, and making tennis easier to play now than then in many respects..a big thing now is they can just chip/float/block service returns without danger of someone volleying <with few exceptions>. Essentially <with few exceptions> you prepare for one match against one player about the same as you prepare for any player and the strategy is the same....so with more of a singleminded game of tennis <low risk tennis from the backcourt and a fitness grind> tennis is easier and less athletic I feel

In my mind this all started when Wimbledon, in an effort to appease the claycourters who threatened to boycott Wimbledon, made the grass slower and higher bounding. so now you have the Aussie Open which I bet will play much like the grass at W, which will play a lot like the USOpen hardcourts, and I think they may have even sped up the terre batu at the French Open....

The game needs at least one Major on a lower bounding surface to encourage some serve/volley and so the extreme grippers dont have the advantage. I hope the Aussies come up with a surface like that, but I suspect it will be just another higher bounding med speed surface

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
11-24-2007, 05:20 PM
the reason pete sampras' era had more champions is because pete wasnt good enough to stop his peers from getting many slams, federer stopped a lot of people, hewitt woulda had more than 2, roddick woulda had more than 1, and gonzo woulda had 1, blake prolly woulda had one too, and we all know about rafa.

theace21
11-24-2007, 05:42 PM
ofcourse, he wasnt good enough to stop his peers!, if roddick was playing in petes era, he would have 3 slams, not 1.
He is lucky to have one...

Sanyi
11-30-2007, 04:04 AM
I see a ton more choking today than I did 10 yrs ago. That's fo sho

Dilettante
11-30-2007, 04:11 AM
Thats funny because when Pete lost to George Bastl in his last ever Wimbledon match in 2002 he said:
"I still feel like my game is very dangerous - but players are better today".
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2068324.stm

Big LOL at Sampras.

raiden031
11-30-2007, 04:34 AM
This is a lose-lose for Federer. If he wins all the slams, then his competition is weak because they haven't won alot of slams. If he lets them win some slams, then he is no longer dominating.

PimpMyGame
11-30-2007, 04:58 AM
Thats funny because when Pete lost to George Bastl in his last ever Wimbledon match in 2002 he said:
"I still feel like my game is very dangerous - but players are better today".
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2068324.stm

Yup, and chocolate bars were bigger when I was a kid.

PimpMyGame
11-30-2007, 05:01 AM
This is a lose-lose for Federer. If he wins all the slams, then his competition is weak because they haven't won alot of slams. If he lets them win some slams, then he is no longer dominating.

It's only a lose-lose if you believe what Sampras has to say.

Personally I think Pete has a point. IMO there was more depth in men's tennis when Pete was playing. This however takes nothing away from (again IMO) Roger being a better player than Pete.

Maestro Nalbandian
11-30-2007, 05:02 AM
He is lucky to have one...

Agreed. That one would've been Agassi's if Ferrero didn't take him out in the semis.

FedForGOAT
11-30-2007, 06:12 AM
It's only a lose-lose if you believe what Sampras has to say.

Personally I think Pete has a point. IMO there was more depth in men's tennis when Pete was playing. This however takes nothing away from (again IMO) Roger being a better player than Pete.

most people agree that overall, the depth in men's tennis has increased (so a guy ranked around 50 nowadays would be better (compared to the competition) than a guy ranked 50 20 years ago. What pete is saying is that that on the higher levels, roger has less competition to face, i.e. there are less outstanding players now.

But if you think about it, who out of Sampras' competition (Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, Kuerten... (Becker, Edberg, Mac, and Lendl were way past their primes)) could give Federer in his prime a challenge? I think Fed would defeat them just as easily as he defeats his current opponents.

About "Laver, Newcombe, Nastase, Gonzalez, Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Roche, Rosewall", I can see Federer defeating all of those easily except for Laver and Gonzalez, and these players' primes weren't even in the same time.

My point is basically that if you took Federer and had him replace any great player in history, he'd win against that player's competition just as easily as he wins today.

rommil
11-30-2007, 06:17 AM
Regardless of what Pete say or how his comments maybe construed, I think deep inside he knows that a player of better caliber has came along and on the way to break his records. And oh yeah Federer did beat him at Wimby so yeah he was part of Federer's competition.

Cyan
11-30-2007, 06:23 AM
Pete's right. His biggest competitor was Agassi. Fed's biggest competitor is Rafa. Compare Rafa with Agassi. Rafa so far has just won the FO... Agassi won ALL 4 slams... So Agassi was a threat to Pete at all 4 Slams. While Rafa has been a threat only at the FO..... Rafa has also reached 2 Wimby finals but lost both....

JohnP
11-30-2007, 06:24 AM
That reminds me of onetime I was watching some sportswriters arguing over who was more dominant, Tiger Woods or Roger Federer. I thought it was hilarious that one of them said it was Tiger Woods because "Roger Federer has no competition". Isn't that the point behind "dominance"?

Cyan
11-30-2007, 06:40 AM
That reminds me of onetime I was watching some sportswriters arguing over who was more dominant, Tiger Woods or Roger Federer. I thought it was hilarious that one of them said it was Tiger Woods because "Roger Federer has no competition". Isn't that the point behind "dominance"?

They used to say the same about Schumacher. That he dominated F1 because he had no competition. Now they say that about Fed. He dominates tennis because he plays in a weak era against no competition but weak players.... :-?:-?

helloworld
11-30-2007, 06:51 AM
Sampras has played Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi. These guys are considered the all-time great. Which all-time great has Federer played apart from an old Agassi ??

zagor
11-30-2007, 07:08 AM
most people agree that overall, the depth in men's tennis has increased (so a guy ranked around 50 nowadays would be better (compared to the competition) than a guy ranked 50 20 years ago. What pete is saying is that that on the higher levels, roger has less competition to face, i.e. there are less outstanding players now.

But if you think about it, who out of Sampras' competition (Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, Kuerten... (Becker, Edberg, Mac, and Lendl were way past their primes)) could give Federer in his prime a challenge? I think Fed would defeat them just as easily as he defeats his current opponents.

About "Laver, Newcombe, Nastase, Gonzalez, Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Roche, Rosewall", I can see Federer defeating all of those easily except for Laver and Gonzalez, and these players' primes weren't even in the same time.

My point is basically that if you took Federer and had him replace any great player in history, he'd win against that player's competition just as easily as he wins today.

Agassi wold have given him trouble seeing how he could hang with him at the age of 35,now I'm not saying Agassi was your average 35 year old seeing how he won 5 slams from 1999-2003 and for sure Agassi wasn't a consistant force throughout the 90's but 1995 and 1999 Agassi would surely give Federer a challenge.Rafter even though he was a very late bloomer would definitely cause Fed trouble with his kick serve that would make the ball jump high to Fed's backhand,now I would expect Fed to beat him most times but he would certainly pose more of a threat than Roddick who at the net looks like a fish on the dry.Kuerten at his best would beat Fed on clay.Although Kuerten was not nearly as consistant force on clay as Nadal,at his best he was at least as impressive as Nadal.Goran would also if his serve was on challenge Federer on grass,he gave Sampras a five set match almost every time they played although Federer is a better returner than Sampras there ain't a whole lot you can do when Goran hits first serves.

TENNIS_99
11-30-2007, 07:30 AM
But if you think about it, who out of Sampras' competition (Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, Kuerten... (Becker, Edberg, Mac, and Lendl were way past their primes)) could give Federer in his prime a challenge?

But I bet all the players mentioned would fight their hearts out and it makes a difference. Most players today think they have little chance against Fed. They concede before the match. It's always unfair to compare skill levels from different eras but it's quite clear to me on the mental side, today's players are not as competitive as those in Pete's era. One can argue Fed's dominance destroy their confidence as a validation of how good Fed is and might have some truth in it. But anyone has followed games and careers of those guys, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, Kuerten, Becker, Edberg, Mac, Lendl... you know they will only come out and fight harder, the day they concede to a single player is the day they concede tennis.

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 07:31 AM
Pete's right. His biggest competitor was Agassi. Fed's biggest competitor is Rafa. Compare Rafa with Agassi. Rafa so far has just won the FO... Agassi won ALL 4 slams... So Agassi was a threat to Pete at all 4 Slams. While Rafa has been a threat only at the FO..... Rafa has also reached 2 Wimby finals but lost both....

So you are comparing the achievements of a 21 year old vs a retired player. Agassi had won squat at 21, all he had done is choke away 3 slam finals. Nadal is already far more dominant on clay then Agassi ever was on any surface. Nadal has already made the same # of Wimbledon finals as Agassi did his whole career at only 21, and his were back-to-back and he faced tough-as-nails Federer in both as opposed to Goran "choke" Ivanisevic in 1 of his 2. Nadal at 21 already has 3 Masters titles on hard courts (his worst surface) to to only 1 for Agassi on clay. Yet Nadal having achieved this at only 21 is somehow supposably vastly inferior opposition to Agassi, ROTFL!!!

JamaicanYoute
11-30-2007, 07:31 AM
Why are we using 94-97 & 04-07 as the measuring stick? Is it because that's when they both stacked up the most slams (for themselves) in those years? If so, to me that's not really how it should be measured. For example, I think Pete had an amazing year in '99. If he wouldn't have gotten injured he for sure would've gone on to win the US. That year he made Agassi (who was playing well) look like an amateur. That summer leading up the open he dominated all the tournaments and consecutively took out Rafter & Agassi quite easily.

I digress. While I think that players are generally better today (IE, the top 50) I believe that there are less people once you get to the top. I think other than Fed today, the only other champion that should be there is Nadal & Safin. I think if Safin had a few good brain cells then Fed would have half the GS that he does. There were better "champions" back then. I think if you were to take say Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov & Krajicek on their best days and put them against the top 10 today, they would beat today's players. While I'll agree that there are more fit players, there is less talent IMO.

Part of the problem is that there is no diversity in people's games and the surfaces have all been turned down a few notches so as to "make it better for spectators". That's ridiculous. Federer, who is one of the better volleyers on the singles tour, isn't that great a volleyer. Why do you think it you see Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon?(which I believe he could win it BTW). Every tournament is the same thing and it's just a matter of who has a good enough week to take on Fed.

Seriously, why is Pete so insecure?

He's the GOAT until Fed wins #15 (if that ever happens).

Why is Sampras automatically the GOAT just because he has the most Slams? What about like Laver that wasn't allowed to play? Or Borg if he wouldn't have stopped in 81? Etc, etc. If and when Fed. breaks the record, that doesn't mean he's the GOAT.

ofcourse, he wasnt good enough to stop his peers!, if roddick was playing in petes era, he would have 3 slams, not 1.
Roddick has a few more slams

Yeaaaah.. Right. Roddick is lucky to have one and is even more lucky to be in the top 10. It's so funny because I always have this argument with friends about Roddick & the other day I caught the interview with Fed before the 2nd Sampras match. Did anyone else hear what he said about Roddick? I believe it went something like this: "It would be nice if we had another American who was better". After he realized what he said he went on to say "I mean, Roddick is fantastic... but it would be nice to have some GS champions". LOL.

Personally I think Pete has a point. IMO there was more depth in men's tennis when Pete was playing. This however takes nothing away from (again IMO) Roger being a better player than Pete.

You're absolutely right, they are 2 different topics. While I don't want to start getting on the other topic I do believe that Sampras playing his best would consistently beat Fed playing his best.

Agassi wold have given him trouble seeing how he could hang with him at the age of 35,now I'm not saying Agassi was your average 35 year old seeing how he won 5 slams from 1999-2003 and for sure Agassi wasn't a consistant force throughout the 90's but 1995 and 1999 Agassi would surely give Federer a challenge.Rafter even though he was a very late bloomer would definitely cause Fed trouble with his kick serve that would make the ball jump high to Fed's backhand,now I would expect Fed to beat him most times but he would certainly pose more of a threat than Roddick who at the net looks like a fish on the dry.Kuerten at his best would beat Fed on clay.Although Kuerten was not nearly as consistant force on clay as Nadal,at his best he was at least as impressive as Nadal.Goran would also if his serve was on challenge Federer on grass,he gave Sampras a five set match almost every time they played although Federer is a better returner than Sampras there ain't a whole lot you can do when Goran hits first serves.

I think there was def. more depth back then. It would've been nice to see Fed playing with all of them. It would have been very nice tennis to watch.

My 2 Cents...

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 07:34 AM
Sampras has played Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi. These guys are considered the all-time great. Which all-time great has Federer played apart from an old Agassi ??

You say an "old Agassi" yet have the nerve to bring up some of the names you just did directly after saying that. I see your ignorance has not faded with time. McEnroe and Connors were retired by the time Sampras won his 2nd slam in 1993 and began to dominate. They were WAY past their prime even at the time of that first slam in 1990, much more then Agassi was when Federer faced him. Wilander was pretty much finished by 1990. Lendl was way past his prime by 1993 when Sampras won his 2nd slam and began to dominate, again much more then Agassi was by 2003-2005 when Federer played him often.

TENNIS_99
11-30-2007, 07:46 AM
double posting...

fishuuuuu
11-30-2007, 07:48 AM
The best players are able to adapt to do what it takes to win.

Sampras can take his beliefs and stick em where they belong. Until he gets back on the court, registered with the tour again and winning matches thats where his beliefs are staying.

VGP
11-30-2007, 07:52 AM
Sampras can take his beliefs and stick em where they belong. Until he gets back on the court, registered with the tour again and winning matches thats where his beliefs are staying.

You're not serious are you?

If Federer says that Sampras could come back on tour and be top 5 now (as of 11/07) doesn't that say something......Roger's opinion, NOT Sampras'.

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 07:55 AM
You're not serious are you?

If Federer says that Sampras could come back on tour and be top 5 now (as of 11/07) doesn't that say something......Roger's opinion, NOT Sampras'.

Roger also said he played very good tennis after losing to Volandri 6-4, 6-2 this year. He also said back in 2004-2005 when Roddick and Hewitt were his main rivals on non-clay surfaces after each easy win over Hewitt or Roddick he was shocked "how easy it was", pleaaassseee! Even a Roger fan would admit Roger's word in press conferences is worthless, he always says the PR thing, in fact annoyingly much so. People bash Serena Williams but atleast she is honest, rather then being such a goody goody it becomes pathetic at times.

Cyan
11-30-2007, 07:56 AM
Sampras has played Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi. These guys are considered the all-time great. Which all-time great has Federer played apart from an old Agassi ??

Old Pete?? :-?:-?

theone
11-30-2007, 08:00 AM
I think there was more variety in the past, but I think there is greater depth in mens tennis today.

Cyan
11-30-2007, 08:02 AM
So you are comparing the achievements of a 21 year old vs a retired player. Agassi had won squat at 21, all he had done is choke away 3 slam finals. Nadal is already far more dominant on clay then Agassi ever was on any surface. Nadal has already made the same # of Wimbledon finals as Agassi did his whole career at only 21, and his were back-to-back and he faced tough-as-nails Federer in both as opposed to Goran "choke" Ivanisevic in 1 of his 2. Nadal at 21 already has 3 Masters titles on hard courts (his worst surface) to to only 1 for Agassi on clay. Yet Nadal having achieved this at only 21 is somehow supposably vastly inferior opposition to Agassi, ROTFL!!!

I'm a Nadal fan and I would love to see him win another slam besides the FO but I'm not sure he can or will...

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 08:21 AM
I'm a Nadal fan and I would love to see him win another slam besides the FO but I'm not sure he can or will...

1. The odds of a 21 year old who has already reached 2 Wimbledon final and given incredibly close matches, and who has 3 Masters titles, 5 Masters finals, 2 Masters Cup semis on hard courts already, never winning a slam outside the French, are extremely low. It would take a major injury to prevent this probably.

2. I dont really care, all I know is at 21 Agassi had compared squat to what Nadal has now (Federer even had done nothing compared to Nadal at this age) and while you cant say for sure that means he will have a better career, it is also completely unreasonable to compare the career achievements of a 21 year old to a guy who is done his career, or already deem him clearly inferior.

3. Nadal is much more dominant and hard to beat on clay then Agassi ever was on any surface, hard courts, clay, or grass. Whatever challenge Agassi in his prime could give Federer he would never be the near instoppable wall on any surface to Federer the way Nadal on clay has been to Federer, not even close. Nadal has already been in the same # of Wimbledon finals as Agassi at only 21, so I find it hard to believe Agassi on the old faster grass is better or even as good as Nadal on the new slower grass. Nadal outside the slams has performed better on hard courts then Agassi ever did on clay in fact, it whether he can translate that into the slams now. I just dont see anyway Agassi is head and shoulders above Nadal except for his long career which he was able to slowly pile up the accomplishments over 20 years or so, something completely unreasonable for Nadal who has only been on tour 4 years or so.

Gugafan_Redux
11-30-2007, 08:34 AM
Off lawn. Onion, belt. Etc.

hyogen
11-30-2007, 08:46 AM
Seriously, why is Pete so insecure?

He's the GOAT until Fed wins #15 (if that ever happens).

Fed has won all of these slams in a handful amount of years. Sampras won them a bit more spread out in his career.

Of course there's going to be less players Fed is going up against who are winners of majors.

Roddick has a few more slams, Nadal has a few more slams, Joker has a slam, Safin maybe another. Then you can say Fed did it in an era as strong as Pete's, but then again at the same time you say Fed wasn't dominant because he doesn't own those slams.

actually, neither is GOAT until they win the French. OOhhh...Trumped :D

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 09:00 AM
actually, neither is GOAT until they win the French. OOhhh...Trumped :D

Really. That is why Sampras, Gonzalez, Federer, Tilden and Borg all get serious consideration for the best ever despite never winning all the slams (the first 3 missing the French). That is also why 3 of the 5 people who have won all 4 slams: Agassi, Perry, and Emerson get absolutely zero consideration at all for the best ever.

DashaandSafin
11-30-2007, 09:08 AM
Really. That is why Sampras, Gonzalez, Federer, Tilden and Borg all get serious consideration for the best ever despite never winning all the slams (the first 3 missing the French). That is also why 3 of the 5 people who have won all 4 slams: Agassi, Perry, and Emerson get absolutely zero consideration at all for the best ever.

Ohhh owned.

Chadwixx
11-30-2007, 09:20 AM
Sampras also believes he has a full head of hair :)

superman1
11-30-2007, 12:55 PM
Really. That is why Sampras, Gonzalez, Federer, Tilden and Borg all get serious consideration for the best ever despite never winning all the slams (the first 3 missing the French). That is also why 3 of the 5 people who have won all 4 slams: Agassi, Perry, and Emerson get absolutely zero consideration at all for the best ever.

Laver...? Yes, 3 of the 4 were on grass, but I doubt it would have a difference, the guy was so damn good on any surface.

fastdunn
11-30-2007, 01:07 PM
yeah, Pete is not the 1st one who commented publicaly on homogization of playing style and surface. Mary Carrillo said it, Chang and Courier commented similarly.

But the thing was except 70s,80's and 90's, tennis has been pretty homogenized. 90's was extreme polarization era.

This mid speed converging surface condition (and along with heavy bigger balls) could be HUGE factor in top echelon of tennis.

AndrewD
11-30-2007, 01:25 PM
I would remove Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Kuerten from your first sentence personally. Bruguera and Kuerten are only better then top players of the Federer time on clay, nothing else, in fact on other surfaces they are generally worse. Kafelnikov I dont think is any better either, and am frankly amazed he won 2 slams. However other then that I agree with everything you said.

Sampras only had a 2-1 lead over Kuerten, all matches were played on hard court and one of Pete's wins was 6-1, 6-7, 7-6, 7-6. On clay I wouldn't have expected Pete to beat him.
Against Bruguera, Pete had a 2-3 record. Admittedly, two of Bruguera's wins came on clay but so did one of Pete's. Although, I think people need to acknowledge that when Pete beat him at the 96 French, Bruguera was struggling with the knee (think that was all) injury that eventually ended his career. Healthy, he wouldn't have lost. Bruguera beat him on hard courts for his third win. Kafelnikov is a different kettle of fish. Should have done far more with his career because he genuinely had the talent and the game. Still, he did manage to win an Australian and French Open plus 2 Semis at the US Open and a Quarter at Wimbledon. Apart from a couple of wins, Sampras dominated him BUT he was still good enough to beat all of the other top players.

Given the way conditions are today I'm absolutely certain those guys would have thrived. Although clay was their best surface they could all win on hard court (Bruguera avoided it due to injury) and Kafelnikov could win on anything. The key, however, is that they all won majors and no-one does that without a champion's mentality. If they didn't have that they'd have choked away their opportunities like Coria or Djokovic.

Steve132
11-30-2007, 01:30 PM
But I bet all the players mentioned would fight their hearts out and it makes a difference. Most players today think they have little chance against Fed. They concede before the match. It's always unfair to compare skill levels from different eras but it's quite clear to me on the mental side, today's players are not as competitive as those in Pete's era. One can argue Fed's dominance destroy their confidence as a validation of how good Fed is and might have some truth in it. But anyone has followed games and careers of those guys, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, Kuerten, Becker, Edberg, Mac, Lendl... you know they will only come out and fight harder, the day they concede to a single player is the day they concede tennis.

You are lumping together the best players from the late 70's to the early years of this decade and comparing them with today's. If you want to make a valid comparison pick the top 10 from ONE year and compare them with the top 10 of 2007.

Moreover, how do you know that players in the past were mentally tougher than today's? How can you even measure this? If you simply mean that they won more Slams, isn't this the result rather than the cause of Federer's dominance?

TheNatural
11-30-2007, 02:13 PM
I think Pete says his competition was tougher becasue:

1/There were many more players with a lot more different skills than just baseline hitting.

2/The faster playing conditions and more demanding equipment as well as the wide variety of opponents including many great volleyers, made it harder to be consistent and to consistently win and it led to more upsets. Now players don't only just play baseline and not volley due to the conditions and out of choice, but they don't volley because they don't know how to.

Even Roger federer was doing it toughand wasnt winning too consistently under the older conditions and also until he upgraded his equipment(racket and strings) to suite the new conditions. Fed would not have the same shots, same consistency, same style etc and it would be tougher to win consistently if he played under Pete's era, conditions and equipment.

I think if Sampras had upgraded equipment in his last few years to be on par with his competition he would have kept dominating for years. Now he fiinally upgraded and is beating Fed with the new technology, but its too late,he missed a few years of opportunities to grab slams.Fed said Pere would be top 5 and would beat the top 5 now, but thats obvious anyway. His classical technique, skill timing and power are just unmatched by anyone now. The things he could do with that small headed ps 85 were amazing, imagine if he was playing in his prime with the 90" racket and strings hes using now which HUGELY improve the way you can hit the ball. I believe he'd be a lot better than Fed if he was in his prime in this era with that equipment.

Federer talks about finetuning his racket (http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=20602)


Roger Federer quotes from interviews in Paris formally introducing his new Wilson racket, the [K] Six.One Tour

On his new [K]Factor racket, the [K] Six.One Tour:

“I think you have to stay up with the technology, which is moving so fast. I asked them [Wilson] to give me a little bit more control. I tested a couple of rackets and we have been talking for two years. I think things are slowing down in tennis. It was power time years ago, like ten years ago. Rallies were kept short. But, now, rallies are going so long that I told them I need to feel like I can hit so many balls in a row without missing. Of course, my footwork has to be there, too, because the racket can only do so much. We also worked closely on the design. They showed me many, many designs, we cut it down and I am very happy with the result and it shows.”

On the degree of change in the [K]Factor racket versus his former weapon from the nCode series:

“It wasn’t a change where you think, ‘Wow, now I have to start from scratch.’ It was something that was very close to the old one, which just made me feel more comfortable.”

On the genesis of his collaboration with Wilson:

“I already had the idea that when I played with the Sampras racket, you know the 85 (square inches), I told them that the 85 for me is just too small. I need the bigger head because I’m shanking too many balls. I asked them if they couldn’t do a 90 square inch but in the same kind of model. I eventually convinced them to do it (nCode) and it sold very well. And then the [K]Factor racket came out.”

So, I have always been very close working with Wilson and we signed a long term deal together last year for both of us. We are obviously going to stay together and work together. I like to get involved.”

On the suitability of the [K] Six.One Tour for recreational players:

“This racket you can buy in stores and play against pros. That is very good, but you can also play with it if you are a good hitter of the ball.”

On his recent slump and the new racket:

“People were saying that it was the racket which I think is a bit much. I didn’t really think about it (the slump having anything to do with the racket) at all. I’m confident in my choice.”

On his use of the rackets during the seasons:

“I always carry twelve [rackets] in my bag, which is a good number because I’ll go through 8-10 rackets during a 5 set match in case you brake one or lose one. Sometimes you are unlucky and your racket shatters. I get a batch of clay court rackets and play from Monaco all the way through the French Open. I’ll change for the grass. Get some new ones. Then, I’ll change again for the hard courts. I’ll go through about 60 or 70 rackets. The rest we auction off for charity.”
I think iF sampras had upgraded equipment towards the end of his acreer he would hve kept dominating for years.

Steve132
11-30-2007, 02:42 PM
Agassi wold have given him trouble seeing how he could hang with him at the age of 35,now I'm not saying Agassi was your average 35 year old seeing how he won 5 slams from 1999-2003 and for sure Agassi wasn't a consistant force throughout the 90's but 1995 and 1999 Agassi would surely give Federer a challenge.Rafter even though he was a very late bloomer would definitely cause Fed trouble with his kick serve that would make the ball jump high to Fed's backhand,now I would expect Fed to beat him most times but he would certainly pose more of a threat than Roddick who at the net looks like a fish on the dry.Kuerten at his best would beat Fed on clay.Although Kuerten was not nearly as consistant force on clay as Nadal,at his best he was at least as impressive as Nadal.Goran would also if his serve was on challenge Federer on grass,he gave Sampras a five set match almost every time they played although Federer is a better returner than Sampras there ain't a whole lot you can do when Goran hits first serves.

Agassi is not the best player for you to cite in support of this argument. He has stated that he does not believe that the competition of the 90's was stronger than today's, and he has also said on numerous occasions that Federer is the best player he has ever seen.

The rest of your post consists of unsubstantiated assertions that various players from the 90's would "cause Federer trouble." Rafter and Ivanisevic were either one-dimensional, inconsistent or both. Their records at their favorite venues when they were in their primes (Rafter at the U.S. Open, Ivanisevic at Wimbledon) show this.

At the U.S. Open Rafter lost to Rosset in the second round in 1995, Carlsen in the first round in 1996, Pioline in the first round in 1999 and Blanco in the first round in 2000. Ivanisevic lost at Wimbledon to Martin in the third round in 1993, Stoltenberg in the quarter finals in 1996, Norman in the second round in 1997 and Clement in the first round in 2000. Have you seen Federer lose to anyone of that calibre at ANY Slam over the past four years?

Chang
11-30-2007, 02:42 PM
It's kinda true for hard and grass but for clay, fed has to contend with arguably the best clay courter of all time.

TENNIS_99
11-30-2007, 03:59 PM
You are lumping together the best players from the late 70's to the early years of this decade and comparing them with today's. If you want to make a valid comparison pick the top 10 from ONE year and compare them with the top 10 of 2007.

Moreover, how do you know that players in the past were mentally tougher than today's? How can you even measure this? If you simply mean that they won more Slams, isn't this the result rather than the cause of Federer's dominance?

I don't. But I didn't see any of those former players conceded to anyone during their pro days - saying "someone plays level way higher than the rest of us.." - does it sound familiar to you these days? Becker praised Sampras's serve the best he had experienced many years AFTER he reitired. Anyone thinks (in the way of saying publicly) his opponent is way better is already inches shorter before the match starts. And I have no reasons not believe what today's players say is not what they believe in their hearts.


If you simply mean that they won more Slams, isn't this the result rather than the cause of Federer's dominance?

Read my post, I said there might be truth in it. But how can you argue if I said the they win more Slams because they BELIEVE they can win in the first place? This can go either way.

I am a big Fed Fan. I believe Fed is the best tennis player ever. I don't have to bring out statistics to support it because they are meaningless. When did you see on this board someone concede that their OPINIONS are wrong after someone else brings up some statistics? I did not draw any conclusions of the OP's title. It's fun to read the arguments but at the end of the day, you believe what you believe, even against the most legit man (maybe the only man) - Sampras himself of what he says. :)

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 04:03 PM
Agassi wold have given him trouble seeing how he could hang with him at the age of 35

So going 0-8 vs someone (Agassi's record with 2003-2005 Federer from ages 33-35) and losing half the matches in straight sets is "hanging" with someone? :lol: Perhaps you think Roddick and Hewitt in 2004-2005 also were able to hang with Federer, after all they had about that same success overall.

Steve Dykstra
11-30-2007, 04:11 PM
Sampras was merely stating a fact. He did face more major winners than Federer does. The conclusion you draw from this is unfounded. Sampras did not his competition was better, at least not in the quote you based your conclusion off of.

Steve132
11-30-2007, 04:42 PM
I don't. But I didn't see any of those former players conceded to anyone during their pro days - saying "someone plays level way higher than the rest of us.." - does it sound familiar to you these days? Becker praised Sampras's serve the best he had experienced many years AFTER he reitired. Anyone thinks (in the way of saying publicly) his opponent is way better is already inches shorter before the match starts. And I have no reasons not believe what today's players say is not what they believe in their hearts.



Read my post, I said there might be truth in it. But how can you argue if I said the they win more Slams because they BELIEVE they can win in the first place? This can go either way.

I am a big Fed Fan. I believe Fed is the best tennis player ever. I don't have to bring out statistics to support it because they are meaningless. When did you see on this board someone concede that their OPINIONS are wrong after someone else brings up some statistics? I did not draw any conclusions of the OP's title. It's fun to read the arguments but at the end of the day, you believe what you believe, even against the most legit man (maybe the only man) - Sampras himself of what he says. :)


Recognizing an opponent's greatness is not equivalent to giving up before the match starts. I can think of many players - in tennis as well as in other sports - who do so but nevertheless compete very effectively.

An obvious contemporary example is Nadal, who has said many times that he considers Federer to be the GOAT. Would you say that he is afraid of Federer or is beaten before their matches start? I wouldn't.

FedForGOAT
11-30-2007, 06:27 PM
Sampras has played Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi. These guys are considered the all-time great. Which all-time great has Federer played apart from an old Agassi ??

Yes, I'm sure that Connors who retired in 1991, Wilander who after 1988 never won a slam and made it to only one SF and no QF, and Lendl who was basically finished after 1991 gave Sampras significant competition throughout his career.

Becker had his best years in 1989-1991. The only Slam he played Sampras in was Wimbledon, and it happened only twice, in 93' and 97', well past his prime.

McEnroe was finished after his amazing 84' season. he made some SF and a final in 85', but he wasn't a serious slam contender after 85'.

Edberg did play Sampras, but he beat him in both slam encounters. Since Sampras did not beat him, he should not be counted. One isn't great because he has great competition, one is great because one has great competition and overcomes it. Since Sampras did not defeat Edberg in GS, Edberg should not be counted. I hope I'm making myself clear, tell me if I'm not.

So Sampras had Agassi, who wasn't very consistent and their rivalry was all on HC. That's because Agassi wasn't a threat on grass, And on clay (the FO) Sampras had no chance.

I think Nadal by himself is just as much competition and maybe more competition than Agassi was.

You can make (or try to make) the argument that Sampras had stronger competition, but you can't support it with the players you did. please in the future, check your info better, its for your own good (not being sarcastic), as one post with incorrect info makes a lot of people regard you as a troll and disrespect your opinions. (I learned the hard way.)

FedForGOAT
11-30-2007, 06:34 PM
Sampras was merely stating a fact. He did face more major winners than Federer does. The conclusion you draw from this is unfounded. Sampras did not his competition was better, at least not in the quote you based your conclusion off of.

That's a very common argument, but people can argue both ways. You could say that Fed faces less major winners because he is so dominant.

The fact that Federer dominates more than Sampras does not say that Federer is better than Sampras, or that Sampras had stronger opponents.

All it says is that the difference between the Fed's level and his opponents' levels is greater than the difference between Pete's level and his opponents' levels.

Fed >>>>>> his opponents Pete >>> his opponents.
Pete's opponents could be better
Or Fed could be better
Or part of both.
It's impossible to objectively tell.

FedForGOAT
11-30-2007, 06:36 PM
I just wanted to say, when I use the word 'better', it's because it's simple and easy to understand. you can't always really say one player is "better" than another because tennis is a game of matchups and because of changing technology. "Better" is an extremely crude term.

2 Cent
11-30-2007, 06:44 PM
other than Nadal on clay, i don't see any other player who's been a legitimate threat against Federer.

infact if Sampras or Agassi was in their prime up against this current crop of players aside from Federer, i believe Sampras and Agassi would also dominate.

todays players just aren't as mentally tough as the earlier generations.

lambielspins
11-30-2007, 07:55 PM
Yes, I'm sure that Connors who retired in 1991, Wilander who after 1988 never won a slam and made it to only one SF and no QF, and Lendl who was basically finished after 1991 gave Sampras significant competition throughout his career.

Becker had his best years in 1989-1991. The only Slam he played Sampras in was Wimbledon, and it happened only twice, in 93' and 97', well past his prime.

McEnroe was finished after his amazing 84' season. he made some SF and a final in 85', but he wasn't a serious slam contender after 85'.

Edberg did play Sampras, but he beat him in both slam encounters. Since Sampras did not beat him, he should not be counted. One isn't great because he has great competition, one is great because one has great competition and overcomes it. Since Sampras did not defeat Edberg in GS, Edberg should not be counted. I hope I'm making myself clear, tell me if I'm not.

So Sampras had Agassi, who wasn't very consistent and their rivalry was all on HC. That's because Agassi wasn't a threat on grass, And on clay (the FO) Sampras had no chance.

I think Nadal by himself is just as much competition and maybe more competition than Agassi was.

You can make (or try to make) the argument that Sampras had stronger competition, but you can't support it with the players you did. please in the future, check your info better, its for your own good (not being sarcastic), as one post with incorrect info makes a lot of people regard you as a troll and disrespect your opinions. (I learned the hard way.)

Forgive helloworld, he is trying to battle BreakPoint and TheNatural for the dumbest poster award. He is going all out in his attempt, and cant be worried with such trivial things of how stupid he looks with his distorted facts and spins on reality.

KoreanHB
11-30-2007, 07:59 PM
Fed would have no slams if he played in sampras's era. too hard for fed mentally. hahaha.

FedForGOAT
11-30-2007, 08:15 PM
Forgive helloworld, he is trying to battle BreakPoint and TheNatural for the dumbest poster award. He is going all out in his attempt, and cant be worried with such trivial things of how stupid he looks with his distorted facts and spins on reality.

yeah, I saw that on a different thread. You should have warned me in advanced, would have saved me some effort.

Steve132
12-01-2007, 04:18 AM
other than Nadal on clay, i don't see any other player who's been a legitimate threat against Federer.

infact if Sampras or Agassi was in their prime up against this current crop of players aside from Federer, i believe Sampras and Agassi would also dominate.

todays players just aren't as mentally tough as the earlier generations.


How do you know that today's players are not as mentally tough as their predecessors? How would you even measure "mental toughness"?

Gorecki
12-01-2007, 05:53 AM
lets face it guys...

Today's tennis is a lot better than before. we the Sampras et al. suporters are just old f a r t s claiming for the old days... hence the fact that nowadays tennis is no longer headline on newspapers and mainstream tv's.

ps:am i being sarcastic enough? im kinda tired of seeing the same 2 idiots hijacking threads...

Eviscerator
12-01-2007, 05:54 AM
Fed would have smoked Pete's competition.

I'm a little surprised to hear you say that. Keep in mind that playing conditions were typically much faster back in Pete's day, so some of those players would be more difficult to beat on fast surfaces/lively balls/etc.

TheNatural
12-01-2007, 07:46 AM
Good point. I think Sampras would be a bit better than Federer considering how phenomenal he was just with the ps 85, and how good he is now with the new technology. He just should have switched to the new technology in his last few years so not to handicap himself.

The exo gave a good glimpse of what we could have expected had sampras played in this era with this era's equipment. And Fed's early career gave a good glimpse of how well he would do with the equipment and conditions of the past era.

I just wanted to say, when I use the word 'better', it's because it's simple and easy to understand. you can't always really say one player is "better" than another because tennis is a game of matchups and because of changing technology. "Better" is an extremely crude term.

Steve132
12-01-2007, 05:32 PM
Good point. I think Sampras would be a bit better than Federer considering how phenomenal he was just with the ps 85, and how good he is now with the new technology. He just should have switched to the new technology in his last few years so not to handicap himself.

The exo gave a good glimpse of what we could have expected had sampras played in this era with this era's equipment. And Fed's early career gave a good glimpse of how well he would do with the equipment and conditions of the past era.

Changes in conditions or equipment affect ALL players not just some.

I seem to remember Federer in his early career playing Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras was the defending champion and ranked and seeded much higher than Federer was. Do I need to remind you of the outcome of that match?

If you are really desperate enough to draw comfort from the result of exhibitions do so. That would make the head to head record between Federer and Sampras 3-1 - very different from what you suggest in your posts.

Steve132
12-01-2007, 05:36 PM
lets face it guys...

Today's tennis is a lot better than before. we the Sampras et al. suporters are just old f a r t s claiming for the old days... hence the fact that nowadays tennis is no longer headline on newspapers and mainstream tv's.

ps:am i being sarcastic enough? im kinda tired of seeing the same 2 idiots hijacking threads...


People might take you seriously if you were to contribute something positive in the form of arguments or evidence to this or any other thread, or show the slightest glimmer of understanding of tennis history or strategy. Unfortunately these preconditions are far from being fulfilled.

helloworld
12-01-2007, 10:48 PM
Federer atmitted himself that his competition is so weak that Sampras can still be a top 5 player even today. lol

TheNatural
12-02-2007, 12:14 AM
Fed played good that match then lost to henman, that was typical of his results in his early career under the conditions of the past era.. Though that was his biggest win ever and he admitted in an interview recently that he played incredible in the sampras match and it was one of his best macthes ever, and though he rarel;y watches his own matches much, hes watched that whole match many times. He would have had to sustain that level all the time to be as dominant in the past era. It was much harder to win back then and to be consistent match to match.

Fed had a losing record to many guys when he played under those conditions from the past era so a 0-1 record vs someone like Federer back then is no big deal.


Changes in conditions or equipment affect ALL players not just some.

I seem to remember Federer in his early career playing Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras was the defending champion and ranked and seeded much higher than Federer was. Do I need to remind you of the outcome of that match?

If you are really desperate enough to draw comfort from the result of exhibitions do so. That would make the head to head record between Federer and Sampras 3-1 - very different from what you suggest in your posts.

Gorecki
12-03-2007, 01:03 AM
People might take you seriously if you were to contribute something positive in the form of arguments or evidence to this or any other thread, or show the slightest glimmer of understanding of tennis history or strategy. Unfortunately these preconditions are far from being fulfilled.

So you now i was referring to you right?

ps: Congratulations. you are now a proud member of my ignore list due to your constant harassment

AlpineCadet
12-03-2007, 02:33 AM
According to the OP, Pete seems to have a little problem with reality. His generation isn't much in comparison to the guys on today's tour, and the same could be said 20 years from now. Come on, just give it up already and give praise where it is due, Pete!

FiveO
12-03-2007, 07:45 AM
So going 0-8 vs someone (Agassi's record with 2003-2005 Federer from ages 33-35) and losing half the matches in straight sets is "hanging" with someone? :lol: Perhaps you think Roddick and Hewitt in 2004-2005 also were able to hang with Federer, after all they had about that same success overall.


The rub with this analysis is who AA did "hang with" from 2000 on:

Hewitt 3-3 (4-4 overall)

Safin 1-2 (3-3 overall)

Ljubicic 2-2

Nalbandian 1-0

Davydenko 2-1

Moya 2-1

Robredo 2-0

Blake 4-1

Haas 5-2

Roddick 5-1


Davydenko, after 8 years on tour has a match record of 262 and 192 for a 57.7 career winning percentage.

For comparison, Malivai Washington was 254 and 184 for a 57.9 career winning percentage.

It ain't Fed or Nadal that's the problem.

Steve132
12-03-2007, 12:01 PM
:roll:So you now i was referring to you right?

ps: Congratulations. you are now a proud member of my ignore list due to your constant harassment


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Still waiting for you to present a rational argument. That appears to be beyond your capabilities. :roll:

Tennis_Bum
12-03-2007, 12:25 PM
:roll:


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Still waiting for you to present a rational argument. That appears to be beyond your capabilities. :roll:

Steve,

You can never convince these folks. They are deeply brainwashed. The more Pete talked the more I see how insecure he is as a person. I never heard Laver or other greats of the 60's era playing with wooden rackets making any comments about their generations, their competition, or the rackets/strings they were using that could have affected their game tremendously. Pete is one insecure person. The EXO's were organized to rake in money for entertaining fans of both players. You someone agree to play EXO with Fed if Fed is going to beat his brains out and embarrasses him on the court? Consider that for a minute. I wish Sampras' fans would look at match EXO 3 again to see that Fed was moving to the spots and could have easily extend his rackets for those returns but he chosed to act as though he was aced. I admit that there were some clear aces but most of the aces recorded for that match could be easily returned by Fed. No doubt in my mind. Fed serve meatballs to Pete forehand most of the matches and he still couldn't manage to make goods on most of the puff cakes serves to his forehand. The EXO was only for entertainment, but it was easy way for Fed to make more money. Sure why not. Someone posted that Fed said he didn't mind losing to his idol. Fed only said those words for PR purposes. The real first idol of Fed was Boris Becker then later he included Edberg, because of his personality on the court. Pete was never Fed's idol until now because he is smart and doesn't want to look like insecure Pete when he talks about others' game. How would fans react if Fed said Pete was not someone he looked up to? They would react the same way as people react when Pete talked about technology, weak era, competition, etc.

PETE IS ONE INSECURE PERSON.

CyBorg
12-03-2007, 12:45 PM
Eh, it's the same thing in regards to Borg and Cochet.

Cochet was deeply resentful of Borg winning all of those French Opens and, you bet, he felt that his generation was much better than Borg's.

It is always the same song. Frankly Cochet's generation was pretty darn good, but you know how it goes.

federerfanatic
12-03-2007, 01:45 PM
I believe neither of them had particularly strong competition compared to past eras. If Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, had the same competition as Federer or Sampras they would have all won more slams.

FiveO
12-03-2007, 03:07 PM
Changes in conditions or equipment affect ALL players not just some.

I seem to remember Federer in his early career playing Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras was the defending champion and ranked and seeded much higher than Federer was. Do I need to remind you of the outcome of that match?

If you are really desperate enough to draw comfort from the result of exhibitions do so. That would make the head to head record between Federer and Sampras 3-1 - very different from what you suggest in your posts.


Sampras had slipped to #6 and Fed had climbed to #14 by the time of that match.

Wimbledon '01 marked the first 12 month period (Wimbledon to Wimbledon) in Sampras' pro career he had gone without a title since 1989 into 1990.

In 2001 leading up to Wimbledon Sampras had a 15-10 match record while Federer had gone 33-12 in the same period of time.

And the outcome reflected the above circumstances: 7-5 in the fifth and a match which Fed himself considers one of if not the best he has played at Wimbledon to date.

lambielspins
12-03-2007, 03:15 PM
Eh, it's the same thing in regards to Borg and Cochet.

Cochet was deeply resentful of Borg winning all of those French Opens and, you bet, he felt that his generation was much better than Borg's.

It is always the same song. Frankly Cochet's generation was pretty darn good, but you know how it goes.

Did he actually say that publicly. I dont know since I never heard. I have a hard time believing someone would say their competition was much harder then the Borg era. The late 70s-early 80s had the deepest competition in recent memory, much harder then the competition Federer or Sampras had.

CyBorg
12-03-2007, 03:49 PM
Did he actually say that publicly. I dont know since I never heard. I have a hard time believing someone would say their competition was much harder then the Borg era. The late 70s-early 80s had the deepest competition in recent memory, much harder then the competition Federer or Sampras had.

That's what I've read. I admit that I'm being somewhat vague, so I cannot say off the top of my head where. I know for certain that Borg mentioned that Cochet wasn't terribly thrilled to present him with his 4th consecutive RG trophy in 1981.

As for competition, I believe it was in regards to clay alone.

Steve132
12-03-2007, 03:54 PM
Steve,

You can never convince these folks. They are deeply brainwashed. The more Pete talked the more I see how insecure he is as a person. I never heard Laver or other greats of the 60's era playing with wooden rackets making any comments about their generations, their competition, or the rackets/strings they were using that could have affected their game tremendously. Pete is one insecure person. The EXO's were organized to rake in money for entertaining fans of both players. You someone agree to play EXO with Fed if Fed is going to beat his brains out and embarrasses him on the court? Consider that for a minute. I wish Sampras' fans would look at match EXO 3 again to see that Fed was moving to the spots and could have easily extend his rackets for those returns but he chosed to act as though he was aced. I admit that there were some clear aces but most of the aces recorded for that match could be easily returned by Fed. No doubt in my mind. Fed serve meatballs to Pete forehand most of the matches and he still couldn't manage to make goods on most of the puff cakes serves to his forehand. The EXO was only for entertainment, but it was easy way for Fed to make more money. Sure why not. Someone posted that Fed said he didn't mind losing to his idol. Fed only said those words for PR purposes. The real first idol of Fed was Boris Becker then later he included Edberg, because of his personality on the court. Pete was never Fed's idol until now because he is smart and doesn't want to look like insecure Pete when he talks about others' game. How would fans react if Fed said Pete was not someone he looked up to? They would react the same way as people react when Pete talked about technology, weak era, competition, etc.

PETE IS ONE INSECURE PERSON.

Tennis Bum: What you say makes a great deal of sense, but the irony is that Sampras is far more reasonable than are some of his more rabid fans. In general athletes in every sport tend to believe that their era was the best. This applies to baseball, basketball, cricket, football, soccer, etc. For example, I remember Oscar Robertson omitting Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan from his list of the five best NBA players of all time.

In that respect Pete is not really very different from many other athletes. His fans take it to another level altogether when they seize upon the result of an exhibition (conveniently ignoring the first two matches in the series) to claim that Sampras would beat Federer and the rest of today's ATP players in a serious competitive tournament today. That is wishful thinking, not rational analysis.

Sampras was a great champion, but his era is over, as Federer's will be in 2017.

lambielspins
12-03-2007, 03:58 PM
That's what I've read. I admit that I'm being somewhat vague, so I cannot say off the top of my head where. I know for certain that Borg mentioned that Cochet wasn't terribly thrilled to present him with his 4th consecutive RG trophy in 1981.

As for competition, I believe it was in regards to clay alone.

OK thanks for the clarification. Interesting. I actually think Borg had some good competition on clay though, Vilas would be one of the greatest ever clay courters without Borg (some think he is anyway). Panatta beat Borg at the French Open in his prime and won the Italian a couple times AFAIK so must have been pretty good. Guys like Ramirez, Dibbs, Orantes were extremely consistent on clay, so often in quarters and semis, which probably indicates a certain quality of their play on clay, since you dont seem from anyone today on clay outside of Nadal and Federer being that consistent in their results on the surface.

lambielspins
12-03-2007, 04:00 PM
Sampras was a great champion, but his era is over, as Federer's will be in 2017.

I would love if you were right on that, but I wouldnt dare be so optimistic. :twisted: I wish I could be as optimistic as you in this regard.

krosero
12-03-2007, 04:27 PM
Did he actually say that publicly. I dont know since I never heard. I have a hard time believing someone would say their competition was much harder then the Borg era. The late 70s-early 80s had the deepest competition in recent memory, much harder then the competition Federer or Sampras had.It was discussed here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=143501

lambielspins
12-03-2007, 04:29 PM
It was discussed here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=143501

Thanks (10 char)

Steve132
12-03-2007, 04:37 PM
Sampras had slipped to #6 and Fed had climbed to #14 by the time of that match.

Wimbledon '01 marked the first 12 month period (Wimbledon to Wimbledon) in Sampras' pro career he had gone without a title since 1989 into 1990.

In 2001 leading up to Wimbledon Sampras had a 15-10 match record while Federer had gone 33-12 in the same period of time.

And the outcome reflected the above circumstances: 7-5 in the fifth and a match which Fed himself considers one of if not the best he has played at Wimbledon to date.

I don't see how anything that you say contradicts my post. I stated that Sampras was seeded and ranked higher than Federer, and this is true. Sampras was the No. 1 seed, defending champion and world No. 6. Federer was the world No. 15, seeded at No. 15 and had won only one ATP title in his career. Most people certainly expected Sampras to win that match - in fact, anyone who bet on Federer would have received excellent odds.

By any plausible criterion Sampras was closer to his prime in 2001 than Federer was. Sampras won a Slam in 2000 and another in 2002. Federer did not win his first Slam until 2003 or even his second ATP title until 2002.

In general I would not attach too much importance to the result of a single match. It is, however, inconsistent for people to take the results of exhibitions seriously while trying to explain away a competitive Wimbledon fourth round match - played while Sampras was far closer to his prime than he is now - or insisting that this match is totally irrelevant in terms of evaluating the participants.

Steve132
12-03-2007, 05:10 PM
I would love if you were right on that, but I wouldnt dare be so optimistic. :twisted: I wish I could be as optimistic as you in this regard.

I mean that it will be over when Federer is the same age that Sampras is now. I certainly don't expect Fed to win 3 Slams a year for the next 9 years, exciting though that prospect might be. He will probably retire long before then, because the game is now physically too demanding to be played at the highest level by a 36 year old man.

lambielspins
12-03-2007, 05:28 PM
I mean that it will be over when Federer is the same age that Sampras is now. I certainly don't expect Fed to win 3 Slams a year for the next 9 years, exciting though that prospect might be. He will probably retire long before then, because the game is now physically too demanding to be played at the highest level by a 36 year old man.

OK I understand what you meant now. Although Fed recently said he wants to play until he is 35 which would be 2016. I dont think it is impossible for him to be a contender to win slams into his 30s, he certainly wont dominate in his 30s or be winning 3 slams per year (atleast I am not realistically thinking that) but he might be a contender to win slams still. I am not sure he would keep playing if he did not feel he atleast had an outside shot of winning slam titles still, so that he would state he plans to play to that age probably indicates he feels he is capable of this too.

CyBorg
12-03-2007, 06:05 PM
OK thanks for the clarification. Interesting. I actually think Borg had some good competition on clay though, Vilas would be one of the greatest ever clay courters without Borg (some think he is anyway). Panatta beat Borg at the French Open in his prime and won the Italian a couple times AFAIK so must have been pretty good. Guys like Ramirez, Dibbs, Orantes were extremely consistent on clay, so often in quarters and semis, which probably indicates a certain quality of their play on clay, since you dont seem from anyone today on clay outside of Nadal and Federer being that consistent in their results on the surface.

Oh, definitely. I think that Cochet most likely wasn't thrilled with the fact that he was becoming more and more forgotten while Borg was getting all the attention.

I think that Pete is feeling this way a little bit. Cochet was a very competitive guy and remained an active tennis player into his senior years.

Sanyi
12-03-2007, 08:44 PM
But I bet all the players mentioned would fight their hearts out and it makes a difference. Most players today think they have little chance against Fed. They concede before the match. It's always unfair to compare skill levels from different eras but it's quite clear to me on the mental side, today's players are not as competitive as those in Pete's era. One can argue Fed's dominance destroy their confidence as a validation of how good Fed is and might have some truth in it. But anyone has followed games and careers of those guys, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Courier, Kuerten, Becker, Edberg, Mac, Lendl... you know they will only come out and fight harder, the day they concede to a single player is the day they concede tennis.quoted for truth

FiveO
12-03-2007, 09:25 PM
I don't see how anything that you say contradicts my post. I stated that Sampras was seeded and ranked higher than Federer, and this is true. Sampras was the No. 1 seed, defending champion and world No. 6. Federer was the world No. 15, seeded at No. 15 and had won only one ATP title in his career. Most people certainly expected Sampras to win that match - in fact, anyone who bet on Federer would have received excellent odds.

By any plausible criterion Sampras was closer to his prime in 2001 than Federer was. Sampras won a Slam in 2000 and another in 2002. Federer did not win his first Slam until 2003 or even his second ATP title until 2002.

In general I would not attach too much importance to the result of a single match. It is, however, inconsistent for people to take the results of exhibitions seriously while trying to explain away a competitive Wimbledon fourth round match - played while Sampras was far closer to his prime than he is now - or insisting that this match is totally irrelevant in terms of evaluating the participants.


Sampras was at the mid-point and record-wise about the deepest 6 month period of his slump at that time. Period.

Federer himself has reflected on that match as being one of the best he has played.

Results of exhibitions mean little in these days and times, but roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great simply defies logic and precedent. Throughout the history of tennis, the past greats of the sport have competed and on occasion beaten the present day champion. Whether it be Pancho Gonzalez v. Rod Laver, Laver to Borg, Borg to Lendl and McEnroe, Lendl v Becker and Edberg the trend has repeated in every generation. The supposition that it has to end based on an etherial premise that a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation is pure fantasy and flies in the face of historical precedence.

Federer is a great would be great within any given generation as would Laver, Borg, etc. through Sampras and Agassi. This thread started as a debate of depth. Deep this generation isn't and most likely why no one has set about making a case for it. Claims yes. Cases no. More importantly no names, no list of guys successes. The reasons that hasn't happened yet is because you can't write in the names of the generation between the Sampras period and the Federer period and can't replace the other best players of the Fed generation itself.

The best of that tweener generation, the Rios, Kuertens, Normans, et al, for whatever reason could not carry on. They should have represented what the Edbergs and Beckers were to the front end of Sampras era and did impact the end of the Sampras era but never had an era of their own let alone present themselves as seasoned veterans in the front end of the Fed generation. They went MIA before Federer reached the top of the pyramid but should only now have been closing out their careers. Moya was outside the top 20 more than inside of it and Henman had a game which flourished mostly on fast grass but may have been the fourth or fifth best such grass courter under those conditions.

Safin, Ferrero, Flipper have all gone missing for long and longer periods. Hewitt is a Fed contemporary who peaked in the vacuum created by the absence of that tweener generation but has apparently used himself.

Who took these player's places? Were they pushed out by better players or did they merely leave due to injury and/or personality issues. Their absences in large numbers created voids which guys like, Robredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Blake et al filled by default. Davydenko has been a fixture inside the top six players in the world with a losing record v. the top ten and a 57.7 career match winning percentage after 8 years on the pro tour.

Just how many potential Greats do you think a given generation produces?

Historically how many identified Greats have each generation produced?

Fed is great. Nadal is one of the great clay courters ever. But how do you replace the other top talents that went missing from both Feds and the prior generation? Everybody gets bumped up the ranks due to those gaps but do they get more talented? Is that depth?

Nickognito
12-04-2007, 12:28 AM
Just to point that Bjorn Borg in his career had poor opponents.

The best 10 players in last 50years are maybe:

Borg, Rosewall, Nadal, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, Laver, Santana on clay

Sampras, Federer, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Edberg on grass

Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Laver, Connors, Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Federer, Agassi on hardcourts

With these players, Borg won only 2 matches and played only seven matches, losing five of them. He won two of them, with two 21 years old players, and both in five tight sets. One with a good but not the best McEnroe, the other with a too young Lendl.

I suppose you don't think that Sampras and Federer would have beaten a lot of times by Connors in Wimbledon. So, who are the great players beaten by Borg?

c.

Wuornos
12-04-2007, 03:26 AM
The DOT Ratings show very little difference between the other players in the top 10 when each player were at their respective peak.

Federer faces slightly stronger competition from those players immediately behind him but Sampras faced slightly more strength in depth. Both faced top 10 players with an average strength of 2620 DOT. Given that they both faced roughly the same level of competition, Federer achieved the higher DOT given his greater dominance.

However, if we look at the peak ratings achieved by the players faced, then Sampras, is correct. The average peak rating of the players faced by Sampras were 43 points per player higher than that faced by Federer. Having said that they weren't playing that standard when Sampras faced them and Federer's opposition may still improve their peak rating.

See following lists showing current ratings for players faced by both Sampras and Federer when Sampras and Federer were at their peak playing standard.

1 Pete Sampras 2762
2 Andre Agassi 2694
3 Jim Courier 2646
4 Boris Becker 2624
5 Michael Chang 2613
6 Thomas Muster 2607
7 Goran Ivanišević 2605
8 Sergi Bruguera 2603
9 Stefan Edberg 2594
10 Todd Martin 2591


1 Roger Federer 2841
2 Rafael Nadal 2708
3 Novak Đoković 2647
4 Andy Roddick 2638
5 Nikolay Davydenko 2630
6 Fernando González 2602
7 Tommy Haas 2596
8 Marcos Baghdatis 2595
9 Lleyton Hewitt 2583
10 David Ferrer 2576

Sanyi
12-04-2007, 06:56 AM
Sampras was at the mid-point and record-wise about the deepest 6 month period of his slump at that time. Period.

Federer himself has reflected on that match as being one of the best he has played.

Results of exhibitions mean little in these days and times, but roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great simply defies logic and precedent. Throughout the history of tennis, the past greats of the sport have competed and on occasion beaten the present day champion. Whether it be Pancho Gonzalez v. Rod Laver, Laver to Borg, Borg to Lendl and McEnroe, Lendl v Becker and Edberg the trend has repeated in every generation. The supposition that it has to end based on an etherial premise that a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation is pure fantasy and flies in the face of historical precedence.

Federer is a great would be great within any given generation as would Laver, Borg, etc. through Sampras and Agassi. This thread started as a debate of depth. Deep this generation isn't and most likely why no one has set about making a case for it. Claims yes. Cases no. More importantly no names, no list of guys successes. The reasons that hasn't happened yet is because you can't write in the names of the generation between the Sampras period and the Federer period and can't replace the other best players of the Fed generation itself.

The best of that tweener generation, the Rios, Kuertens, Normans, et al, for whatever reason could not carry on. They should have represented what the Edbergs and Beckers were to the front end of Sampras era and did impact the end of the Sampras era but never had an era of their own let alone present themselves as seasoned veterans in the front end of the Fed generation. They went MIA before Federer reached the top of the pyramid but should only now have been closing out their careers. Moya was outside the top 20 more than inside of it and Henman had a game which flourished mostly on fast grass but may have been the fourth or fifth best such grass courter under those conditions.

Safin, Ferrero, Flipper have all gone missing for long and longer periods. Hewitt is a Fed contemporary who peaked in the vacuum created by the absence of that tweener generation but has apparently used himself.

Who took these player's places? Were they pushed out by better players or did they merely leave due to injury and/or personality issues. Their absences in large numbers created voids which guys like, Robredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Blake et al filled by default. Davydenko has been a fixture inside the top six players in the world with a losing record v. the top ten and a 57.7 career match winning percentage after 8 years on the pro tour.

Just how many potential Greats do you think a given generation produces?

Historically how many identified Greats have each generation produced?

Fed is great. Nadal is one of the great clay courters ever. But how do you replace the other top talents that went missing from both Feds and the prior generation? Everybody gets bumped up the ranks due to those gaps but do they get more talented? Is that depth?No sir, I don't think it is.

Steve132
12-04-2007, 02:15 PM
Sampras was at the mid-point and record-wise about the deepest 6 month period of his slump at that time. Period.

Federer himself has reflected on that match as being one of the best he has played.

Results of exhibitions mean little in these days and times, but roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great simply defies logic and precedent. Throughout the history of tennis, the past greats of the sport have competed and on occasion beaten the present day champion. Whether it be Pancho Gonzalez v. Rod Laver, Laver to Borg, Borg to Lendl and McEnroe, Lendl v Becker and Edberg the trend has repeated in every generation. The supposition that it has to end based on an etherial premise that a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation is pure fantasy and flies in the face of historical precedence.

I don't know what you mean "by roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great." My point is that Federer and Sampras played in three EXHIBITION matches, and exhibitions should not be used to assess the relative merits of their participants. Gonzalez and Laver, Laver and Borg, Borg and Lendl, etc. all met in competitive tournaments, and the results of those matches do count.

Sampras can obtain a wild card to any tournament he wants. If he did so, and then defeated Federer in the tournament, that result would be significant. Exhibitions are not.

On the other hand, you appear to want to dismiss the result of a competitive Wimbledon fourth round match on the grounds that Sampras was in a slump and that Federer played one of his best matches. As I pointed out in my last post, Sampras was, by any plausible criterion, closer to his peak in 2001 than Federer was to his. You can't simply ignore this result, however inconvenient and disappointing it may have been to you.

In addition, I did not argue that "a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation." My contention in this and the previous thread has been that Federer and Sampras face roughly the same level of competition. You are the person who keeps insisting that the players of the 90's were superior to today's generation.

Federer is a great would be great within any given generation as would Laver, Borg, etc. through Sampras and Agassi. This thread started as a debate of depth. Deep this generation isn't and most likely why no one has set about making a case for it. Claims yes. Cases no. More importantly no names, no list of guys successes. The reasons that hasn't happened yet is because you can't write in the names of the generation between the Sampras period and the Federer period and can't replace the other best players of the Fed generation itself.

The best of that tweener generation, the Rios, Kuertens, Normans, et al, for whatever reason could not carry on. They should have represented what the Edbergs and Beckers were to the front end of Sampras era and did impact the end of the Sampras era but never had an era of their own let alone present themselves as seasoned veterans in the front end of the Fed generation. They went MIA before Federer reached the top of the pyramid but should only now have been closing out their careers. Moya was outside the top 20 more than inside of it and Henman had a game which flourished mostly on fast grass but may have been the fourth or fifth best such grass courter under those conditions.

Safin, Ferrero, Flipper have all gone missing for long and longer periods. Hewitt is a Fed contemporary who peaked in the vacuum created by the absence of that tweener generation but has apparently used himself.

The success or otherwise of the tweener generation is not obviously relevant to this comparison of the relative merits of Sampras' and Federer's peers. The comparison should be between, say, the top 10 of 1997 and that of 2007. Taking Wuornos' ratings above as an example, Federer and Sampras at their peaks faced top 10 players with the same average ratings. The peak ratings of Sampras' contemporaries were higher, because virtually all of them have finished their careers. Many of Federer's contemporaries (Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Gasquet, etc.) can be expected to increase their ratings over the next few years.

Who took these player's places? Were they pushed out by better players or did they merely leave due to injury and/or personality issues. Their absences in large numbers created voids which guys like, Robredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Blake et al filled by default. Davydenko has been a fixture inside the top six players in the world with a losing record v. the top ten and a 57.7 career match winning percentage after 8 years on the pro tour.

Just how many potential Greats do you think a given generation produces?

Historically how many identified Greats have each generation produced?

Fed is great. Nadal is one of the great clay courters ever. But how do you replace the other top talents that went missing from both Feds and the prior generation? Everybody gets bumped up the ranks due to those gaps but do they get more talented? Is that depth?

Just how many great players were there in the Sampras era? In the previous thread I pointed out that many of the players claimed for this period (Lendl. Wilander, Edberg, Becker, etc.) were approaching the end of their careers by the time Sampras became the world No. 1. Lambielspins also discussed the limitations of some of the other players who were hailed as greats. I don't want to repeat those arguments here.

It is, of course, true that Sampras' contemporaries won more Slams than Federer's have to date. One reason for this is that today's generation of players have not completed their resumes as yet. For example, Agassi's and Ivanisevic's records looked far less impressive in December 1997 than they do today.

The other reason for the relative lack of success of Federer's peers is that Federer has been a far, far more dominant No. 1 than Sampras ever was. In 2002 and 2003 the 8 Slams were won by 8 separate players. Since 2004 Federer has won 11 of the 12 Slams played on surfaces other than clay, and Nadal has won the last three French Opens. If Federer had not been around Hewitt and Roddick would have 4-5 Slams each and Nadal would have duplicated Borg's FO-Wimbledon double.

You may see this as evidence of weak competition today. The substantial majority of analysts think otherwise.

FiveO
12-04-2007, 04:08 PM
deleted til complete

Nickognito
12-04-2007, 05:16 PM
So, if Djokovic become the next Agassi you can say that In 2007 Djokovic can match Agassi in 95? Nope. It doesnn't matter which player Djokovic become, and in dots ranking too. Wuornos' words are very intersting about this question


I think that Sampras is lucky he doesn't have Federer's opponents and Federer is even luckier he doesn't have Sampras opponents (on clay I dont' know the actual value fo Federer, so i can't tell). I explain.

There are Roddick-kind of players and Safin-kind of players. Who is the best? They had similar careers. Roddick always wins vs. normal players and always loses with champions. Safin sometimes wins and loses with both.
Roddick is always a player rated 800. Safin is sometimes rated 500 and sometimes 1000.

Federer is always rated 950-1000 so he cannot lose with Roddick but can lose with Safin. Usually not, but sometimes he can. Safin, Nalbandian, etc.

So Federer prefers Roddick than Safin, even if maybe Roddick is better than Safin, or near even.

Sampras maybe too, but i'm not so sure. Maybe sampras prefers Safin than Hewitt. Safin is not always a 950-1000 players, but sometimes is a little weaker. Only Wimbledon was different. With Federer's oppononets, I think that Sampras would have won 10 consecutive Wimbledons.

But in other tournaments Sampras could have be beaten occasionally by Haas, Gasquet, Hewitt, Djokovic, Berdych and so on.

But, in any case, only 'peaks' are relavant in judging champions opponents, when they feel well. So a Krajicek, a Mecir, a Safin, a Nalbandian, even a Kucera are more dangerous players than (till today) Roddick or Davydenko or

Let's see who has more vs-top10-wins per year between players of today, in grand slam tournaments:

Federer 3.9 per year
Nadal 2
Baghdatis 1.7
Safin 1.1
Ferrero, Davydenko Djokovic 1
Hewitt 0.9
Nalbandian Youzhny and Hrbaty 0.8
Tursunov 0.7
Gonzalez Grosjean Malisse and Clement 0.6
Moya Murray Andreev and Rochus 0.5
Roddick Ancic and Robredo 0.4
Blake Gasquet 0.3
Ljubicic and Berdych 0

This ranking is more accurate in determining who are the more dangerous for a player like Sampras or Federer.

c.

Steve132
12-04-2007, 05:40 PM
So, if Djokovic become the next Agassi you can say that In 2007 Djokovic can match Agassi in 95? Nope. It doesnn't matter which player Djokovic become, and in dots ranking too. Wuornos' words are very intersting about this question


I think that Sampras is lucky he doesn't have Federer's opponents and Federer is even luckier he doesn't have Sampras opponents (on clay I dont' know the actual value fo Federer, so i can't tell). I explain.

There are Roddick-kind of players and Safin-kind of players. Who is the best? They had similar careers. Roddick always wins vs. normal players and always loses with champions. Safin sometimes wins and loses with both.
Roddick is always a player rated 800. Safin is sometimes rated 500 and sometimes 1000.

Federer is always rated 950-1000 so he cannot lose with Roddick but can lose with Safin. Usually not, but sometimes he can. Safin, Nalbandian, etc.

So Federer prefers Roddick than Safin, even if maybe Roddick is better than Safin, or near even.

Sampras maybe too, but i'm not so sure. Maybe sampras prefers Safin than Hewitt. Safin is not always a 950-1000 players, but sometimes is a little weaker. Only Wimbledon was different. With Federer's oppononets, I think that Sampras would have won 10 consecutive Wimbledons.

But in other tournaments Sampras could have be beaten occasionally by Haas, Gasquet, Hewitt, Djokovic, Berdych and so on.

But, in any case, only 'peaks' are relavant in judging champions opponents, when they feel well. So a Krajicek, a Mecir, a Safin, a Nalbandian, even a Kucera are more dangerous players than (till today) Roddick or Davydenko or

Let's see who has more vs-top10-wins per year between players of today, in grand slam tournaments:

Federer 3.9 per year
Nadal 2
Baghdatis 1.7
Safin 1.1
Ferrero, Davydenko Djokovic 1
Hewitt 0.9
Nalbandian Youzhny and Hrbaty 0.8
Tursunov 0.7
Gonzalez Grosjean Malisse and Clement 0.6
Moya Murray Andreev and Rochus 0.5
Roddick Ancic and Robredo 0.4
Blake Gasquet 0.3
Ljubicic and Berdych 0

This ranking is more accurate in determining who are the more dangerous for a player like Sampras or Federer.

c.

Um.... do you really believe that Kucera at his peak was a more dangerous player than Roddick?

Let's see.

Kucera:

Highest ranking No. 6
6 tournament titles
0 Masters titles
1 Slam semi final
0 Slam finals

Roddick

Highest ranking No. 1
23 tournament titles
4 Masters titles
1 Slam (U.S. Open)
3 Slam finals (all lost to Federer)

Roddick rarely gets the recognition he deserves, mainly because his game does not match up very well with Federer's. I would agree that Safin has more talent than he does (although he is far less consistent), but Roddick has had a far more successful career than any of the other players to whom you compared him unfavorably. This applies not just to his average performance but also to his peaks.

Put it this way. If you remove both Sampras and Federer from tennis history, Mecir, Krajicek, Kucera and Nalbandian would not have won very much more. Roddick, like Lleyton Hewitt, would have 4 or 5 Slams.

Am I missing something here?

Nickognito
12-04-2007, 06:22 PM
No doubt that Roddick is a better player that Kucera was and that in a h2h match between them Roddick would be the winner most times.

But let's see how performed both with top players.

in 1996: Kucera is 2-2 with to10 players. W with Chang and Ferreira, L (67 in the 4th at Wimbledon) with Sampras

in 1997 he's 5-3: L with Ivanisevic, Corretja and Bjorman, W with Muster (hard), Ivanisevic and Kafelnikov (Carpet) Rios and Bruguera (clay)

in 1998 he's 5-8: but anyway he won with Korda and Krajicek on hardcourts, Rios on clay, Sampras in the Australian Open and Agassi in the Us Open (!)

In 1999 he's 4-5 beating Agassi, between others, and Kafelnikov on Davis russian clay in straight sets.

In 2000 he's 4-4 beating Kuerten in Montecarlo and Agassi in the French.

So, in 5 years he's 20-22, and he he has two 2 with Agassi, one with Sampras and four total wins in grand slam tournaments


Roddick in his five best years vs. top10 players:

2003: 6 W 5 L, beating Ferrero in the Us Open
2004: 5 W 6 L, no wins in g.s.
2005: 2W 5L , no wins in g.s.
2006: 1 w 6L, no wins in g.s
2007: 4W 7L, beating Ancic in the Australian Open

Total: 18-29 (38% vs. Kucera's 48%) and 2 gran slam wins (with Ferrero and Ancic) vs Kucera's 4 (Agassi, Agassi, Sampras, Ferreira)

So, yes, for a top-10 player Kucera was a more dangerous player than Roddick now is. No doubt about it.

Roddick is a better player, but a top10 prefer him to Kucera.

c.

edit: even if without Federer, Roddick is not better than Kucera overall and Kucera remains better in Grand Slam Tournaments. And if we keep out Federer , Roddick's opponents are sooooooo weaker than Kucera's...

I think you're missing the meaning of 'peak'. 'Peaks' do not depends on tournaments results. If you reach 4 grand slam finals in a single year, it's not necessarily a peak. You can reach 4 finals without playing with a top20 player. I don't mean it's yeasy to reach 4 grand slam finals in an year. To do that, you must play at a good level for 6 matches each time, and most people, like Kucera, are not able to do this. But it's not a peak, it's just the oppisite quality, it's 'continuity'. 'Peak' is the ability of winning a match with a top player. In doing this Kucera is better than Roddick.
On the other hand, Roddick is, between players with less than 2 grand slam tournament wins, the best player in the open era with players classified below #20 in the world. No one ever had Roddick's continuity. That's why Roddick can reach Grand Slam Finals. In the way to reach his two Wimbledon finals the best player beaten by Roddick was Coria, n.18 in the world.
And when he find on he's way just normal top10 players like Murray and Gasquet, the final become only a dream.
But I think Roddick is great, winning all the match he has the talent to win.

CyBorg
12-04-2007, 07:54 PM
Just to point that Bjorn Borg in his career had poor opponents.

Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Nastase, Gerulaitis are poor opponents?

The best 10 players in last 50years are maybe:

Borg, Rosewall, Nadal, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, Laver, Santana on clay

Gimeno is incredibly underrated and was better than Bruguera and Santana. Muster was also better than Bruguera, despite Bruguera's two Frenches. I would think that Vilas, Borg's contemporary, would crack the top 10. But that would only make sense.

Sampras, Federer, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Edberg on grass

Connors won Wimbledon the year Borg stopped playing it. The year before Borg beat Connos in the semis of Wimbledon and the US Open. Borg robbed Connors of several Wimbledon titles, the biggest robbery coming in 1977. I don't know what Hoad did to deserve to be on this list. Edberg wasn't better on grass than Connors.

Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Laver, Connors, Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Federer, Agassi on hardcourts

Are you going on hardcourts results for Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales? What are your sources?

With these players, Borg won only 2 matches and played only seven matches, losing five of them. He won two of them, with two 21 years old players, and both in five tight sets. One with a good but not the best McEnroe, the other with a too young Lendl.

That's because you're being selective. You don't have Connors on the grass courters list and don't have Vilas on the clay court list.

I suppose you don't think that Sampras and Federer would have beaten a lot of times by Connors in Wimbledon. So, who are the great players beaten by Borg?

I think that peak Connors would have wiped the floor with this year's Federer at Wimbledon, because Roger wasn't playing great tennis there.

As for your question - Connors, McEnroe, Vilas were the great players. I'm not counting the younger Lendl or the older Nastase. That's a troika of truly great all-time guys, which is more or as much as other guys have.

Nickognito
12-04-2007, 08:35 PM
It was just my subjective opinion.

I'm maybe underrating Connors on grass but I think he wasn't better than Agassi. For Agassi as Sampras competitor on grass watch 1999 final.

Hoad is judged by man the best grass court player ever at his peak.
And, sorry, there's Newcombe, better than Connors on grass.

Anyway, who are the first 5 players on every surface from 1974 to 2007?

clay: Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten (or Courier)
grass: Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Becker
hardcourts: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Agassi (or Connors)

It's subjective, but i think you can agree with that.

So, how many matches has Borg won with them?
Two.

I have nothing against Borg. I didn't say he lived in the tennis weakest era. But for sure he didn'nt live in the golden age of tennis. When the age started to become brighter, Borg losed the 1st position in the world and Wimbledon and retired.

John McEnroe in his 7 slams wins had to beat three times Borg and Lendl and 4 times Connors. (and Gerulaitis twice, and Curren, and Cash). In 7 slam, not in 11.

c.

CyBorg
12-04-2007, 10:13 PM
It was just my subjective opinion.

I'm maybe underrating Connors on grass but I think he wasn't better than Agassi. For Agassi as Sampras competitor on grass watch 1999 final.

Connors made an inordinate amount of semifinal appearances at Wimbledon. You can't say this for Agassi. He won one fluky Wimbledon when Ivanisevic choked and while Becker was doing blow and screwing hookers. The only decent grass courter in Agassi's 1999 draw was the semifinalist Rafter.

Hoad is judged by man the best grass court player ever at his peak.
And, sorry, there's Newcombe, better than Connors on grass.

Hoad had a marvellous peak that never lasted more than a tournament. He won Wimbledon in '56, the tour of champions in '58 and the Victorian pro in '59. Otherwise a massive underachiever. Newcombe was pretty good in the early 70s, but took advantage of the transitional years between Laver's and Rosewall's dominance and Connors' emergence in 1974. His 1967 title was as an amateur.

Anyway, who are the first 5 players on every surface from 1974 to 2007?

clay: Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten (or Courier)
grass: Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Becker
hardcourts: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Agassi (or Connors)

It's subjective, but i think you can agree with that.

So, how many matches has Borg won with them?
Two.

Why would you care how many matches Borg won against someone like Agassi or Sampras these players were not in his generation? This is absolutely asinine logic.

I guess what really sucks for Borg is that he didn't get to meet a young Mats Wilander at the French in 1981 so he could have drubbed him in straight sets. That would have raised the count to three. Or what if Borg had met Lendl on grass at Wimbledon and had likewise drubbed him? What a luck of the draw - he could have been great. Damn you, astrology!

I have nothing against Borg. I didn't say he lived in the tennis weakest era. But for sure he didn'nt live in the golden age of tennis. When the age started to become brighter, Borg losed the 1st position in the world and Wimbledon and retired.

I don't think he lived in the golden age of tennis either, but he did play in some of the deeper years in the Open Era. If you want to make a convincing argument that he didn't I suggest pulling out the draws and drawing some conclusions from them.

John McEnroe in his 7 slams wins had to beat three times Borg and Lendl and 4 times Connors. (and Gerulaitis twice, and Curren, and Cash). In 7 slam, not in 11.

Context. McEnroe's defeats of Borg were fantastic. His victories over Lendl were less impressive because Lendl was not a great player when Mac beat him in majors due to his youth and inexperience. Sampras beat McEnroe at the 1990 US Open semifinal - seems impressive if you ignore all factors like age, but it is much less impressive when you think about it logically. Mac was old and his name alone does not make him great competition.

Borg beat Connors four times at Wimbledon and McEnroe once. That's pretty darn good. And Tanner played amazing tennis in 1979 when Borg beat him and that counts all the same. And I bet you that the '79 Roscoe was twice the player than Becker was in 1993. But, of course, without context this doesn't matter, isn't that right?

RiosTheGenius
12-04-2007, 10:24 PM
no doubt about that, Sampras competition was far better than any of the guys Federer faces now.

Steve132
12-05-2007, 03:38 AM
no doubt about that, Sampras competition was far better than any of the guys Federer faces now.

Do you care to explain why?

Nickognito
12-05-2007, 05:55 AM
CyBorg if you speak about Roscoe Tanner, I don't think that he's better than Goran Ivanisevic.

But I think you're overrating Connors. For sure he had more consistency than Agassi, but I think his peaks on grass were similar.

But you 'are overrating all players from 1974 to 1979, I think.
You said that Newk took advantage for transitional year till the emergence of the two bigs in 1974. But in 1974 Newcombe beated the french open champion Borg both in Dallas on carpet and in the Masters on grass. And in the period (end 1973-start 1975) , when Connors won 3 majors, Newcombe beated him twice in two matches, in Us Open 73 and Australian75, both on grass. Newcombe was 31 and then declined for his age, not for the emergence of Connors and Borg.

c.

protourOS
12-05-2007, 07:03 AM
But I think you're overrating Connors. For sure he had more consistency than Agassi, but I think his peaks on grass were similar.
c.

Connors at Wimbledon
Champion: 1974, 1982
Finalist: 1975, 1977, 1978, 1984

Agassi at Wimbledon
Champion: 1992
Finalist: 1999

Hardly similar peaks at Wimbledon...

Nickognito
12-05-2007, 07:06 AM
I'm sorry, maybe i don't know well tha meaning of 'peak'. I only wanted to say that the best Connors on grass in my opinion is not so better than the best Connors.

c.

protourOS
12-05-2007, 07:19 AM
no apology required it's only our opinions!

Connors was either winning or a finalist more often than Agassi, as such I think he achieved a higher peak (beating the best around him).

As to who was best at their best, I presume your judgement is based on believing Agassi's opponents were tougher than those faced by Connors?
While I think Agassi was an incredible player and great talent to achieve what he did on Grass - I dont neccessarily think his opponents were of a higher caliber - just a different era...

Nickognito
12-05-2007, 07:29 AM
I think that

- Agassi had tougher opponents
- Agassi had less continuity. I think that Agassi in 1992 or 1999 is a player like Connors, not always. I think that Sampras 1994-2000 and Federer 2003-2006 could not lose a match at Wimbledon vs Connors. It's only my opinion.

c.

protourOS
12-05-2007, 08:37 AM
you say Sampras and Federer would always (at their best) beat Connors (at his best) at Wimbledon
So then would they also always beat McEnroe & Borg?

For that matter what about say Laver, Newcome & Rosewall?

Are the recent champions simply better players than the older generations?

RiosTheGenius
12-05-2007, 10:00 AM
Do you care to explain why?
it is very simple... the guys at the top today lack the variety guys in the 90's had...I'll give you a few examples of guys who always play the same way: Roddick, Hewitt, Gasquet, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Berdych, Baghdatis, etc.. the only exceptions to me are Nadal and Nalbandian, these two guys and Federer are constantly changing their strategies. That's why it is so easy for Federer to beat guys like Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Roddick... he knows exactly what they're gonna do, they don't, and they always get a different look at Federer's game.
When Roddick lost the first final of Wimby against Federer he thought he had learned something, and when they played again he was close in the beginning... what did Federer do?... changed his game and oops, won the title again... Roddick didn't have that ability.
Meanwhile Sampras faced an entire generation in the 90s of players with an evolving variety in their games and he had to adjust to that, added to a bigger variety of styles of play. Sampras had to deal with the serve and volley of guys like Rafter and Krajicek, the serve of guys like Ivanisevic and Korda, the unpredictable game of guys like Chang and Rios, the metamorphosis of Agassi's game, the Physical game of guys like Muester, Courier and Ferreira, etc... all those guys at the top were constantly changing their game and yet Sampras was still able to overcome ALL OF THEM, the current top players are all from the same school of hitting as hard as you can and Federer loves that stuff.

lambielspins
12-05-2007, 10:08 AM
it is very simple... the guys at the top today lack the variety guys in the 90's had...I'll give you a few examples of guys who always play the same way: Roddick, Hewitt, Gasquet, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Berdych, Baghdatis, etc.. the only exceptions to me are Nadal and Nalbandian, these two guys and Federer are constantly changing their strategies. That's why it is so easy for Federer to beat guys like Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Roddick... he knows exactly what they're gonna do, they don't, and they always get a different look at Federer's game.
When Roddick lost the first final of Wimby against Federer he thought he had learned something, and when they played again he was close in the beginning... what did Federer do?... changed his game and oops, won the title again... Roddick didn't have that ability.
Meanwhile Sampras faced an entire generation in the 90s of players with an evolving variety in their games and he had to adjust to that, added to a bigger variety of styles of play. Sampras had to deal with the serve and volley of guys like Rafter and Krajicek, the serve of guys like Ivanisevic and Korda, the unpredictable game of guys like Chang and Rios, the metamorphosis of Agassi's game, the Physical game of guys like Muester, Courier and Ferreira, etc... all those guys at the top were constantly changing their game and yet Sampras was still able to overcome ALL OF THEM, the current top players are all from the same school of hitting as hard as you can and Federer loves that stuff.

ROTFL! Most of those guys you mentioned did not have unpredictable games at all. Krajicek and Ivanisevic lived and died by their serves. Muster and Chang were just baseliner grinders, and not even nearly as great at that as Nadal. Rios may have the ability to play different games but he was so braindead he didnt have a clue what he was or should be doing most of the time, and he spent most of his career injured and underachieving too. Ferreira a "physical game"?!? Korda known for his big serving? OK now I have heard everything.

Your accessment is about as accurate as your username, "Rios The Genuis", that will be the day. :roll:

lambielspins
12-05-2007, 10:18 AM
I think that

- Agassi had tougher opponents
- Agassi had less continuity. I think that Agassi in 1992 or 1999 is a player like Connors, not always. I think that Sampras 1994-2000 and Federer 2003-2006 could not lose a match at Wimbledon vs Connors. It's only my opinion.

c.

Agassi did NOT have tougher opponents then Connors on grass.

Agassi from 92 onwards (he didnt even play Wimbledon for the first time until 1991 and lost to Wheaton there) had Sampras of course, the toughest of all perhaps. Other then that Becker and Edberg nearing the end of their primes, Ivanisevic with his monstrous serve but monstrously fragile competitive mind, Courier who was a miracle to even make a Wimbledon final since most of his career results on grass were pitiful, Rafter who didnt even get past the 4th round of Wimbledon until the 3rd last year of his career, Martin who never won a slam title anywhere and best Wimbledon was the semifinal choke vs unheralded Washington,

Connors had McEnroe and Borg in their primes. Connors also faced Nastase, Ashe, Newcombe, all still at their best early on. Later in his career when he was still contending at Wimbledon there was also Lendl, Wilander, and Cash, who all had good results on grass. Even after all of them guys like Tanner, Gerulatis, were not that far from players like Ivanisevic and Martin.

This thread seemed to be started with the aim of Sampras fanboys to brainwash all into thinking the 2000s are by far the weakest decade in mens tennis history; but the more I read peoples views the more I think the 90s are by far the most overrated decade in mens tennis history.

Steve132
12-05-2007, 03:31 PM
it is very simple... the guys at the top today lack the variety guys in the 90's had...I'll give you a few examples of guys who always play the same way: Roddick, Hewitt, Gasquet, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Berdych, Baghdatis, etc.. the only exceptions to me are Nadal and Nalbandian, these two guys and Federer are constantly changing their strategies. That's why it is so easy for Federer to beat guys like Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Roddick... he knows exactly what they're gonna do, they don't, and they always get a different look at Federer's game.
When Roddick lost the first final of Wimby against Federer he thought he had learned something, and when they played again he was close in the beginning... what did Federer do?... changed his game and oops, won the title again... Roddick didn't have that ability.
Meanwhile Sampras faced an entire generation in the 90s of players with an evolving variety in their games and he had to adjust to that, added to a bigger variety of styles of play. Sampras had to deal with the serve and volley of guys like Rafter and Krajicek, the serve of guys like Ivanisevic and Korda, the unpredictable game of guys like Chang and Rios, the metamorphosis of Agassi's game, the Physical game of guys like Muester, Courier and Ferreira, etc... all those guys at the top were constantly changing their game and yet Sampras was still able to overcome ALL OF THEM, the current top players are all from the same school of hitting as hard as you can and Federer loves that stuff.

Thanks. I'd like to reply to several points:

1. It is true that playing styles are now more homogenized than they were in the past. That is a direct result of changes in playing conditions and racquet technology. There are now very few tournaments on grass, and Wimbledon has deliberately slowed its courts (largely in response to complaints about serving contests in the 80's and 90's) and used heavier balls to encourage more rallies. Indoor carpet has largely been replaced by medium paced hard courts, which are now the surface of choice for the overwhelming majority of tournaments. New racquet string technology has helped returners more than servers.

The net effect of all this has been to encourage one particular style of play - what you might call aggressive baseliners. Even players like Federer - who can certainly serve and volley - tend to do so only now and then rather than automatically as they might have in the past. People who lament the decline of serve and volley tennis often write as though players have simply forgotten the art. They haven't. It's just less profitable today than it would have been in the past. Tennis players are generally quite pragmatic. If they could win at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open by serving and volleying on every point in the way that McEnroe did they certainly would.

2. More importantly, however, the statement that playing styles are now more homogeneous is NOT logically equivalent to saying that competition is weaker, which was the point of your original post. These are two separate issues. You could argue that it is more difficult to be dominant in an era where playing conditions and styles are very varied, but that does not mean that the standard of play is necessarily higher.

3. You single out Nadal nor Nalbandian as players who can vary their games - mainly, it seems, because they are the players with the best records against Federer. Nadal is not a particularly good example. He is certainly the world's No. 2 player, and he is a difficult matchup for Federer. Nevertheless, he has not been particularly good at adapting his game to hard courts (e.g. by taking the ball earlier, flattening his shots, standing closer to the baseline) and this is reflected in his results on that surface. Nalbandian's game is no more flexible than those of say, Safin, Murray and Djokovic.

4. Like Lambielspins, I was astonished at your examples of players in the 90's who "were constantly changing their game." This list includes players like Ivanisevic, Courier and Muster. To quote McEnroe, you cannot be serious. Even Ivanisevic himself described his game as ace, ace, return winner, double fault, first volley winner, ace.....you get the picture. What exactly was unpredictable about Chang's game compared with that of, say, Lleyton Hewitt? What is there about the physical game of Muster, Courier and Ferreira that would cause Federer any sleepless nights? Rafter, Krajicek and Rios were all notoriously inconsistent. None of them was as talented as Safin, who is the only player to beat Federer in a Slam on a non-clay surface over the past four years.

Agassi is the only player on your list who could pose a consistent challenge to Federer. But then, he is acknowledged as one of the greats of the Open era, and he has stated on numerous occasions that Federer is the greatest player he has ever seen.

CyBorg
12-05-2007, 03:52 PM
CyBorg if you speak about Roscoe Tanner, I don't think that he's better than Goran Ivanisevic.

Tanner was far better on hardcourts than Ivanisevic. On grass it would be a dead heat.

But I think you're overrating Connors. For sure he had more consistency than Agassi, but I think his peaks on grass were similar.

Connors beat McEnroe at Wimbledon. Agassi had one fluky win and was otherwise Sampras' bltch. I don't see how it's close.

But you 'are overrating all players from 1974 to 1979, I think.
You said that Newk took advantage for transitional year till the emergence of the two bigs in 1974. But in 1974 Newcombe beated the french open champion Borg both in Dallas on carpet and in the Masters on grass. And in the period (end 1973-start 1975) , when Connors won 3 majors, Newcombe beated him twice in two matches, in Us Open 73 and Australian75, both on grass. Newcombe was 31 and then declined for his age, not for the emergence of Connors and Borg.

Newcombe won Dallas and the Aussie in 74 and later. Everything else was minor events. He was a solid player those in 74 and 75, but was gradually regressing. Beating a 17-year old Borg in Dallas doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make him better than Connors... on any surface.

Nickognito
12-05-2007, 04:05 PM
An old Newcombe beated Connors in Us Open and Australian Open in Connors primes. Maybe he's not better than Connors on Grass, but I think he was. Be sure? Nothing is sure on this earth.

And Connors did not have Newcombe at Wimbledon.

I think Agassi could have beaten once McEnroe at Wimbledon, beacuse of his return of serve. Just subjective opinion.

c.

CyBorg
12-05-2007, 10:29 PM
An old Newcombe beated Connors in Us Open and Australian Open in Connors primes. Maybe he's not better than Connors on Grass, but I think he was. Be sure? Nothing is sure on this earth.

1973 was not Connors' prime. Nice work spinning that though. The Aussie win was impressive, but that was not even one of the top four events that year. It was a 64-man event. Jimmy's prime was 1982, by the way.

And Connors did not have Newcombe at Wimbledon.

Aw, shucks.

I think Agassi could have beaten once McEnroe at Wimbledon, beacuse of his return of serve. Just subjective opinion.

I'm sure Andre would have had a shot at him had they played each other in 1992.

CyBorg
12-05-2007, 10:45 PM
Jimmy's Wimbledon history includes:

- 2 wins
- 6 final berths
- 11 SF births
- 14 QF births, including 11 in a row between 72 and 82

Yeah - just like Agassi and Newcombe, isn't that right?

Also, just for kicks...

The 1976 Wimbledon draw included:
- Ashe
- Connors
- Nastase
- Borg
- Tanner
- Vilas
- Okker
- Newcombe
- Roche
- Gottfried
- Smith
- Gerulaitis
- Metreveli
- Dent

The 1977 Wimbledon draw included:
- Connors
- Borg
- Tanner
- Gottfried
- Nastase
- Vilas
- Gerulaitis
- Stockton
- Smith
- Dent
- Mayer
- Gullickson
- Amritraj
- Okker
- Edmondson

The 1978 Wimbledon draw included:
- Borg
- Connors
- Gerulaitis
- Vilas
- Gottfried
- Tanner
- Mayer
- Ramirez
- Nastase
- Stockton
- McErnoe
- Ashe
- Newcombe
- Okker
- Kriek
- Gullikson

The 1979 Wimbleodn draw included:
- Borg
- McEnroe
- Connors
- Gerulaitis
- Tanner
- Vilas
- Ashe
- Gottfried
- Alexander
- Gullikson
- Teacher
- Amritraj
- Okker
- Kriek
- Scanlon
- Mayer
- Gullikson
- Smid

And so on... I didn't bother including clay courters like Barazzuti and Panatta.

I have all the time in the world and I am awaiting with anticipation your detailed explanation as to how these players were representative of a weaker generation. Because, you know, if you're going to make a bold statement you may as well back it up with something substantial.

I'm waiting.

Nickognito
12-05-2007, 11:05 PM
I'm sorry, but i'm not debating about career results. Career results are what they are, and no debate is possible.

So, I think that John Newcombe on grass played better than Connors, and that he would have beaten Jimbo most times.

I don't care about career results, but I think that 3 wimbledon vs 2 do not mean that you're not a better player :) Newcombe won 7 slam on grass. 2-0 in h2h with Connors, 1-0 with Borg, 2-0 with Smith, 2-1 vs Ashe and he wons with Laver in 1969.

Connors is 0-2 vs Newk, 0-4 vs Borg, 2-2 with McEnroe, 2-1 vs Smith , 0-1 vs Ashe.

So, i respect your opinion, because numbers tell few things, but i have mine e , if it matters, i have numbers.

c.

Nickognito
12-05-2007, 11:17 PM
The 1978 Wimbledon draw included:
- Borg
- Connors
- Gerulaitis
- Vilas
- Gottfried
- Tanner
- Mayer
- Ramirez
- Nastase
- Stockton
- McErnoe
- Ashe
- Newcombe
- Okker
- Kriek
- Gullikson



1970 Draw (and Newk won)

-Laver (Wimbledon champion)
-Newcombe (Wimbledon chamion)
-Ashe (Wimbledon champion)
-Roche (Wimbledon runner up)
-Rosewall (wimbledon runner up)
-Smith (Wimbledon champion)
-Nastase (Wimbledon runner up)
-Emerson (Wimbledon champion)
-Kodes (Wimbledon champion)
-Gimeno
-Okker
-Ralston
-Drysdale
-Franulovic
-Orantes

and so on

6 wimbledon champions and 3 Wimbledon finalist in their prime!
7 of these 9 players wre top ten that year, only Kodes and Emerson were weaker players.

Laver and Rosewall (Ken was very good till 72) between them, maybe the best players of all times.

Moose Malloy
12-06-2007, 10:36 AM
I think you're missing the meaning of 'peak'. 'Peaks' do not depends on tournaments results. If you reach 4 grand slam finals in a single year, it's not necessarily a peak. You can reach 4 finals without playing with a top20 player. I don't mean it's yeasy to reach 4 grand slam finals in an year. To do that, you must play at a good level for 6 matches each time, and most people, like Kucera, are not able to do this. But it's not a peak, it's just the oppisite quality, it's 'continuity'. 'Peak' is the ability of winning a match with a top player. In doing this Kucera is better than Roddick.
On the other hand, Roddick is, between players with less than 2 grand slam tournament wins, the best player in the open era with players classified below #20 in the world. No one ever had Roddick's continuity. That's why Roddick can reach Grand Slam Finals. In the way to reach his two Wimbledon finals the best player beaten by Roddick was Coria, n.18 in the world.
And when he find on he's way just normal top10 players like Murray and Gasquet, the final become only a dream.
But I think Roddick is great, winning all the match he has the talent to win.


This is a very interesting post(& no one has addressed it yet, Steve132?)

I like to hear analysis that looks beyond the surface(just looking at results alone to judge a players peak/abilities is rather simple way of viewing things)

And I'm not pointing this out because I think Sampras' era was better or anything, but that other factors in general should be in considered in comparing whatever players you are comparing.

I'm a big fan of judging players partly on how they do in 'big matches.' And by big matches I don't just mean majors, finals, etc, but how they did against the best players. Like Rafter was able to beat Sampras & Agassi in majors while Kafelnikov did not(yeah I know about the '96 FO, its not quite the same as beating Sampras & Agassi at the USO), so in my mind he's 'better' than Kafelnikov, who beat some less than impressive names to win his majors.

Or why I think Cash's peak level was better than most other one slam winners(like Roddick), he beat a #1 player in 3 majors, while Roddick hasn't come close to one win in a major on that level.

Or why I consider Mecir much better than Rios(so many more wins over top 10 players, esp in majors)

The ATP doesn't have an easy way to see how players did vs the top 10 opponents they played in each year, so this stuff isn't brought up much in these debates, but I think it should. And head to head doesn't bring up the ranking of the players at the time of matches.

It would be interesting to compare how players ranked 1-20(or lower) did vs the top 10 in each year of the 90s compared to today, to see if much has changed in that department. I have a feeling it has.

lambielspins
12-06-2007, 11:27 AM
Like Rafter was able to beat Sampras & Agassi in majors while Kafelnikov did not(yeah I know about the '96 FO, its not quite the same as beating Sampras & Agassi at the USO), so in my mind he's 'better' than Kafelnikov, who beat some less than impressive names to win his majors.


Yeah and Sampras was so worn out for that semifinal it might as well have been a walkover win too. Rafter>>Kafelnikov for me.

CyBorg
12-06-2007, 02:59 PM
Connors is 0-2 vs Newk, 0-4 vs Borg, 2-2 with McEnroe, 2-1 vs Smith , 0-1 vs Ashe.

You forgot that Newcombe was 3-0 overall against Borg, which conclusively proves that he was better than Borg.

CyBorg
12-06-2007, 03:01 PM
1970 Draw (and Newk won)

-Laver (Wimbledon champion)
-Newcombe (Wimbledon chamion)
-Ashe (Wimbledon champion)
-Roche (Wimbledon runner up)
-Rosewall (wimbledon runner up)
-Smith (Wimbledon champion)
-Nastase (Wimbledon runner up)
-Emerson (Wimbledon champion)
-Kodes (Wimbledon champion)
-Gimeno
-Okker
-Ralston
-Drysdale
-Franulovic
-Orantes

and so on

6 wimbledon champions and 3 Wimbledon finalist in their prime!
7 of these 9 players wre top ten that year, only Kodes and Emerson were weaker players.

Laver and Rosewall (Ken was very good till 72) between them, maybe the best players of all times.

Unlike you I don't disrespect a player's opposition and think that Newcombe had a heck of a career. Therefore I don't know what your point is.

You have yet to support your views in regards to Borg's opposition, so I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

Nickognito
12-06-2007, 03:45 PM
You forgot that Newcombe was 3-0 overall against Borg, which conclusively proves that he was better than Borg.

I didn't mention the word 'prove', you did. It was my subjective opinion . It's you, who say that a 0-2 in h2h proves that the loser is the best player. It's nonsense.

federerfanatic
12-06-2007, 03:55 PM
You forgot that Newcombe was 3-0 overall against Borg, which conclusively proves that he was better than Borg.

Not to mention some of the following head to heads:

Canas leads Federer 3-2, Canas the better player?
Haarhuis leads Sampras 3-1, Haarhuis the better player?
Krajicek leads Sampras 6-4, Krajicek the better player?
Blake leads Nadal 3-0, Blake the better player?

:twisted:

CyBorg
12-06-2007, 04:00 PM
I didn't mention the word 'prove', you did. It was my subjective opinion . It's you, who say that a 0-2 in h2h proves that the loser is the best player. It's nonsense.

To have an opinion means to have the wherewithal to make a reasoned argument. What you have is a strawman that you're sticking to despite all evidence to the contrary.

Nickognito
12-06-2007, 04:04 PM
You have yet to support your views in regards to Borg's opposition, so I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

If this thread becomes a fight, i don't care, and i will not answer again, i think we're all polite persons who know what we're talking about and just have different views.

I think that Borg didn't have great opponents on his favourite surfaces, with the exception of two years of John McEnroe in Wimbledon.

If we look at Borgěs opponents' results in Paris, no one was a great player. EvenVilas losed in Paris twice with a Solomon, for instance. Panatta was a very good player, but only every once in a while. Lendl was tto young. Rosewall , Laver, Gimeno, too old. There were not peopole like Nadal, Courier, Kuerten Wilander and aonly Vilas can be compared with Brugura, Muster, Ferrero or Federer.

In Wimbledon he had tougher opponents. Connors was a very good player, but definitely Grass wasn't his favourite surface. Nastase was like Panatta on clay, good for an year. Gerulaitis Tanner were good, but not enough. Borg didn't play vs. the recent great grass court player: Laver, Rosewall, and even Newcombe, Ashe and Smith. He did'nt play with players like Edberg and Becker. And Nastase , Tanner, Gerulaitis wer three. Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Agassi, Cash, Rafter, Henman, Lendl are more.

So, I think, in my subjective humble opinion, Borg 's opponents on grass and clay were a little weaker than Sampras ones, and very weaker than Newcombe or Lendl 's. On the other hand, Borg was not lucky in the uS. Open. In his 4 best years there he had to play with two oh the best plaer ever in that tournament, McEnroe and Connors.

I don't hate Borg. I 'm simply saying that he was lucky in a tournament, a little lucky in another one, and not lucky in a third one. And maybe , the record of 6-5-0 slam , you know, is a little strange: yeah, on clay and grass he was a better player for sure, but maybe not so better. 11 slam vs 0.

Anyway, it's my point of view. You have yours. That's fine.

c.

Nickognito
12-06-2007, 04:05 PM
cyborg, tell me the evidence, with numbers, that Borg opponents on grass weren't weaker than Newcombe's.

CyBorg
12-06-2007, 04:06 PM
cyborg, tell me the evidence, with numbers, that Borg opponents on grass weren't weaker than Newcombe's.

You made the statement. The onus is on you to back it up. I don't think that Newcombe faced weak opponents.

Nickognito
12-06-2007, 04:07 PM
Moose Malloy, what you're saying is very interesting.

I would like to have such a ranking.

Richard Krajicek, for instance, has a great overall career record of 37 W and 35 L vs. top10 players.

Nickognito
12-06-2007, 04:09 PM
You made the statement. The onus is on you to back it up. I don't think that Newcombe faced weak opponents.

Ok , i said weaker , not weak. It's a comparative.

1)Newcombe had tougher opponents
2)Borg had tougher opponents
3)Same opponents

In my opinion, newcombe opponents (and lendl opponents) were better. which is your opinion? Do you have some numbers to show them?

c.

Gorecki
12-06-2007, 11:42 PM
ace, ace, return winner, double fault, first volley winner, ace...

is it just me or this sums up pretty much what tennis is...

Moose Malloy
12-07-2007, 09:18 AM
Richard Krajicek, for instance, has a great overall career record of 37 W and 35 L vs. top10 players.

did you just research that yourself, or is it available somewhere?

When you say 'top 10 players' you mean, their ranking at the time of the match, correct?

CyBorg
12-07-2007, 10:08 AM
Ok , i said weaker , not weak. It's a comparative.

Just to point that Bjorn Borg in his career had poor opponents.

You're a terrible poster. I'm done with this.

Nickognito
12-07-2007, 01:29 PM
(sorry double posting)

Nickognito
12-07-2007, 01:40 PM
did you just research that yourself, or is it available somewhere?

When you say 'top 10 players' you mean, their ranking at the time of the match, correct?

Correct, I researched by myself.

He's 37-35 considering his years as a top100.

In their career,

Krajicek 49.3%
Ferrer 38.6%
Davydenko 28.6%
Ferreira 27.5%

Just 4 random players.

c.

edit: Cyborg, I'm sorry for my english, the comparitive was implicite in my words. No player has ever had poor opponents, it's obvious. Borg's ones were poorer, on grass and clay, not on hardcourts, than others. Just check grass-court win percentage:

Borg's opponents(1976-1981)

McEnroe 91%
Connors 86%
Nastase 76%
Gerulaitis 76%
Tanner 75%


Newcombe opponents (1968-1974)

Connors 91%
Laver 86%
Rosewall 84%
Smith 83%
Ashe 81%
Nastase 79%
Roche 76%

Lendl 's opponents (1983-1990)

Becker 89%
McEnroe 85%
Edberg 81%
Wilander 81%
Connors 79%
Cash 76%

Career wimbledon championships for opponents with more than 75% win percentage on grass in these years.

Borg's opponents: 5
Newcombe's: 8
Lendl's: 11

Regards,

c.