PDA

View Full Version : Ive realized maybe the competition isnt much stronger than before


GameSampras
06-07-2009, 10:12 AM
I figured now with Nadal primed and Djoker and Murray into the mix that at least top heavy, the competition was much superior than it was say 4-5 years ago. Now Im kind of recanting and thinking otherwise. Sure Nadal is an all surface phenomenon, but who knows how long he will last. I dont see much longevity in his future. Every season he seems like there is something wrong with him physically. Djoker and Murray have done nothing but DISAPPOINT ME. I figured this year would be Murray's year to unleash. He has proven me wrong. Djoker hasnt impressed since the beginning of last year.

I dunno now.

samster
06-07-2009, 10:14 AM
I figured now with Nadal primed and Djoker and Murray into the mix that at least top heavy, the competition was much superior than it was say 4-5 years ago. Now Im kind of recanting and thinking otherwise. Sure Nadal is an all surface phenomenon, but who knows how long he will last. I dont see much longevity in his future. Every season he seems like there is something wrong with him physically. Djoker and Murray have done nothing but DISAPPOINT ME. I figured this year would be Murray's year to unleash. He has proven me wrong. Djoker hasnt impressed since the beginning of last year.

I dunno now.

You should join the ATP tour to serve as a competition to Fed.

Docalex007
06-07-2009, 10:14 AM
Just because you're disappointed personally does not mean these top 4 players are weak.

Fail.

The competition is much deeper these days... that's why you get more upsets, etc.

Tennis_Maestro
06-07-2009, 10:15 AM
Apart from Aggasi where was Sampras's competition?

Henman on grass....

erm.....

On clay everyone .....

Erm ............................

Struggling.. really am struggling...

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 10:16 AM
Just because you're disappointed personally does not mean these top 4 players are weak.

Fail.

Murray and Djoker UNDERPERFORM when it matters most. Its not to say they are weak, just maybe not as strong as advertised. Sure they can pick up wins at the smaller tourneys but at the slams, they have proved jack diddly squat. Usually losing to the inferior players

Tennis_Maestro
06-07-2009, 10:16 AM
Oh btw ... just incase your forgot

Sampras - 14 Grandslams - Retired Aged 32

Federer - 14 Grandslams - Still playing age 27

MajinX
06-07-2009, 10:17 AM
if the top 4 ALWAYS makes the semis in any era for more than 6 straight tourneys then u have an argument.... but no never happens. the top player loses sometimes okay.

grizzly4life
06-07-2009, 10:18 AM
i was somewhat starting to think the same way as OP, and that was before today.

have djokovic and murray really stepped up?...... and then guys like del potro and tsonga were considered to add depth, but what have they actually accomplished beyond a ton of guys fed competed with earlier.

zagor
06-07-2009, 10:18 AM
LOL,GameSampras maybe you're right,that's hard to measure anyway.But yeah,I'm verry disappointed in Novak as well.To looks so promising early on in clay season and then losing to Kohlschreiber of all people(no offense to him though he played great)when it really counts and in straights.I mean c'mon,he can do better than that.

Although he didn't look so good even when I watched him live at Serbia Open,seems in a bit shaky form even though he won.I think Madrid loss to Nadal sapped his confidence.

Tennis_Maestro
06-07-2009, 10:20 AM
i was somewhat starting to think the same way as OP, and that was before today.

have djokovic and murray really stepped up?...... and then guys like del potro and tsonga were considered to add depth, but what have they actually accomplished beyond a ton of guys fed competed with earlier.

Murray is still adapting to the clay. Del potro put up a really good fight against Federer in the Semi's and Tsonga is still maturing.

tonyg11
06-07-2009, 10:20 AM
with team Agassi behind him, Verdasco is finally going to open a can of woop *** on the hard court season and make a move on Murray and Djokovic

Breaker
06-07-2009, 10:24 AM
I figured now with Nadal primed and Djoker and Murray into the mix that at least top heavy, the competition was much superior than it was say 4-5 years ago. Now Im kind of recanting and thinking otherwise. Sure Nadal is an all surface phenomenon, but who knows how long he will last. I dont see much longevity in his future. Every season he seems like there is something wrong with him physically. Djoker and Murray have done nothing but DISAPPOINT ME. I figured this year would be Murray's year to unleash. He has proven me wrong. Djoker hasnt impressed since the beginning of last year.

I dunno now.

After 3017 posts you finally figured that out well done.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 10:43 AM
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2178/clipodu.jpg

R.Federer
06-07-2009, 10:44 AM
sampras careful this thread doesnt get deleted also ahha shame u got owned

World Beater
06-07-2009, 10:44 AM
revisionist history at its best.

pathetic

Rexking
06-07-2009, 10:49 AM
http://www.realfreewebsites.com/blog/img/fail2.jpg

callitout
06-07-2009, 10:55 AM
The competition always looks better if
1.you overlap eras. Take a player who wasnt in prime when he competed vs say, Pete Sampras, and discuss how tough the opposition was.
So Becker and Edberg who were retired for the bulk of Pete's Wimby winning years. Becker retired in 93 and Edberg in 96 (but Edberg's last runner up was A01993, last masters title 1992).
2.You look at a past era's players entire careers, but present players you say are deficient for lack of titles. Djokovic and Murray have a combined 1 title for example...but they are still young. If you looked at Goran or Pat Rafter at their ages you would see 0 titles.
3.You use playing style as an indication of anything. In earlier eras players played S&V. Currently conditions dont favor it. It isnt superior. You may like it better, but it is an insane strategy on a slow surface, versus the present crop of speedy athletes with spin generating strings.

canuckfan
06-07-2009, 11:23 AM
The competition always looks better if
1.you overlap eras. Take a player who wasnt in prime when he competed vs say, Pete Sampras, and discuss how tough the opposition was.
So Becker and Edberg who were retired for the bulk of Pete's Wimby winning years. Becker retired in 93 and Edberg in 96 (but Edberg's last runner up was A01993, last masters title 1992).
2.You look at a past era's players entire careers, but present players you say are deficient for lack of titles. Djokovic and Murray have a combined 1 title for example...but they are still young. If you looked at Goran or Pat Rafter at their ages you would see 0 titles.
3.You use playing style as an indication of anything. In earlier eras players played S&V. Currently conditions dont favor it. It isnt superior. You may like it better, but it is an insane strategy on a slow surface, versus the present crop of speedy athletes with spin generating strings.

You're being too logical. Clearly the classic greats from decades past were the best ever. Advances in rackets and strings, training regimens, and the way younger generations build on the previous one, all this means nothing. The former greats would have waved their magic wands and beaten federer all the time.

stormholloway
06-07-2009, 11:53 AM
Last time I checked the people on the ATP tour are the best players in the world. Is there some secret underground bunker where amazing tennis players are being held captive?

Is it really possible that people these days just aren't very good at tennis? Or is it more possible that top players get upset because of depth?

JeMar
06-07-2009, 12:01 PM
Last time I checked the people on the ATP tour are the best players in the world. Is there some secret underground bunker where amazing tennis players are being held captive?

Is it really possible that people these days just aren't very good at tennis? Or is it more possible that top players get upset because of depth?

Thoughts this complex are much too complex for the OP.

IvanAndreevich
06-07-2009, 12:06 PM
Thoughts are much too complex for the OP.

Fixed it for you :)

tudwell
06-07-2009, 12:12 PM
If by "before" you mean the 90s, then I'd agree. The competition is a little stronger than back then, but not much stronger.

TennisandMusic
06-07-2009, 12:14 PM
But there AREN'T more upsets these days. It's been the Federer and Nadal show for a few years now, and it seems their losses are either against each other, or when something is wrong with either one of them (Federer is sick, Nadal is hurt) so...how can that be more depth? Unless the top two guys are literally just freaks of nature not ever seen before in tennis, and the rest of the tour is just normal. But I don't really buy that either, because without Federer or Nadal you'd by far have the most boring era I've ever seen.

grizzly4life
06-07-2009, 12:17 PM
Murray is still adapting to the clay. Del potro put up a really good fight against Federer in the Semi's and Tsonga is still maturing.

but that's the point. there's been this thought that there's now such amazing competition. but is it even really much better than what federer and other recent guys built their record on?......... are these guys better than roddick, nalbandian, blake, agassi of a few years ago? to me, they're the same.

ispaht
06-07-2009, 12:22 PM
Seriously, give us names from the so-called stronger field of Pete's era who Federer can't beat.

TennisandMusic
06-07-2009, 12:37 PM
Seriously, give us names from the so-called stronger field of Pete's era who Federer can't beat.

Rafter, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, Krajicek, Agassi in his prime (of course Sampras practically ruined the guys career so he's always had a chip on his shoulder)...these guys would have given Federer better and tougher matches than 99% of today's current tour. There are more as well.

ispaht
06-07-2009, 12:41 PM
Rafter, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, Krajicek, Agassi in his prime (of course Sampras practically ruined the guys career so he's always had a chip on his shoulder)...these guys would have given Federer better and tougher matches than 99% of today's current tour. There are more as well.

When Pete was dominating Edberg and Becker was hardly at their best. Rafter would at his best would definitely trouble Federer, but Ivanisevic and Krajicek?

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Rafter, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, Krajicek, Agassi in his prime (of course Sampras practically ruined the guys career so he's always had a chip on his shoulder)...these guys would have given Federer better and tougher matches than 99% of today's current tour. There are more as well.

Yeah Krajicek the amazing champion who lost in the 3rd round or sooner of EIGHTEEN of the 25 slams he played during his prime from 1994-2000. A mediocre mover, poor returner of serve, with a suspect groundstroke and mental game, who is injury prone and erratic his whole career. Glorified because he is a 90s player and because he happens to play out of his mind a few times vs Sampras.

Rafter who didnt get past the 4th round stage of any slam until he was 24, and only got past the 4th round stage of a slam 7 times his whole career. A serve-volleyer without a ground game, with a weak return game, and not that imposing a serve.

Ivanisevic who outside of Wimbledon was a regular first week loser at all the other slams. A one dimensional serving game with a feeble mental game. Basically a more talented but far less hard working/mentally tougher version of Roddick.

Edberg whose last ever slam final was before Pete or Andre's 2nd slam titles, and who was retired altogether several years past his prime already when Pete and Andre had only won a combined half of their total slams. Becker who only once stayed healthy enough to play all 4 slams after 1991, and who went past the 3rd round at only 4 of his 12 non-Wimbledon slams after Wimbledon 1991 (only 2 of those French Opens and 2 of those 4 still lost in the 4th round).

Agassi in his prime? What on earth is an Agassi prime? That is virtually a foreign term. If you mean just by age, Agassi played worse tennis in many of his "prime years" than he did in many of his 30-something years. Agassi from summer 1994-summer 1995 and spring 1999-winter 2000 could be counted as his extremely limited absolute "prime" but that is a pretty limited time period of 20-something tennis he was that formidable or reliable. I doubt Federer or Nadal would be petrified of the Agassi in 93 who played only 2 slams and lost in the 1st round of the U.S Open to a young Tomas Enqvist in one, ending the year outside the top 20. Nor the Agassi of 1996 and 1997 who was losing regularly to Luke Jensen, Doug Flach, Chris Woodruff types (Flach and Woodruff in the early rounds of 2 of the only 5 slams he played those two years), and whose two slam semifinal appearances was destroyed by poor mans Lleyton Hewitt- Michael Chang in both. Nor the Agassi of 1998 who vaulted up the rankings by strong small tournaments and went 3rd round, 1st round, 2nd round, 4th round in his 4 slam appearances victimized by Alberto Berasetegui on hard courts, 18 year old Safin at the French, 20 year old Haas at Wimbledon, and Kucera at the U.S Open, and who started that year with a loss to 16 year old Hewitt. Nor the Agassi of 1990-1991 who went 0-3 in slam finals including not even able to beat 30 year old Andres Gomez- a marginal top 10 player who was owned by all the biggest guns in his prime, who skipped 3 out of 4 Wimbledon or Australian Opens (and lost to the great David Wheaton in the quarters of the only 1 of those 2 slams he did play in 90-91), and who in 1 of his 2 U.S Open appearances in 90-91 loses to Aaron Krickstein in straight sets in the 1st round.

scineram
06-07-2009, 01:00 PM
^Hilarious. Great post.

Lotto
06-07-2009, 01:06 PM
You cannot be serious!!! This era is one of the strongest in YEARS and YEARS......

If Sampras played in this era... he wouldnt be world no.1 and he wouldnt be winning wimbledon with ease....or the US Open...Roger is WAAY mroe dominant at the US then Sampras was.

Dimitrov_Fan
06-07-2009, 01:15 PM
This era is just fine, but will be overshadowed by the Dimitrov era that is to come, hehe!

Datacipher
06-07-2009, 01:25 PM
When Pete was dominating Edberg and Becker was hardly at their best. Rafter would at his best would definitely trouble Federer, but Ivanisevic and Krajicek?


Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, would all trouble Federer badly on occasion. They had the firepower and gamestyle to take either:

1.blow Fed off the court (without giving him time to get grooved)
2.take advantage of Fed on his off days without choking

While Fed would probably have a winning record against all of them, their styles are what differentiate them from the current mono-style field. Dangerous players. For the young kids, think of them as Tsonga's with better serves, more reach, and coming to the net more. Those guys aren't particularly "better" than the top 10 players today, but their style would be far more worrisome for a guy like Fed. He can't rally with them and wait for them to choke or for his groundstrokes to eventually come around.

ispaht
06-07-2009, 02:19 PM
Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, would all trouble Federer badly on occasion. They had the firepower and gamestyle to take either:

1.blow Fed off the court (without giving him time to get grooved)
2.take advantage of Fed on his off days without choking

While Fed would probably have a winning record against all of them, their styles are what differentiate them from the current mono-style field. Dangerous players. For the young kids, think of them as Tsonga's with better serves, more reach, and coming to the net more. Those guys aren't particularly "better" than the top 10 players today, but their style would be far more worrisome for a guy like Fed. He can't rally with them and wait for them to choke or for his groundstrokes to eventually come around.

Federer knows how to handle big servers, and I think his record against Karlovic is a pretty good gauge. Both Ivanisevic' and Krajicek' have big serves, but their ground games are almost non-existent so once they get into rallies, the advantage is definitely with Federer.

And let's not forget that Federer is no slouch of a server either. That and the fact that both Ivanisevic and Krajicek are poor returners.

I agree however that Ivanisevic and Krajicek could definitely trouble and beat Federer if they're both in the zone, and caught Federer in an off day. And it has to be on grass.

ispaht
06-07-2009, 02:21 PM
And sorry but Ivanisevic and without choking doesn't go together.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 02:27 PM
Murray and Djoker UNDERPERFORM when it matters most. Its not to say they are weak, just maybe not as strong as advertised. Sure they can pick up wins at the smaller tourneys but at the slams, they have proved jack diddly squat. Usually losing to the inferior players

Maybe many people just gave too much prep to Murray and Djoker. They are still head and shoulder below Federer and Nadal even though they are much better than two years ago. Djoker beat Federer once in slam when Federer had mono, Murray beat Nadal once in slam. That's all they did. Slams are the ones that count!

Steve132
06-07-2009, 03:32 PM
The competition always looks better if
1.you overlap eras. Take a player who wasnt in prime when he competed vs say, Pete Sampras, and discuss how tough the opposition was.
So Becker and Edberg who were retired for the bulk of Pete's Wimby winning years. Becker retired in 93 and Edberg in 96 (but Edberg's last runner up was A01993, last masters title 1992).
2.You look at a past era's players entire careers, but present players you say are deficient for lack of titles. Djokovic and Murray have a combined 1 title for example...but they are still young. If you looked at Goran or Pat Rafter at their ages you would see 0 titles.
3.You use playing style as an indication of anything. In earlier eras players played S&V. Currently conditions dont favor it. It isnt superior. You may like it better, but it is an insane strategy on a slow surface, versus the present crop of speedy athletes with spin generating strings.

Excellent post. You could also add:

4. You limit yourself to reciting a list of Great Names rather than looking at the players who actually beat your hero in the tournaments in which he played. Between 1994 and 1998 Sampras lost in Slams to Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado and Rafter. Between 2004 and 2008 Federer lost in Slams to Kuerten, Safin, Nadal (six times) and Djokovic.

Which player had more formidable competition?

TennisFan481
06-07-2009, 03:53 PM
Ivanisevic was not a one dimensional player. You don't make 3 French Open quarterfinals with a serve alone.

He had a very good forehand. His backhand was inconsistent, but when it was on, he could rally with most people. He was also an exceptional athlete for a guy his size--he was a top level soccer player and could really cover the court. His return of serve was better than Pete Sampras's--he always did a better job of reading and returning Sampras's serve than Sampras did with his. He just lost the big points.

His problem was all mental. He didn't have what it took to be a "tennis robot." He was a very emotional player and after 1994 or so, his sole focus was on winning Wimbledon. Once he lost at Wimbledon, he would usually check out at the US Open.

When you serve like he did and have the underrated all-around game, you can give anyone trouble when you're playing well...including Roger Federer.

Oh, and need I mention that he's a lefty?

AAAA
06-07-2009, 03:59 PM
....
When you serve like he did and have the underrated all-around game, you can give anyone trouble when you're playing well...including Roger Federer.

Oh, and need I mention that he's a lefty?

Goran's case would be strengthened if you listed the great players he beat in best of 5 slam events just so I and the rest of us know Goran can 'bring it' come slam time.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 04:04 PM
Goran's case would be strengthened if you listed the great players he beat in best of 5 slam events just so I and the rest of us know Goran can 'bring it' come slam time.

The same can be said for Fed regarding the French. What "greats" has Fed beat at the French?

JeMar
06-07-2009, 04:11 PM
The same can be said for Fed regarding the French. What "greats" has Fed beat at the French?

Moya, Gonzalez can be pretty tough, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Monfils, Haas...

Obviously, only one of these is a major champion, but that shouldn't matter because Federer and Nadal are so much better than the rest of the tour that they've been hogging all the major titles for the better part of four years.


Now you're going to discredit each of these by saying they're not big match players and haven't won anything big, ignoring what I just said

RoddickAce
06-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Ivanisevic was not a one dimensional player. You don't make 3 French Open quarterfinals with a serve alone.

He had a very good forehand. His backhand was inconsistent, but when it was on, he could rally with most people. He was also an exceptional athlete for a guy his size--he was a top level soccer player and could really cover the court. His return of serve was better than Pete Sampras's--he always did a better job of reading and returning Sampras's serve than Sampras did with his. He just lost the big points.

His problem was all mental. He didn't have what it took to be a "tennis robot." He was a very emotional player and after 1994 or so, his sole focus was on winning Wimbledon. Once he lost at Wimbledon, he would usually check out at the US Open.

When you serve like he did and have the underrated all-around game, you can give anyone trouble when you're playing well...including Roger Federer.

Oh, and need I mention that he's a lefty?

I think Lopez's game is the closest to Ivanisevic's in today's game, so yes when they're on fire they could beat anyone but maintaining that playing ability is also part of the game. In general Federer manages to diffuse big serves and had an ability to make incredible passing shots on the run in his prime. And that is what allowed him to consistently beat big serving players who approached the net a lot.

Btw for those who doubt Lopez's ability and think that he is nowhere as good as Ivanisevic watch this vid, certainly doesn't have as many aces but Lopez's serve "isn't too bad" lolz...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfWRmlarBks

TennisFan481
06-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Goran's case would be strengthened if you listed the great players he beat in best of 5 slam events just so I and the rest of us know Goran can 'bring it' come slam time.

Well, just off the top of my head:

He beat Pete Sampras in the Wimbledon SF in 1992.
Beat Stefan Edberg in the QFs.
Beat Ivan Lendl (albeit old, but still really dangerous and hungry for the one that eluded him) in the 4th round.
Beat Borris Becker in the SF in 94.
Beat Pat Rafter in the F in 01.
Beat Tim Henman in the SF in 01.

Basically, he had beaten all of the great grass court players of the 90's at some point or another.