PDA

View Full Version : Pat Cash told to us.. better 80´s tennis than today


pepe01
04-24-2011, 09:54 PM
Cash told to a Argentinian reporter that must of all us we are thinking, lack of variety style, predictible results and tennis based on force is less atractive to see than 80´s tennis....agree with you Pat....

Prodigy
04-24-2011, 09:58 PM
Didn't he play around that time? He's partial to his own "era".

dirtballer
04-25-2011, 03:38 AM
Poly strings and 2-handed backhands have changed the game forever. The game isn't as artistic anymore. There are no artists like John McEnroe or Ille Nastasi out there and there probably won't be again. However, two big servers playing on fast grass in the 80s or two moonballers playing on slow clay in the 80s wasn't real entertaining either.

Marius_Hancu
04-25-2011, 04:12 AM
He's right to a large extent:

you don't get the variety you had in a match between Cash and Lendl at W or the USO.

And Cash is in the right position to complain about it because he was very spectacular.

Today a lot of it is a war of attrition. The workmanlike tennis.

Bobby Jr
04-25-2011, 04:25 AM
He's right to a large extent:

you don't get the variety you had in a match between Cash and Lendl at W or the USO.

And Cash is in the right position to complain about it because he was very spectacular.

Today a lot of it is a war of attrition. The workmanlike tennis.
I agree. People will want to blame slow courts but I think, given the changing of some courts back to faster surfaces I don't think variety in tennis would get back to the 80s levels.

Also worth nothing that today's baseliners are much, much better volleyers than their equivalents in the 80s and today's serve-volley players are also much better on the baseline than their 80s equivalent. Basically, the overall level has risen somewhat in those who are competitive at the highest levels. It's just the variety has narrowed in many ways (as an average).

Devilito
04-25-2011, 08:46 AM
I agree. People will want to blame slow courts but I think, given the changing of some courts back to faster surfaces I don't think variety in tennis would get back to the 80s levels.

Also worth nothing that today's baseliners are much, much better volleyers than their equivalents in the 80s and today's serve-volley players are also much better on the baseline than their 80s equivalent. Basically, the overall level has risen somewhat in those who are competitive at the highest levels. It's just the variety has narrowed in many ways (as an average).

Going back to wood would change tennis for the better with only 1 rule change. It would bring back the variety regardless of the court surfaces. Baseball did it, why can't tennis

Mustard
04-25-2011, 10:02 AM
It's funny. I was watching the 1991 French Open final between Courier and Agassi the other day, and Bud Collins was talking about how he thought there was too much power in the game. I LOLed, because when compared to today's game, there's not much power. I see such complaints as the moans of people scared of the change and evolution in the game of tennis.

Lsmkenpo
04-25-2011, 10:18 AM
I agree. People will want to blame slow courts but I think, given the changing of some courts back to faster surfaces I don't think variety in tennis would get back to the 80s levels.

Also worth nothing that today's baseliners are much, much better volleyers than their equivalents in the 80s and today's serve-volley players are also much better on the baseline than their 80s equivalent. Basically, the overall level has risen somewhat in those who are competitive at the highest levels. It's just the variety has narrowed in many ways (as an average).

The play at Bercy last year suggests you may be wrong.

Ludwig von Mises
04-25-2011, 01:03 PM
I don't think today's players are better volleyers than the 80's guy- I think they are quite deficient in volleying skill these days. I also dont agree that the baseline strokes are superior now to the 80's- in terms of actual strokes. The strings and racquets are more advanced so there is more velocity and spin on the ball- yes.
But the actual stroke mechanics are not "better". At least if you compare to the late 80's (there was a time when there was not much heavy-ness coming off of the BH wing but the advent of power tennis c. 1985 and the 2h BH seems to have changed that).

As to wood racquets- I used to be 100% against going back to wood for the ATP tour (the WTA is totally irrelevant, except for Julia Goerges, so I dont care what they do) but now I think it might be really cool for tennis.
I am close to a 5.0 player and recently whenever I go out to play- i warm up with a Jack Kramer woodie with a 68" head but with poly strings. I did it just to fool around one day- but I liked it so much I now always warm up with a wood racquet; I carry two around in my bag at all times, the Jack Kramer and a Donnay Borg Pro- in case my opponent also wants to hit with one. Some of my friends saw me do this and asked me for my wood racquets so they could also hit with them.
One of my friends who is a solid 5.5 was ripping big winners with big top spin when hitting with the Kramer. After he finished hitting with it he said that it was great (brought back old, fond memories)- and that it hit very similar to his Wilson 6.1 tour 90.
I think the small wood heads force you to be very precise but if you move your feet and get the racquet head in the right position you can certainty hit big, deep, top spin shots. And you cant just bludgeon the ball and get all of those mishits to stay in; so you must be a much more skilled player. It would be fun to watch Fed playing Djoker each with wood racquets.

Marius_Hancu
04-25-2011, 03:46 PM
But the actual stroke mechanics are not "better".

I think that on the FH side the mechanics is better today, in that it allows a greater ball acceleration, as a result of several factors:

- the takeback loop is larger than in the 80s

- the whole kinetic chain (leg, hip, torso, upper arm, forearm, wrist) is better engaged today, in that "lashing" mechanism, esp in the last segment (wrist)

- the contribution of the wrist is much more significant today and the wrist is more flexible (the "educated wrist release")

See:
Federer: a wristy forehand?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=15518

However, one pays for it in more injuries in the wrist (the ulnar area) and forearm.

One area which is less productive today is the translational component of the FH, the stepping into the ball.

This is caused by the preponderence of the open-stance FH, in which the rotational component is more significant. One pays for it in hip injuries and surgeries (Guga, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian).

The players simply camp at the baseline, many of them forgetting about advancing into the ball, taking it on the rise, etc.

marosmith
04-25-2011, 04:08 PM
I think the late 90's were great because you had a mix of modern tennis and some classic elements with some of the young guys being all-courters I hope this happens again.

Manus Domini
04-25-2011, 05:19 PM
Going back to wood would change tennis for the better with only 1 rule change. It would bring back the variety regardless of the court surfaces. Baseball did it, why can't tennis

Agreed. I say we all sign a petition and send it to the ATP :)

35ft6
04-25-2011, 08:05 PM
I wish there were some bona fide rivalries in the game. Like hostility and a little bit of trash talk. I'm sure somebody will criticize me for wishing ill upon the game, but they're just so friendly and nice. All of them. I barely ever truly care about who wins or not and that even goes for Davis Cup.

Nadal = Borg
04-25-2011, 08:11 PM
Was rafter 3-0 or 4-0 against Fed?

SystemicAnomaly
04-25-2011, 09:09 PM
Didn't he play around that time? He's partial to his own "era".

Cash actually played half of his 17-18 yrs of pro tennis in the 80s and the other half in the 90s. His (singles) peak came in the late 80s (1988 ). Men's tennis in the 90s became somewhat boring as power (on fast courts) started to dominate the game.

The larger diameter, type 3 ball was developed as an effort to rectify the problem of very short points in the men's games (on fast surfaces). This was not well received. Pro-grade balls were made brighter and court surfaces were slowed down. This helped to offset the overwhelming power in the men's game.

It's funny. I was watching the 1991 French Open final between Courier and Agassi the other day, and Bud Collins was talking about how he thought there was too much power in the game. I LOLed, because when compared to today's game, there's not much power. I see such complaints as the moans of people scared of the change and evolution in the game of tennis.

No, tennis of the 90s was starting to become boring -- too much power (very short ralies) on the fast surfaces of the day.
.

SystemicAnomaly
04-25-2011, 09:51 PM
I wish there were some bona fide rivalries in the game. Like hostility and a little bit of trash talk. I'm sure somebody will criticize me for wishing ill upon the game, but they're just so friendly and nice. All of them. I barely ever truly care about who wins or not and that even goes for Davis Cup.

You're in the wrong sport. Ice hockey or baseball (can you spell COMA?) may be more to your liking. Tennis has a long tradition as a gentleman's game.

Murrayfan31
04-25-2011, 09:52 PM
Well he's right. If Nadal is winning, you know the era is weak.

1970CRBase
04-25-2011, 09:55 PM
I wish there were some bona fide rivalries in the game. Like hostility and a little bit of trash talk. I'm sure somebody will criticize me for wishing ill upon the game, but they're just so friendly and nice. All of them. I barely ever truly care about who wins or not and that even goes for Davis Cup.

They're basically corporate spokespeople for their brand. Nice, sugary, wholesome image and 100% PC.

Devilito
04-25-2011, 09:58 PM
They're basically corporate spokespeople for their brand. Nice, sugary, wholesome image and 100% PC.

boring robotic drones is how i liked to call them

Ludwig von Mises
04-25-2011, 10:05 PM
You're in the wrong sport. Ice hockey or baseball (can you spell COMA?) may be more to your liking. Tennis has a long tradition as a gentleman's game.

Do you remember the Mcenroe-Connors rivalry? What about Mcenroe-Lendl? Lendl-Connors? What about when Mcenroe played Gilbert (i know not a rivalry, but still there was tension)? How about Agassi-Becker? What about Nastase vs. anyone, Tiriac v. anyone? The 1969 davis cup? There was bad blood, tension, yelling, stare downs, players headhunting the volleyer when at net. And it was a glorious time for tennis. Now every one is a total p*ssy and you like that? Come on. Nastase and Mac are the greatest characters the game has ever known; and before them there was Pancho- and he was surly. And we loved them for it.

okdude1992
04-25-2011, 10:08 PM
The overall level of tennis being played today is better than in the 80s. Tennis is continuously evolving. Players are more athletic, and workmanlike than before, and you can bet that in 5, 10, 20 years it will reach even higher heights.

Now, it is true that the variety and contrast in styles has diminished. One could make the pint that tennis was more exciting back then.

Devilito
04-25-2011, 10:24 PM
Tennis is continuously evolving

i love that statement. Until when is it going to evolve? Until infinity?

Ludwig von Mises
04-25-2011, 10:32 PM
The overall level of tennis being played today is better than in the 80s. Tennis is continuously evolving. Players are more athletic, and workmanlike than before, and you can bet that in 5, 10, 20 years it will reach even higher heights.

Now, it is true that the variety and contrast in styles has diminished. One could make the pint that tennis was more exciting back then.

how do you know they are more athletic? this is always stated like its some sort undisputed rule that every one must except. Do you think anyone is more athletic than Borg and Nastase? I dont know if anyone is at the peak of fitness like Lendl and Muster were. Do you know that it takes maybe more athleticism to play that up and down, attack the net style that they played with old technology? Not just side to side ping pong style tennis.

big ted
04-25-2011, 11:06 PM
to say theres no more artistry in the game is confusing to me considering roger federer has been around for the last 10 years, and his shotmaking rivals or betters mac and nastase.. and the federer-nadal rivalry is one of the best of all time, in my and many others opinions. incredible wimbledon finals, and some of the tour events. granted federer seem to be slipping and a bit changing of the guards, but there is still an excellent federer-nadal-joker rivalry happening. and the last few years has produced many great matches-fed vs agassi at the us open, fed vs nadal at wimbledon, fed vs. roddick.. i think pat cash is just old-school in his thinking, because hes a serve and volleyer, he thinks its more exciting... if you asked a baseliner from the 80s they might give a different opinion..

35ft6
04-26-2011, 07:31 PM
You're in the wrong sport. Ice hockey or baseball (can you spell COMA?) may be more to your liking. Tennis has a long tradition as a gentleman's game.In the 70's with Tiriac, Nastase, Connors, and Mac, seems like there were a lot more personalities. Lendl hitting it right at Mac? Interesting. Right now I have to settle for Fed being annoyed by Nole's entourage.

Xemi666
04-27-2011, 01:15 AM
Yeah, right. Pat Cash is a nostalgiatard who lives in the past, like many of the posters in this forum. ATG's like Lendl and Agassi have admitted that tennis has evolved and they would struggle nowadays.

gpt
04-27-2011, 01:33 AM
Yeah, right. Pat Cash is a nostalgiatard who lives in the past, like many of the posters in this forum. ATG's like Lendl and Agassi have admitted that tennis has evolved and they would struggle nowadays.

Its no big admission that tennis has evolved. And just because Lendl, Agassi etc say they would struggle nowadays does not mean nowadays is any more interesting.

Xemi666
04-27-2011, 02:06 AM
Its no big admission that tennis has evolved. And just because Lendl, Agassi etc say they would struggle nowadays does not mean nowadays is any more interesting.

Being interesting or not, is subjective. You may not find it more interesting, while others may. What cannot be discussed is that the effectiveness of the current players is higher than ever.

gpt
04-27-2011, 02:08 AM
Being interesting or not, is subjective. You may not find it more interesting, while others may. What's cannot be discussed is that the effectiveness of the current players is higher than ever.

agreed.....

but i also find it less interesting

tennis_pro
04-27-2011, 09:13 AM
I wouldn't rely on the opinion of someone who once predicted Federer was never going to win Wimbledon.

Devilito
04-27-2011, 09:37 AM
Yeah, right. Pat Cash is a nostalgiatard who lives in the past, like many of the posters in this forum. ATG's like Lendl and Agassi have admitted that tennis has evolved and they would struggle nowadays.

Prime Agassi would rickroll any player on tour right now not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. He would be not only one of the hardest hitters but with added consistency. Agassi and Lendl are well into retirement and have nothing to gain by playing the tough guy and talking big. It’s in their interest to remain humble. Retired players are probably the worst source for unbiased and honest opinions.

okdude1992
04-27-2011, 10:08 AM
how do you know they are more athletic? this is always stated like its some sort undisputed rule that every one must except. Do you think anyone is more athletic than Borg and Nastase? I dont know if anyone is at the peak of fitness like Lendl and Muster were. Do you know that it takes maybe more athleticism to play that up and down, attack the net style that they played with old technology? Not just side to side ping pong style tennis.

I'm not saying there weren't players of the past who were in great shape. You listed many right there. But overall the quality of athleticism on the tour has improved greatly. In this day, you have to put in a lot of off court work to be competetive. You don't see players who get by on sheer talent alone anymore.

My tennis coach played on the tour during the 80's and 90's and collected atp points. He was a baseline grinder and took pride in his fitness. Now he is playing men's opens and not doing so great. He constantly talks about how the opponents he faces are all incredibly physical, and how the game is different than when he played. I trust his word for it.

tenis1
04-27-2011, 10:11 AM
Prime Agassi would rickroll any player on tour right now not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. He would be not only one of the hardest hitters but with added consistency. Agassi and Lendl are well into retirement and have nothing to gain by playing the tough guy and talking big. It’s in their interest to remain humble. Retired players are probably the worst source for unbiased and honest opinions.

So are you saying Aggasi's and Lendl's opinion is worthless and biased, but Pat Cash's is right on the money?

okdude1992
04-27-2011, 10:15 AM
Prime Agassi would rickroll any player on tour right now not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. He would be not only one of the hardest hitters but with added consistency. Agassi and Lendl are well into retirement and have nothing to gain by playing the tough guy and talking big. It’s in their interest to remain humble. Retired players are probably the worst source for unbiased and honest opinions.

I actually agree that the best players of the past would probably still be at the top today, but are you really going to argue that the overall level and professionalism across the board has not improved?

Devilito
04-27-2011, 10:21 AM
So are you saying Aggasi's and Lendl's opinion is worthless and biased, but Pat Cash's is right on the money?

First off, their statements are not even on the same topic. One is the level of tennis and the other topic is the entertainment value. Secondly, they're all biased, I just happen to share the same opinion as Cash. On another note, I find the more public and popular a person is the more they act like politicians and say things they think the public want to hear. If Agassi rocked the boat it would make the news. Nobody really cares about what Cash says so I’d be more inclined to think he brings a bit more touch of honesty to what he says.

Devilito
04-27-2011, 10:25 AM
I actually agree that the best players of the past would probably still be at the top today, but are you really going to argue that the overall level and professionalism across the board has not improved?

I’d argue that outside of the top 3-4 players in the world this is the sorriest bunch of tennis players we have ever seen given the advances in technology, training, nutrition, psychology, etc.

BrooklynNY
04-27-2011, 10:47 AM
I’d argue that outside of the top 3-4 players in the world this is the sorriest bunch of tennis players we have ever seen given the advances in technology, training, nutrition, psychology, etc.

Unfortunately, I'd be inclined to agree with you. There are no such thing as style matchups anymore. There is just an favorite and an underdog. It's just a war of attrition out there for the most part, there are always exceptions, but few an far between.

Backhanded Compliment
04-27-2011, 11:06 AM
I agree and yes I grew up playing 5 times a week in the 80's. I think the biggest problem is a lack of idiomatic playing styles. Perhaps they have gone a little too far in slowing all of the faster surfaces down but the real problem is the way the mechanics are developed today at the junior level. It's mostly 2 handed backhands and not a lot of net movement. The strings have made that a reality but I dont blame Nadal and Federer at all. Fed has ridiculously classic strokes... he's like a textbook but there arent a lot of players like him out there with 1HBH. Nadal is an extremely idiomatic player by comparison and despite there being many clones... none have the radicality of his game. I like his extreme style of play and stroke production.

What bugs me are players like Murray, Djoker etc. who are simply duller players than Nadal and Fed... I do root for Murray and Djoker these days but I want to see more idiomatic shotmaking from them. Murray is capable of it but he needs an extended period of inspired tennis.. not simply very good tennis. That's his crux, we will see if he can cross that threshold.

Also, I've noticed that the return of serve has become less inspired lately too... Djoker and Murray return well (for today) but they are nothing in comparison to Connors or Agassi. The pro's just dont attack the returns the way they did back in the old days so there is less tension... it's all about setting up long baseline rallies. It somewhat neutralizes the variety of the game.

Devilito
04-27-2011, 11:21 AM
Also, I've noticed that the return of serve has become less inspired lately too... Djoker and Murray return well (for today) but they are nothing in comparison to Connors or Agassi. The pro's just dont attack the returns the way they did back in the old days so there is less tension... it's all about setting up long baseline rallies. It somewhat neutralizes the variety of the game.

Returning serve is a lot easier and straight forward today. You can float a return deep and reset the point at zero basically nullifying the serve. If you stayed back 20’ from the baseline and floated returns like Nadal does now against Sampras you wouldn’t win 1 point on his serve. Someone like Agassi had to be a lot more creative and aggressive with his return. He had to take chances by staying close to the baseline and take the return early. This opened him up to being aced more often as well. There is no longer any reason to try and force such an aggressive return anymore with everyone being such baseline huggers.

fed_rulz
04-27-2011, 12:27 PM
the predictable pete-***** are at it again...

fed_rulz
04-27-2011, 12:34 PM
Returning serve is a lot easier and straight forward today. You can float a return deep and reset the point at zero basically nullifying the serve. If you stayed back 20’ from the baseline and floated returns like Nadal does now against Sampras you wouldn’t win 1 point on his serve. Someone like Agassi had to be a lot more creative and aggressive with his return. He had to take chances by staying close to the baseline and take the return early. This opened him up to being aced more often as well. There is no longer any reason to try and force such an aggressive return anymore with everyone being such baseline huggers.

I like how you state your opinion as a fact....

Xemi666
04-27-2011, 02:02 PM
First off, their statements are not even on the same topic. One is the level of tennis and the other topic is the entertainment value. Secondly, they're all biased, I just happen to share the same opinion as Cash. On another note, I find the more public and popular a person is the more they act like politicians and say things they think the public want to hear. If Agassi rocked the boat it would make the news. Nobody really cares about what Cash says so I’d be more inclined to think he brings a bit more touch of honesty to what he says.

In other words "Cash opinion is valid because I like it", what are you 10?

NamRanger
04-27-2011, 03:19 PM
In other words "Cash opinion is valid because I like it", what are you 10?



The point is that on a fast surface Nadal's method of returning would put him in a very bad situation against someone like Sampras who had disguise, placement, speed, spin, and clutchness. Not to mention Sampras, unlike Federer, Roddick, etc. would be able to back up his serve with not just his great netgame, but also a powerful ground game.


Nadal already struggles to return the likes of Roddick and Karlovic (he rarely breaks them, and when he does it's not like he hit amazing returns). Think of someone like Sampras who has just as good of a serve (if not better), along with a much better ability to back it up also.

Devilito
04-27-2011, 03:32 PM
I like how you state your opinion as a fact....
and what facts do you have? none. It's an internet forum. %99.99 of the things posted here are mere opinion. Or are you going to write me up a mathematical equation for every post you make to prove your point of view?


In other words "Cash opinion is valid because I like it", what are you 10?

What are you? 5? There is no, “in other words”. I agree with his opinion because it’s my opinion. Do I need to draw you a diagram? It has nothing to do with validity.

fed_rulz
04-27-2011, 03:59 PM
and what facts do you have? none. It's an internet forum. %99.99 of the things posted here are mere opinion. Or are you going to write me up a mathematical equation for every post you make to prove your point of view?




What are you? 5? There is no, “in other words”. I agree with his opinion because it’s my opinion. Do I need to draw you a diagram? It has nothing to do with validity.

Then I guess when you liberally labeled some posters who disagreed with your views of how great sampras was as "12 yr old punks", you forgot that this is an internet forum and all people have are merely opinions??

If the the only way to handle the Sampras serve is to do it the agassi way, explain why his serve was seldom effective on clay, against top clay-courters who stood 20 ft behind? or did everyone that beat Pete on fast surfaces had great returns like Agassi?

fed_rulz
04-27-2011, 04:24 PM
The point is that on a fast surface Nadal's method of returning would put him in a very bad situation against someone like Sampras who had disguise, placement, speed, spin, and clutchness. Not to mention Sampras, unlike Federer, Roddick, etc. would be able to back up his serve with not just his great netgame, but also a powerful ground game.


Nadal already struggles to return the likes of Roddick and Karlovic (he rarely breaks them, and when he does it's not like he hit amazing returns). Think of someone like Sampras who has just as good of a serve (if not better), along with a much better ability to back it up also.

In case you haven't noticed, Nadal does make changes to his service return stance based on what works, as the match goes along. Also, the Sampras ground game is not nearly as good as Federer's, so not sure how that is supposed to help Sampras vs. Nadal.

ttbrowne
04-27-2011, 04:28 PM
Poly strings and 2-handed backhands have changed the game forever. The game isn't as artistic anymore. There are no artists like John McEnroe or Ille Nastasi out there and there probably won't be again.

"Artists"???? Isn't tennis a physical sport?? As much as some would like to think of tennis as Art...it is not. It's a tough sport. To hell with the 80's and all that crap. The tennis now is better.

Devilito
04-27-2011, 04:46 PM
"Artists"???? Isn't tennis a physical sport?? As much as some would like to think of tennis as Art...it is not. It's a tough sport. To hell with the 80's and all that crap. The tennis now is better.

in what way is it better? Because Nadal can bench press more than Connors? Because Djokovic can run twice as long as McEnroe?

Devilito
04-27-2011, 04:48 PM
If the the only way to handle the Sampras serve is to do it the agassi way, explain why his serve was seldom effective on clay, against top clay-courters who stood 20 ft behind? or did everyone that beat Pete on fast surfaces had great returns like Agassi?

You want to have a serious tennis discussion and you just asked me why Sampras’ serve wasn’t as effective on clay. Uh huh….

tlm
04-27-2011, 06:51 PM
"Artists"???? Isn't tennis a physical sport?? As much as some would like to think of tennis as Art...it is not. It's a tough sport. To hell with the 80's and all that crap. The tennis now is better.

Very good post, the truth is spoken here.

BrooklynNY
04-27-2011, 07:23 PM
Pete Sampras just beat Mardy Fish tonight 4-6 7-5 10-8 in Buenos Aires.

NamRanger
04-27-2011, 07:37 PM
In case you haven't noticed, Nadal does make changes to his service return stance based on what works, as the match goes along. Also, the Sampras ground game is not nearly as good as Federer's, so not sure how that is supposed to help Sampras vs. Nadal.



Neither are the likes of Blake, Gonzalez, Berdych, Soderling, Davydenko etc. and yet they were able to beat Nadal when Federer couldn't.


Tennis is a game of match-ups, something most general players don't understand.

GuyClinch
04-27-2011, 09:57 PM
It's better now - the style of play might not be better - but the players are better.

Three very basic reasons why:

1) The world population has risen - especially in terms of people who could potentially play tennis. Tennis as a lucrative sport attracts many of these individuals and thus with a bigger market there is more competition and thus from top to bottom on the men's side the tour is loaded with very good players. This is why some people are in fact worried that the chinese could end up dominating tennis. IF you get 1 billion+ players interested that's alot of potential players out there.

2)The players are more athletic. Yeah I am saying it. Let's be clear its not that genetically men have somehow improved - and yes we had great athletes in the past. It's that the training and sports medicine has improved. These guys now have really pooled their knowledge and a good trainer today is light years ahead in terms of knowing how to achieve sports specific improvement. Closely related to this is that sports medicine has improved. If you have money then you can get much better care with regards to injuries that in the past would have ruined a career.

3) The coaches are better. In the era of computers and instant on demand video these guys really know what a good player does when he is doing things right - and what is causing guys to screw up. This increased knowledge allows more players to get better training. In the past some guys would have to 'break away' from broken outdated styles and just do their own thing. Now because of the money alot of coaches know better and kids are getting better training..

Agassi for example was something of a 'rebel' with his power baselining. Nowadays that style has been analyzed and is well understood..

And guys like Pete and Andre near the end of the line benefitted from this stuff too - that's why 'old' Agassi was able to do so well. He finally got serious and got good training.

borg number one
04-27-2011, 10:16 PM
Tennis is better today - but for different reasons then you might think..

1) Worldwide more players are trying to make it in tennis. This is why US tennis has declined - we only have a limited number of players interested in tennis and its too small an amount compared to the number of guys trying at it worldwide. It's a world wide sport and our population is growing exponentially and yet only the top players matter.

2) Nutrition and physical training - both of these fields have improved since the 80s. This is why the average player is in fact quicker and stronger. I think its leveling off (and will likely drop if the Tennis world ever gets serious about going after PEDs) but for now these guys are getting faster and stronger while still keeping the incredible stamina levels needed for tennis. Despite what some people think there is just a TON out there you can do to maximize your athleticism on the tennis court.

3) Sports 'science' - coaches now know how to hit the shots - and can readily teach it to younger players in the past players kind of picked up the game on their own and created their own styles..

1) There were more "total players" in the US back in say 1980 versus today (even in absolute terms). Tennis' popularity has declined in the traditional tennis powerhouses such as the U.S., Australia, and G.B., but in the U.S. it has made a bit of a comeback in the last five years or so. Meanwhile, tennis has become more international, that is true. The traditional powers used to churn out great players often though, so it is a bit of a mixed bag.

2) The predominant playing style of today and the abundance of hard court tourneys could mean that players will no longer be able to play well into their late 20's-early 30's without significant injury very often on the Tour. I think today's game is more about defense than before (and running), so mobility and stamina are at a premium. Yet, many great players of the past trained as hard or harder than many of the pros of today (sheer hours on the court, tough practices, etc.) Guys like Laver, Borg, and Lendl worked extremely hard (on average though I agree that the Game has become more physical).

3. Coaches have long known "how to hit the shots" and have taught strokes to younger players. Almost any pro in the 80's surely had an excellent coach at a fairly young age, in much the same way as today. Laver did. Borg did and so on.

Xemi666
04-28-2011, 12:19 AM
The point is that on a fast surface Nadal's method of returning would put him in a very bad situation against someone like Sampras who had disguise, placement, speed, spin, and clutchness. Not to mention Sampras, unlike Federer, Roddick, etc. would be able to back up his serve with not just his great netgame, but also a powerful ground game.


Nadal already struggles to return the likes of Roddick and Karlovic (he rarely breaks them, and when he does it's not like he hit amazing returns). Think of someone like Sampras who has just as good of a serve (if not better), along with a much better ability to back it up also.

Yes, Federer doesn't have a good netgame or a poweful ground game, he just won 16 slams by luck, obviously he has no weapons. You're a known Nadal hater, do you think I'm going to take you biased opinions seriously? :lol:

You're going to tell me next that Sampras could beat Nadal on clay lol :oops:

Xemi666
04-28-2011, 12:23 AM
1) There were more "total players" in the US back in say 1980 versus today (even in absolute terms). Tennis' popularity has declined in the traditional tennis powerhouses such as the U.S., Australia, and G.B., but in the U.S. it has made a bit of a comeback in the last five years or so. Meanwhile, tennis has become more international, that is true. The traditional powers used to churn out great players often though, so it is a bit of a mixed bag.

2) The predominant playing style of today and the abundance of hard court tourneys could mean that players will no longer be able to play well into their late 20's-early 30's without significant injury very often on the Tour. I think today's game is more about defense than before (and running), so mobility and stamina are at a premium. Yet, many great players of the past trained as hard or harder than many of the pros of today (sheer hours on the court, tough practices, etc.) Guys like Laver, Borg, and Lendl worked extremely hard (on average though I agree that the Game has become more physical).

3. Coaches have long known "how to hit the shots" and have taught strokes to younger players. Almost any pro in the 80's surely had an excellent coach at a fairly young age, in much the same way as today. Laver did. Borg did and so on.

1.Make a wild guess as to why tennis popularity has declined in those countries.
2.You're basing this on what? Wasn't Lendl the first guy who started training seriously?
3.Agree.

Wombat_Joe
04-28-2011, 12:27 AM
I'm coaching my daughter and later on my son.. And I am coaching them old school attacking tennis, but still make sure they know how to play the whole court.. Kids today just bash and grind and have no thought process.. I do believe that it can only come to an end at some stage. And attacking tennis will return in a big way in the next 5-10 years.. Technology can only do so much..

GuyClinch
04-28-2011, 04:32 AM
Coaches have long known "how to hit the shots" and have taught strokes to younger players. Almost any pro in the 80's surely had an excellent coach at a fairly young age, in much the same way as today. Laver did. Borg did and so on.

No - really they did not. Much like you they just thought they knew. High speed video and computer analysis are game changers in all sports - tennis is no exception.

Nowadays they can film Nadal's stroke at 1000's of frames a second use a computer program like dartfish to map out exactly what his skeleton is doing - and then compare that to another pro. This makes it much easier and faster to replicate the abilities of top pros.

Thus all the touring pros nowadays can hit big kickers - massive topspin "WW" forehands that kick up etc etc. They all have the shots. Back in the Agassi era this just wasn't true. No one hit like Agassi when he first arrived on the scene - no one quite knew HOW to hit like him till a bit later on.

It's the same with basketball - you know what moves a guy has - where and when he is likely to use them and you can see them all in a matter of seconds. It's a big change and its a big help.

GuyClinch
04-28-2011, 04:41 AM
There were more "total players" in the US back in say 1980 versus today (even in absolute terms). Tennis' popularity has declined in the traditional tennis powerhouses such as the U.S., Australia, and G.B., but in the U.S. it has made a bit of a comeback in the last five years or so. Meanwhile, tennis has become more international, that is true. The traditional powers used to churn out great players often though, so it is a bit of a mixed bag.

Maybe - but the world has changed alot since the 80's what we have lost here is MORE then made up for worldwide. And the losses here are greatly exaggerated.

I don't know the exact 1980 number but we have more players today then 87. Tennis popularity might be shrinking but its from a larger pool.

Basically in a nutshell every tennis player today has more competition then he did back in the 1980. Our population has risen from 4 Billion to nearly 7 Billion.. But that's not all the 'middle class" and better population has increased alot more.

I wouldn't be surprised if a top pro today has to beat out twice as many players. So the guys today are the best of the best. That's why things like fitness are something all the top pros have going for them.

Even a guy like Nalbandian who gets lambasted for being out of shape would have been plenty fit in the 80s. It's just the average guy now is ripped like Monfils.

SystemicAnomaly
04-28-2011, 05:03 AM
Do you remember the Mcenroe-Connors rivalry? What about Mcenroe-Lendl? Lendl-Connors? What about when Mcenroe played Gilbert (i know not a rivalry, but still there was tension)? How about Agassi-Becker? What about Nastase vs. anyone, Tiriac v. anyone? The 1969 davis cup? There was bad blood, tension, yelling, stare downs, players headhunting the volleyer when at net. And it was a glorious time for tennis. Now every one is a total p*ssy and you like that? Come on. Nastase and Mac are the greatest characters the game has ever known; and before them there was Pancho- and he was surly. And we loved them for it.

In the 70's with Tiriac, Nastase, Connors, and Mac, seems like there were a lot more personalities. Lendl hitting it right at Mac? Interesting. Right now I have to settle for Fed being annoyed by Nole's entourage.

Yes, I remember all those rivalries. When 35ft6 suggested that hostility was needed in the modern game, it sounded as if he was looking for brawling on the courts -- the pushing/shoving and fisticuffs evident in other sports. There has been very little of this in the rivalries mentioned above.

borg number one
04-28-2011, 05:06 AM
Maybe - but the world has changed alot since the 80's what we have lost here is MORE then made up for worldwide. And the losses here are greatly exaggerated.

I don't know the exact 1980 number but we have more players today then 87. Tennis popularity might be shrinking but its from a larger pool.

Basically in a nutshell every tennis player today has more competition then he did back in the 1980. Our population has risen from 4 Billion to nearly 7 Billion.. But that's not all the 'middle class" and better population has increased alot more.

I wouldn't be surprised if a top pro today has to beat out twice as many players. So the guys today are the best of the best. That's why things like fitness are something all the top pros have going for them.

Even a guy like Nalbandian who gets lambasted for being out of shape would have been plenty fit in the 80s. It's just the average guy now is ripped like Monfils.

Numbers don't automatically translate to better results (better players). This is a very involved topic. As an example, look at Spain, you have more academies, "better" training, and more players trying to become pros now right versus say 2004 or so. Yet, there aren't many if any players from Spain in the top 100 that is below about 24 now. Why is that? More players do not automatically translate into more great players especially. There is also the phenomenon of really top players making each other better (a small group of talented players facing off against each other consistently can produce wonders). Even back in the 1950's, for the top players, the competition was extremely tough. Why? Just look at what those guys did on the tours they played, playing top flight competition night in and night out, Hoad vs. Gonzalez, etc. So, you have "steel sharpening steel". I agree that fitness training has evolved that is true, but many things about fitness are accomplished the old fashioned way. Lendl did take fitness training to new levels (much like Navratilova), but even so, there were many top players especially whose workouts were through the roof, especially o the court itself. Nalbandian would have been considered "out of shape" but extremely talented in most any decade. The fact that Monfils is "ripped" doesn't tell us the whole story. He also falls a lot and hurts himself a lot in the process it seems, so I don't view him as a prime example of fitness. He is lean and very muscular, but there's a lot more to overall athleticism and tennis fitness than that.

fed_rulz
04-28-2011, 09:33 AM
Neither are the likes of Blake, Gonzalez, Berdych, Soderling, Davydenko etc. and yet they were able to beat Nadal when Federer couldn't.


Tennis is a game of match-ups, something most general players don't understand.

really? their h2h stands at 15-8; i'm wondering what the "8" stands for?

LuckyR
04-28-2011, 10:01 AM
Cash told to a Argentinian reporter that must of all us we are thinking, lack of variety style, predictible results and tennis based on force is less atractive to see than 80´s tennis....agree with you Pat....

I completely agree with this statement but this is not reflected very accurately in the title of this thread. More variety does not equal "better".

One of the reasons for a lack of variety currently is that the Modern game is superior to the Classic game so naturally everyone has the Modern strokes, using the modern strings, because to use another type stroke would lead to more losses, a lower rank and no career.

Mick
04-28-2011, 10:14 AM
i believe cash meant 'better' in the sense that the tennis was more enjoyable to watch. he didn't say that 80's players could beat today's players.

mtommer
04-28-2011, 10:36 AM
...a gentleman's game.

Pssstttt....the Victorian era and "gentlemen" are gone.

tlm
04-28-2011, 11:52 AM
I completely agree with this statement but this is not reflected very accurately in the title of this thread. More variety does not equal "better".

One of the reasons for a lack of variety currently is that the Modern game is superior to the Classic game so naturally everyone has the Modern strokes, using the modern strings, because to use another type stroke would lead to more losses, a lower rank and no career.

How about that there are some people that get it, very good post here. These guys are playing for big money, so guess what they use the most effective style of tennis to win. I don't think they really care about playing different styles so the old school fans will be happy.

Xemi666
04-28-2011, 12:07 PM
How about that there are some people that get it, very good post here. These guys are playing for big money, so guess what they use the most effective style of tennis to win. I don't think they really care about playing different styles so the old school fans will be happy.

Which is exactly what they should do.

Terre Battu
04-28-2011, 12:24 PM
I don't think going back to wood rackets is the answer. Tennis was most exciting with the early, basic graphite rackets (80s & 90s none of the wide body crap).

Don't compare tennis to baseball because they are not even close...LOL

Tennis is a fast changing sport and you certainly can not control the technology behind the rackets or the strength of the players.
What can be done is to change the rules, surfaces and ball speed. I think cutting down on the hard court tournaments and adding other alternative surfaces would be good for the sport and the athletes' bodies.

mtommer
04-28-2011, 01:06 PM
Tennis is a fast changing sport and you certainly can not control the technology behind the rackets.

Yes you can just like in any other sport that regulates equipment. You do so via the ruling body and anybody that doesn't conform is defaulted from playing. Now, I don't think they will do that but there's a difference can't and won't.

markwillplay
04-28-2011, 01:27 PM
well this would be interesting...never happen but wouldn't it be cool if some way rich person decided to sponsor a tournament where you could only use wooden sticks...now of course, they hve tournaments like that now in certain places but I mean have one where the prize moneywas HUGE...say a million bucks to the winner.....let it be worh some points on ATP. What is the harm in that??? They change surfaces and the pros just have to deal with it...right?

I know it will never happen but I think it would be really interesting to watch the players compete like that. Wear your clothes, sport your wristbands, bring your skills.

I think theone thing that we are not saying here is that when everyone had to use the wooden sticks, it took a lot of the equipment out of the equation. Once people started going from wood to metel, graphite etc....equipment became more important and influenced the way poeple learned and played. I have no problem with that, I think it was cool up to a certain point....but how far will that go. I see a great opportunity to have a few tournaments that are "different" but worth a bunch of money for the pros. As far as strings, let them choose any string they want, polym, gut, whatever.....but the stick must be wooden and a certain size. Would be fun to watch if there was real money involved...pros play for money folks.

TennezSport
04-28-2011, 01:34 PM
I don't think we can turn back the clock on racquets, strings and balls but we can do something about courts surfaces. And while it will not be a total fix, it can help different styles of players reach greater heights. Players would get more of a chance to work on other aspects of their games in a competitive arena. An example would be the fast super low bounce of the old Wimbly grass would force more players to chip and charge, S&V like it did years ago.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

tuk
04-28-2011, 01:52 PM
many posters don't seem to like today's tennis. Question is why do you keep on watching??. The solution seems obvious to me. Don't like it then just stick with watching old tapes...no offence but the game has evolved and that's how it is played today period so it's a simple choice
you either stop watching or stop whining about it....why in hell would you watch something you dislike:confused:

CCNM
04-28-2011, 05:33 PM
I'd rather watch tennis than baseball......

borg number one
04-28-2011, 06:03 PM
I love tennis now, I loved tennis then, and I'll love tennis the rest of my life. I can't get enough of it. I started watching and playing tennis in the late 1970's and haven't stopped since (save for a couple of years when I needed a break). GuyClinch, as to your point about tennis participation in the United States, I think you're right in that the total number of tennis players in the United States in 2008 (probably even more now certainly) was greater than the total number in the late 1980's. This article below speaks to that point.

See: http://www.usta.com/About_Us/Organization/News/US_tennis_enjoying_record_surge_in_participation/

See the excerpts below.

Along with 350,000 unique USTA League players, new programs such as Tennis on Campus are experiencing tremendous growth. With over 30,000 college students participating, Tennis on Campus has greatly contributed to the uptick in the 18-24 age group.

“Millions of kids are being introduced to tennis the right way,” said Kamperman.

Following another record-breaking year at the US Open, the sport continues to shine. While other popular sports in the U.S. have suffered, tennis has enjoyed a renaissance not seen since the 1970s and 1980s when American stars like Chris Evert, Jimmy Connors, and John McEnroe dominated the landscape.

For the first time in more than two decades, tennis participation in the United States topped 30 million players, phenomenal growth compared to a steady decline across the board in other major sports.

In a survey conduced annually by the Taylor Research Group on behalf of the USTA and the Tennis Industry Association, the results show that tennis participation has grown 12 percent over 2008 and spiked 25 percent since 2003.

I'll look for the exact 1980 number as well in terms of total players in the U.S., but the article above does note that the late 1980's had great numbers overall.

mellowyellow
04-28-2011, 06:41 PM
Why are their no numbers for the early 90"s when tennis was probably the most popular in the US? Agassi, Chang, Courier, Martin, Samparas, plus you still had remnants of the 80's in Arias, Connors, the 2 Mac's, Gilbert, Krickstein, then your not so well known notables like Wheaton, Torango, Washington, Spadea, Stark, Reneberg, Palmer etc.

tlm
04-28-2011, 06:44 PM
many posters don't seem to like today's tennis. Question is why do you keep on watching??. The solution seems obvious to me. Don't like it then just stick with watching old tapes...no offence but the game has evolved and that's how it is played today period so it's a simple choice
you either stop watching or stop whining about it....why in hell would you watch something you dislike:confused:

This post is exactly right, i get so tired of all the whining about the modern game. Go watch your old time tennis that was so great+let us enjoy the tennis of today.

ttbrowne
04-29-2011, 07:22 AM
I'm coaching my daughter and later on my son.. And I am coaching them old school attacking tennis, but still make sure they know how to play the whole court.. Kids today just bash and grind and have no thought process.. I do believe that it can only come to an end at some stage. And attacking tennis will return in a big way in the next 5-10 years.. Technology can only do so much..

Joe, It's great that you FEEL that way about the attacking game and are teaching your kids about it. But I believe you are wrong when you say
"And attacking tennis will return in a big way in the next 5-10 years.. Technology can only do so much". Actually technology will only make the "bash and grind" (as you say) more prevalent in the future.

Besides, When you are talking about the professional tour, it's all about the number of ATP/WTA points and $$ you earn. Nothing else matters. Coaches teach kids how to move UP and STAY in the rankings. Not what style the coaches like.

dominikk1985
04-29-2011, 07:43 AM
I think that on the FH side the mechanics is better today, in that it allows a greater ball acceleration, as a result of several factors:

- the takeback loop is larger than in the 80s

- the whole kinetic chain (leg, hip, torso, upper arm, forearm, wrist) is better engaged today, in that "lashing" mechanism, esp in the last segment (wrist)

- the contribution of the wrist is much more significant today and the wrist is more flexible (the "educated wrist release")

See:
Federer: a wristy forehand?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=15518

However, one pays for it in more injuries in the wrist (the ulnar area) and forearm.

One area which is less productive today is the translational component of the FH, the stepping into the ball.

This is caused by the preponderence of the open-stance FH, in which the rotational component is more significant. One pays for it in hip injuries and surgeries (Guga, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian).

The players simply camp at the baseline, many of them forgetting about advancing into the ball, taking it on the rise, etc.

I agree that stroke mechanics at the baseline are much better than in the 80s
stroke mechanics are IMO the biggest reason for the power surge.

now everyone uses a 180° shoulder turn, full kinetics chain (hips lead the arm), forearm and wrist action and torque between hips and shoulders.

next to the light rackets this was the biggest reason for the power game.

however the difference from the mid 90s to now is mostly strength and string technology. guys like agassi already used the modern strokes but still didn't hit as hard as today's players because the where smaller.

BTW:
did late agassi hit harder than the late 80s agassi?
After all he could still sometimes take sets of a prime federer while being in his mid 30s (04 and 05 US open).

I guess a 91 agassi couldn't have taken sets of jesus fed. was this just better technology or better training.

Devilito
04-29-2011, 09:38 AM
the difference from the mid 90s to now is mostly strength and string technology. guys like agassi already used the modern strokes but still didn't hit as hard as today's players because the where smaller.



http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy79/homesickalien88/Gifs/t71wjn.gif

Cesc Fabregas
04-29-2011, 09:41 AM
Neither are the likes of Blake, Gonzalez, Berdych, Soderling, Davydenko etc. and yet they were able to beat Nadal when Federer couldn't.


Tennis is a game of match-ups, something most general players don't understand.

Yeah, because Blake, Berdych and Gonzalez could beat Nadal in a French Open final.

ksbh
04-29-2011, 09:53 AM
Here comes the clairvoyant of the forum. A guy that can tell who would win among match ups between players of different generations! LOL, as someone said you sure are a clown, Ranger!

The point is that on a fast surface Nadal's method of returning would put him in a very bad situation against someone like Sampras who had disguise, placement, speed, spin, and clutchness. Not to mention Sampras, unlike Federer, Roddick, etc. would be able to back up his serve with not just his great netgame, but also a powerful ground game.


Nadal already struggles to return the likes of Roddick and Karlovic (he rarely breaks them, and when he does it's not like he hit amazing returns). Think of someone like Sampras who has just as good of a serve (if not better), along with a much better ability to back it up also.

Devilito
04-29-2011, 09:56 AM
Here comes the clairvoyant of the forum. A guy that can tell who would win among match ups between players of different generations

that's pretty much the topic of discussion for %50 of the threads on this forum. If you have a problem with that maybe you should stop surfing this forum.

ksbh
04-29-2011, 09:56 AM
Pat 'desperate for attention' Cash has really got to find better ways to stay in the limelight than talking utter tripe about subjects related to tennis!

ksbh
04-29-2011, 10:01 AM
Devil ... ain't no need to get offended. If you didn't already know, I'm a big admirer of Sampras's game! Yet I wouldn't say anything like Ranger is alluding to.

Let me remind you what they said about Nadal's prospects against Federer on anything but clay a few years ago. And what happened? Federer got taken to the cleaners. All-time great players find ways on court against opponents, so when you have 2 such players on the court, anything could happen. Don't be quick to rush into judgement.

Having said that, I will admit though that Nadal likely wouldn't have much of a chance against a peak Sampras on grass. But then, who really would? :)


that's pretty much the topic of discussion for %50 of the threads on this forum. If you have a problem with that maybe you should stop surfing this forum.

Laurie
04-29-2011, 12:59 PM
There's a similar thread on Tennis Forum for womens Tennis which I'm registered on, Sanchez Vicario made a smilar statement to a reporter recently.

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=433483

dominikk1985
04-29-2011, 01:36 PM
I think first we have to define what "better" means.

Is 80s tennis better or as good as today's tennis?
Of course not. today's players would whipe the floor with the 80s guys.

Is 80s tennis more entertaining?
I think so. not only there was more variety in styles but also in personalities.

I can't believe how boring personalities federer and nadal are. Just rehearsed phrases and overacted "niceness".
they seem to be very shallow and boring (what do you expect from guys like nadal/fed who drop out of school with 16 and only know tennis...).

Of course they are pleasant guys with good manners (unlike *****s like connors or mac) but at least those were real personalities. and not just media pleasing puppets on a string of their PR managers.

and this is not the fault of today's players. I'm sure they are decent people, but they are not allowed to develope a personality. they are taken out of school with 16 and then sent to academies. they make courses on what to say in interviews so that they don't get in trouble and get fined if they say anything wrong. how should anyone develope in that environment. they are too much tamed.

kiki
04-29-2011, 02:56 PM
I agree. People will want to blame slow courts but I think, given the changing of some courts back to faster surfaces I don't think variety in tennis would get back to the 80s levels.

Also worth nothing that today's baseliners are much, much better volleyers than their equivalents in the 80s and today's serve-volley players are also much better on the baseline than their 80s equivalent. Basically, the overall level has risen somewhat in those who are competitive at the highest levels. It's just the variety has narrowed in many ways (as an average).

¿Did I hear right, TODAY´S SERVE AND VOLLEYERS?

CCNM
04-29-2011, 03:10 PM
There's a similar thread on Tennis Forum for womens Tennis which I'm registered on, Sanchez Vicario made a smilar statement to a reporter recently.

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=433483
Amen Arantxa!!!!! I'm not going to say that tennis stinks but I find myself wanting to change the channel after about 15-20 minutes.:(

pjonesy
04-29-2011, 04:50 PM
Alright, lets just take it easy and try to look at everything from a proper perspective. The tennis players of today are better athletes overall. Generally, they are bigger, faster, stronger and possess a higher fitness level than the players of the '80s. Baseline tennis is much faster and precise than it was 25 years ago. The baseline shotmaking is absolutely off the charts, when you look at the current product. Everybody can bash the ball off both wings and never miss.

On the other hand, i miss the variety used in constructing points in the '80s. It is exciting to see the ball being hit so hard and the players scrambling to keep up, but the there is nothing subtle or clever about the style of play. You hit the ball as hard as you can until someone misses or a winner is produced. Of course you may see a delicate drop shot out of nowhere or a beautifully angled volley. But, some of the fundamentals of the game are being neglected. It is hard to believe that the top players in the world can miss so many routine overheads, while having the ability to hit a swinging volley with their eyes closed.

yemenmocha
04-29-2011, 06:15 PM
Cash is right on the money with his comments.

yemenmocha
04-29-2011, 06:19 PM
Alright, lets just take it easy and try to look at everything from a proper perspective. The tennis players of today are better athletes overall. Generally, they are bigger, faster, stronger and possess a higher fitness level than the players of the '80s. Baseline tennis is much faster and precise than it was 25 years ago. The baseline shotmaking is absolutely off the charts, when you look at the current product. Everybody can bash the ball off both wings and never miss.

On the other hand, i miss the variety used in constructing points in the '80s. It is exciting to see the ball being hit so hard and the players scrambling to keep up, but the there is nothing subtle or clever about the style of play. You hit the ball as hard as you can until someone misses or a winner is produced. Of course you may see a delicate drop shot out of nowhere or a beautifully angled volley. But, some of the fundamentals of the game are being neglected. It is hard to believe that the top players in the world can miss so many routine overheads, while having the ability to hit a swinging volley with their eyes closed.



To some extent, some elments of the fitness didn't matter and SHOULD NOT matter if the courts had proper variety. I don't care if you're faster than Nadal, you just can't run down a proper first volley on a very fast surface. It will skid away from you too quickly. You also cannot return serve like Nadal, standing an eternity behind the baseline. The wide angle serve will appropriately skid away, making that angle more deadly for servers.

Fitness plays the big role it does when more shots that would otherwise be winners are not winners and "set up" after the bounce on a slow, gritty surface.

McEnroe is a joy to watch today because of his shot making ability and finesse. He doesn't win by a hammering someone with a racquet/string setup that has been shown to exceed the spin RPM's of spaghetti string racquets outlawed in the 70's.

yemenmocha
04-29-2011, 06:22 PM
I think first we have to define what "better" means.

Is 80s tennis better or as good as today's tennis?
Of course not. today's players would whipe the floor with the 80s guys.

Is 80s tennis more entertaining?
I think so. not only there was more variety in styles but also in personalities.

I can't believe how boring personalities federer and nadal are. Just rehearsed phrases and overacted "niceness".
they seem to be very shallow and boring (what do you expect from guys like nadal/fed who drop out of school with 16 and only know tennis...).

Of course they are pleasant guys with good manners (unlike *****s like connors or mac) but at least those were real personalities. and not just media pleasing puppets on a string of their PR managers.

and this is not the fault of today's players. I'm sure they are decent people, but they are not allowed to develope a personality. they are taken out of school with 16 and then sent to academies. they make courses on what to say in interviews so that they don't get in trouble and get fined if they say anything wrong. how should anyone develope in that environment. they are too much tamed.


Give Nadal an 80's racquet and play on 80's surface and he won't be wiping those top players. He wouldn't even be on tour. Whether the 80's players could adapt today's warped game with slowed courts, larger balls, spaghetti strings (poly), etc. is another question.

NamRanger
04-29-2011, 06:23 PM
Devil ... ain't no need to get offended. If you didn't already know, I'm a big admirer of Sampras's game! Yet I wouldn't say anything like Ranger is alluding to.

Let me remind you what they said about Nadal's prospects against Federer on anything but clay a few years ago. And what happened? Federer got taken to the cleaners. All-time great players find ways on court against opponents, so when you have 2 such players on the court, anything could happen. Don't be quick to rush into judgement.

Having said that, I will admit though that Nadal likely wouldn't have much of a chance against a peak Sampras on grass. But then, who really would? :)



You're one of the biggest troll here so I don't take your criticism to heart, don't worry.



Across generations? Prime Sampras would man handle Nadal on grass and fast hardcourts. If a clown choker like Davydenko can basically beat Nadal consistently on hardcourts, why not Sampras? Or what about egg head old man Ljubicic? Or even someone like Roddick? Nadal has shown to struggle to consistently return big serves, despite his increased returning abilities, and absurdly slow surfaces of today.


So you're telling me, that Nadal, who struggles with the serves of Roddick, Ljubicic, Karlovic, etc. and sometimes actually loses to these types of guys (has lost to Soderling, Roddick, Ljubicic, Berdych, etc. all big serving players), is somehow going to consistently beat Sampras, a guy who has a better first and second serve, and more game to back up his serve?


You've got to be joking with me. No sane Nadal fan would ever try to argue that Nadal could win consistently versus Sampras at the USO or Wimbledon, especially the 90s speed era. I can see the argument on slower HCs, and definitely of course Nadal destroys Sampras on clay. But you have got to be kidding me, thinking Nadal would ever beat Sampras on grass. He simply doesn't have the game to do so.

Sid_Vicious
04-29-2011, 06:41 PM
Yes, Federer doesn't have a good netgame or a poweful ground game, he just won 16 slams by luck, obviously he has no weapons. You're a known Nadal hater, do you think I'm going to take you biased opinions seriously? :lol:

You're going to tell me next that Sampras could beat Nadal on clay lol :oops:
I think his point is that Sampras had a massive serve, excellent net game, and a very good baseline game. He had all 3 strengths that made him the best grass court player of all time. Federer, on the other hand, has a much better baseline game than Sampras but is far inferior in the serve and net game departments. On a grass court, players are handsomely rewarded for an outrageous serve and net game.

Federer has a great serve, but his net game is nothing to write home about.

Forehand Avenger
04-29-2011, 06:45 PM
NamRanger: That's no argument, sorry. Federer has also lost in fast surfaces to the likes of Berdych, Baghdatis, Davydenko and even Monfils.

What does that mean? Or does your logic only apply to players you don't like?

OTMPut
04-29-2011, 08:27 PM
Pat 'desperate for attention' Cash has really got to find better ways to stay in the limelight than talking utter tripe about subjects related to tennis!

at least, his claim to fame is not just screwing somebody's girl friend.
did he win a grand slam?

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-29-2011, 10:19 PM
did he win a grand slam?

Just LOL..

but seriously guys..can we stop comparing eras? It's fun.but it's getting tired

there are other stuff to talk...any ideas who is the next upcoming star?

wimbledon picks etc...

secondly..dolopopovoloyogotov seems different

pjonesy
04-30-2011, 05:17 AM
To some extent, some elments of the fitness didn't matter and SHOULD NOT matter if the courts had proper variety. I don't care if you're faster than Nadal, you just can't run down a proper first volley on a very fast surface. It will skid away from you too quickly. You also cannot return serve like Nadal, standing an eternity behind the baseline. The wide angle serve will appropriately skid away, making that angle more deadly for servers.

Fitness plays the big role it does when more shots that would otherwise be winners are not winners and "set up" after the bounce on a slow, gritty surface.

McEnroe is a joy to watch today because of his shot making ability and finesse. He doesn't win by a hammering someone with a racquet/string setup that has been shown to exceed the spin RPM's of spaghetti string racquets outlawed in the 70's.

Are you saying that it doesn't matter how fast or fit you are, the differences in the surface dictate who will win or lose based on their game style? If that is the case, why play matches? Just play cross generational fantasy tennis.

Thanks for letting me know what "role" fitness plays in the modern game. I don't think you could even define fitness, much less the role it plays in the current game. "Set up"? I mean, come on. Are you kidding me?

As for the spaghetti strings, I don't believe they were outlawed because they exceeded some "spin RPM" limit. Is this post a joke?

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-30-2011, 05:55 AM
Are you saying that it doesn't matter how fast or fit you are, the differences in the surface dictate who will win or lose based on their game style? If that is the case, why play matches? Just play cross generational fantasy tennis.

Thanks for letting me know what "role" fitness plays in the modern game. I don't think you could even define fitness, much less the role it plays in the current game. "Set up"? I mean, come on. Are you kidding me?

As for the spaghetti strings, I don't believe they were outlawed because they exceeded some "spin RPM" limit. Is this post a joke?

when macenroe was destroying the tour in 84, there were a mountain of
guys on tour fitter than him...including ivan..chris lewis was VERY FIT.
nailed 2-6 2-6 2-6 in wimby final by mac..meanwhile..mac's smoking cookies
between tourny...if the rumors are true

pepe01
04-30-2011, 10:37 AM
My point of view is that seeing Nadal winning avery clay court tournament that he plays is not good for tennis, depends on how hard he fought to win it, problem is Ferrer, and all clay court masters are not even close to Nadal, that´s not good, Nadal is one of greatest and is great to see him playing but not winning every game on clay, also on other tournaments nadal, Novak and Federer are always on final spots, we need more players, with tactics not only power, with good technic and different play styles.

Nop, seeing one player winning all, is not good for tennis.

By the way, If Nadal is healty to RG, he is going to win it....again..

P.D Sorry for my english grammar, is not my first lenguage.

Regards

Xemi666
04-30-2011, 11:24 AM
You're one of the biggest troll here so I don't take your criticism to heart, don't worry.



Across generations? Prime Sampras would man handle Nadal on grass and fast hardcourts. If a clown choker like Davydenko can basically beat Nadal consistently on hardcourts, why not Sampras? Or what about egg head old man Ljubicic? Or even someone like Roddick? Nadal has shown to struggle to consistently return big serves, despite his increased returning abilities, and absurdly slow surfaces of today.


So you're telling me, that Nadal, who struggles with the serves of Roddick, Ljubicic, Karlovic, etc. and sometimes actually loses to these types of guys (has lost to Soderling, Roddick, Ljubicic, Berdych, etc. all big serving players), is somehow going to consistently beat Sampras, a guy who has a better first and second serve, and more game to back up his serve?


You've got to be joking with me. No sane Nadal fan would ever try to argue that Nadal could win consistently versus Sampras at the USO or Wimbledon, especially the 90s speed era. I can see the argument on slower HCs, and definitely of course Nadal destroys Sampras on clay. But you have got to be kidding me, thinking Nadal would ever beat Sampras on grass. He simply doesn't have the game to do so.

You're going to make me name all Sampras losses on HCs and grass, really? :)

Xemi666
04-30-2011, 11:25 AM
I think his point is that Sampras had a massive serve, excellent net game, and a very good baseline game. He had all 3 strengths that made him the best grass court player of all time. Federer, on the other hand, has a much better baseline game than Sampras but is far inferior in the serve and net game departments. On a grass court, players are handsomely rewarded for an outrageous serve and net game.

Federer has a great serve, but his net game is nothing to write home about.

Ok, bro :-?

You must think Federer is in his prime right now too.

PS: H2H Federer 1 Sampras 0
Federer 16 slams, Sampras 14

Sid_Vicious
04-30-2011, 11:28 AM
Ok, bro :-?

You must think Federer is in his prime right now too.

PS: H2H Federer 1 Sampras 0
Federer 16 slams, Sampras 14
Come on. You can't compare Federer's net game to Sampras's. They are not even in the same league.

I think Federer is overall greater than Sampras, but on grass courts...Sampras is still the main man.

Mick
04-30-2011, 12:21 PM
Come on. You can't compare Federer's net game to Sampras's. They are not even in the same league.

I think Federer is overall greater than Sampras, but on grass courts...Sampras is still the main man.

i wonder how pete sampras at his prime would do today on the grass courts because the grass courts (at wimbledon) today are much slower than the ones that he had played on.

NamRanger
04-30-2011, 05:59 PM
You're going to make me name all Sampras losses on HCs and grass, really? :)



Who did prime Sampras lose to on grass? Richard K. That's it.


Sure, Sampras had a couple of bad losses on HC, particularly at the AO. But at the USO he was rock solid for the most part.


But sure, go ahead and make yourself look like an idiot.

pjonesy
05-01-2011, 09:42 AM
when macenroe was destroying the tour in 84, there were a mountain of
guys on tour fitter than him...including ivan..chris lewis was VERY FIT.
nailed 2-6 2-6 2-6 in wimby final by mac..meanwhile..mac's smoking cookies
between tourny...if the rumors are true

Well, you have made my point for me. Fitness was not quite as important in the 80s. Certainly not compared to the current tour. Of course Mac did win a 6 hour match over Wilander in the 80s. That would indicate that he was pretty fit.

if you are implying that tennis skill has been overtaken by athleticism since the 80s, I would agree with that.

borg number one
05-01-2011, 09:46 AM
Well, you have made my point for me. Fitness was not quite as important in the 80s. Certainly not compared to the current tour. Of course Mac did win a 6 hour match over Wilander in the 80s. That would indicate that he was pretty fit.

if you are implying that tennis skill has been overtaken by athleticism since the 80s, I would agree with that.

Tennis is more about the legs now, with more running, and the emphasis on baseline rallies/play. The points are longer, so generally the fitness level is better, in my opinion. Yet, the great ones like Borg and Lendl were incredibly fit, and were not like "your average player" in terms of fitness. Even Connors was actually quite fit, he just wasn't as fast as say Borg. Connors could keep the intensity up for all five sets though.

pjonesy
05-02-2011, 07:53 AM
Tennis is more about the legs now, with more running, and the emphasis on baseline rallies/play. The points are longer, so generally the fitness level is better, in my opinion. Yet, the great ones like Borg and Lendl were incredibly fit, and were not like "your average player" in terms of fitness. Even Connors was actually quite fit, he just wasn't as fast as say Borg. Connors could keep the intensity up for all five sets though.

Absolutely. IMO, movement is the most important attribute for a tennis player to possess. You HAVE to move well in order to compete on the tour. As you stated, the current game requires more running, athleticism and speed since the ball is being hit so much harder, earlier and with more spin (pulling guys way off court) than 20 years ago.

Borg does not get enough credit for his fitness level. Physically, he was more gifted than Lendl or Connors. Lendl certainly took the power baseline game to the next level and his fitness/conditioning was ahead of its time, but he did not possess the foot speed of Borg. Connors also had great stamina and always looked to be in great shape. Obviously, Connors had great footwork that allowed him to be in the perfect position to hit the ball with great pace and accuracy. But, he was not as athletically gifted as Borg. Because Borg was so physically gifted, his fitness level is often overlooked. But he was obsessive about maintaining a perfect weight and I'm sure he trained much harder than people realize. He certainly is as much of an athletic specimen as Federer and Nadal, but his game style required him to outlast players. That takes work.

borg number one
05-02-2011, 07:56 AM
Absolutely. IMO, movement is the most important attribute for a tennis player to possess. You HAVE to move well in order to compete on the tour. As you stated, the current game requires more running, athleticism and speed since the ball is being hit so much harder, earlier and with more spin (pulling guys way off court) than 20 years ago.

Borg does not get enough credit for his fitness level. Physically, he was more gifted than Lendl or Connors. Lendl certainly took the power baseline to the next level and his fitness/conditioning was ahead of its time, but he did not possess the foot speed of Borg. Connors also had great stamina and always looked to be in great shape. Obviously, Connors had great footwork that allowed him to be in the perfect position to hit the ball with great pace and accuracy. But, he was not as athletically gifted as Borg. Because Borg was so physically gifted, his fitness level is often overlooked. But he was obsessive about maintaining a perfect weight and I'm sure he trained much harder than people realize.

Yes, that's it. As an example, a typical workout for Borg would be hitting for 2-3 hours in the morning on red clay, taking a break, and doing about 3-4 more hours later in the day, with guys like Vilas or Gerulaitis. His practice partners, typically not Borg, would be ready to wilt after a while. Bergelin and perhaps Tiriac would be looking on, urging them on, coaching, etc. Now that's a workout, and there's little "modern" techniques involved. Pure old school.

ksbh
05-02-2011, 07:59 AM
Your argument is so weak, I don't know if anything I say will make sense to you. In regards to the highlighted point, here's a simple question for you-

If a clown choker like Davydenko can basically beat Nadal consistently on hardcourts, why not Federer? If you don't get my point, what I'm saying is that tennis doesn't work like math equations.

As for grass, I already stated that Nadal wouldn't beat Sampras but then nobody beats a prime Sampras on grass. Before some Federer fan gets all teary-eyed, it's just IMO!

You're one of the biggest troll here so I don't take your criticism to heart, don't worry.

Across generations? Prime Sampras would man handle Nadal on grass and fast hardcourts. If a clown choker like Davydenko can basically beat Nadal consistently on hardcourts, why not Sampras? Or what about egg head old man Ljubicic? Or even someone like Roddick? Nadal has shown to struggle to consistently return big serves, despite his increased returning abilities, and absurdly slow surfaces of today.


So you're telling me, that Nadal, who struggles with the serves of Roddick, Ljubicic, Karlovic, etc. and sometimes actually loses to these types of guys (has lost to Soderling, Roddick, Ljubicic, Berdych, etc. all big serving players), is somehow going to consistently beat Sampras, a guy who has a better first and second serve, and more game to back up his serve?


You've got to be joking with me. No sane Nadal fan would ever try to argue that Nadal could win consistently versus Sampras at the USO or Wimbledon, especially the 90s speed era. I can see the argument on slower HCs, and definitely of course Nadal destroys Sampras on clay. But you have got to be kidding me, thinking Nadal would ever beat Sampras on grass. He simply doesn't have the game to do so.

pjonesy
05-02-2011, 08:14 AM
Yes, that's it. As an example, a typical workout for Borg would be hitting for 2-3 hours in the morning on red clay, taking a break, and doing about 3-4 more hours later in the day, with guys like Vilas or Gerulaitis. His practice partners, typically not Borg, would be ready to wilt after a while. Bergelin and perhaps Tiriac would be looking on, urging them on, coaching, etc. Now that's a workout, and there's little "modern" techniques involved. Pure old school.

Borg number one, your man is going to get more credit in the future. He has been overlooked because his game was not as flashy as some and he generally didn't hit the ball quite as hard as Lendl or Connors. Now that he is playing on the Champion"s Tour, some people are discovering him for the first time. He is the fastest 50+ man on a tennis court. He controls his backhand better than anyone, he is competing to win and most importantly, he looks like he is enjoying himself.

On a number of occasions, I have cited Lendl and Agassi as the most important influences on the current power baseline game. Borg is equally as important and played with wood his entire career. If he would have been born 5 or 6 years later, can you imagine what he would have done with a graphite racquet in the mid to late 80s? Just for the record, Wilander is not in his league and won 7 majors in the mid to late 80s. IMO.

pmerk34
05-02-2011, 08:17 AM
It's funny. I was watching the 1991 French Open final between Courier and Agassi the other day, and Bud Collins was talking about how he thought there was too much power in the game. I LOLed, because when compared to today's game, there's not much power. I see such complaints as the moans of people scared of the change and evolution in the game of tennis.

Courier killed the ball. And the court at the French was quicker then

pjonesy
05-02-2011, 08:26 AM
Courier killed the ball. And the court at the French was quicker then

Well, the strings and racquets provide more maneuverability and spin, so you can control the ball with more pace. You could not hit the ball as hard in those days without losing control. Courier and Agassi could control balls with great pace, but it required more concentration and cleaner ball striking. Strings were not as forgiving in those days.

But, to your point, the pace does look a notch slower when you compare it to the current product.

pmerk34
05-02-2011, 08:38 AM
Well, the strings and racquets provide more maneuverability and spin, so you can control the ball with more pace. You could not hit the ball as hard in those days without losing control. Courier and Agassi could control balls with great pace, but it required more concentration and cleaner ball striking. Strings were not as forgiving in those days.

But, to your point, the pace does look a notch slower when you compare it to the current product.

No doubt as Agassi who played with gut than poly stated: "with gut you had to worry about control and the harder you swung the more you had to worry." He then stated how with poly strings the harder you swing the more it stays in because of spin. The FO center court seemed to play quicker back then. When talking about pace and heaviness of shot I believe the hardest hitters off the ground of all time are: Soderling, Berdych and Juan Martin Del Potro. These guys shots even sound different. I may be missing someone but to me it's clear these giants have taken power to new level over players 6'2" and under.

pmerk34
05-02-2011, 08:44 AM
They're basically corporate spokespeople for their brand. Nice, sugary, wholesome image and 100% PC.

Politically correct means don't offend the liberal establishment. What exactly did Mac ever do or say that was un-pc?

fed_rulz
05-02-2011, 01:06 PM
Who did prime Sampras lose to on grass? Richard K. That's it.


Sure, Sampras had a couple of bad losses on HC, particularly at the AO. But at the USO he was rock solid for the most part.


But sure, go ahead and make yourself look like an idiot.

he lost to a few on grass, but only to Richard K at wimbledon.

Funny, you think Federer has no chance against Nadal, and Nadal would have no chance against Sampras on grass and HC... yet Federer has a better record on grass and HC than Sampras.

Here's a tid-bit for you, and I hope you stop using the ******** Player X vs Y vs Z crap to prove X > Z under certain conditions.

Agassi pretty much owned (or at least had a winning record against) everyone (Wayne Ferreira, Michael Stich, ) that gave trouble to Sampras, but was himself owned by Sampras. Go figure...

fed_rulz
05-02-2011, 01:29 PM
I think his point is that Sampras had a massive serve, excellent net game, and a very good baseline game. He had all 3 strengths that made him the best grass court player of all time. Federer, on the other hand, has a much better baseline game than Sampras but is far inferior in the serve and net game departments. On a grass court, players are handsomely rewarded for an outrageous serve and net game.

Federer has a great serve, but his net game is nothing to write home about.

You're comparing how sampras played in the 90s grass vs how Federer played in the 00's grass, from 2005. Federer beat sampras playing S & V in 2001, and he won his first wimby playing S & V (albeit, to a reduced degree than 2001)...

You really can't use that as a basis to conclude that Sampras was the better grass court player. And I'm not sure you can claim that players are handsomely rewarded today for an outrageous serve and net game on today's grass (an outrageous serve helps on all surfaces, but the same cannot be said of the net game).

FWIW, Sampras has 1 more wimbledon, but Fed has a much superior overall grass court record.

marc45
05-02-2011, 02:54 PM
I like how you state your opinion as a fact....

as factual a thing as has ever been said here

marc45
05-02-2011, 03:20 PM
You're going to make me name all Sampras losses on HCs and grass, really? :)

not too many at wimbledon and flushing the two biggest

marc45
05-02-2011, 03:24 PM
No doubt as Agassi who played with gut than poly stated: "with gut you had to worry about control and the harder you swung the more you had to worry." He then stated how with poly strings the harder you swing the more it stays in because of spin. The FO center court seemed to play quicker back then. When talking about pace and heaviness of shot I believe the hardest hitters off the ground of all time are: Soderling, Berdych and Juan Martin Del Potro. These guys shots even sound different. I may be missing someone but to me it's clear these giants have taken power to new level over players 6'2" and under.

i always hear berdych's name thrown into those arguments, but haven't you noticed how much of a pusher he is?...just occasionally letting loose...the other two are full-on bashers

Mustard
05-02-2011, 03:46 PM
not too many at wimbledon and flushing the two biggest

The 14 slams that Pete Sampras won:

1. 1990 US Open
2. 1993 Wimbledon
3. 1993 US Open
4. 1994 Australian Open
5. 1994 Wimbledon
6. 1995 Wimbledon
7. 1995 US Open
8. 1996 US Open
9. 1997 Australian Open
10. 1997 Wimbledon
11. 1998 Wimbledon
12. 1999 Wimbledon
13. 2000 Wimbledon
14. 2002 US Open


And here are all of Sampras' losses in slams:

1988 US Open R128: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2)
1989 Australian Open R128: Christian Saceanu def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
1989 French Open R64: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
1989 Wimbledon R128: Todd Woodbridge def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-3)
1989 US Open R16: Jay Berger def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)
1990 Australian Open R16: Yannick Noah def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2)
1990 Wimbledon R128: Christo Van Rensburg def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 7-6)
1991 French Open R64: Thierry Champion def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-1, 6-1)
1991 Wimbledon R64: Derrick Rostagno def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1991 US Open QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 7-6, 7-6)
1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
1992 Wimbledon SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
1992 US Open F: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2)
1993 Australian Open SF: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 7-6)
1993 French Open QF: Sergi Bruguera def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 4-6, 6-1, 6-4)
1994 French Open QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4)
1994 US Open R16: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 7-6, 7-5)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 French Open R128: Gilbert Schaller def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4)
1996 Australian Open R32: Mark Philippoussis def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
1996 French Open SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-0, 6-2)
1996 Wimbledon QF: Richard Krajicek def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
1997 French Open R32: Magnus Norman def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4)
1997 US Open R16: Petr Korda def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6)
1998 Australian Open QF: Karol Kucera def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 6-3)
1998 French Open R64: Ramon Delgado def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1998 US Open SF: Patrick Rafter def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3)
1999 French Open R64: Andrei Medvedev def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 1-6, 6-4, 6-3)
2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
2000 French Open R128: Mark Philippoussis def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6)
2000 US Open F: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
2001 Australian Open R16: Todd Martin def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
2001 French Open R64: Galo Blanco def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 6-2)
2001 Wimbledon R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
2001 US Open F: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-1, 6-1)
2002 Australian Open R16: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6)
2002 French Open R128: Andrea Gaudenzi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 7-6)
2002 Wimbledon R64: George Bastl def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4)

MichaelNadal
05-02-2011, 11:24 PM
The 14 slams that Pete Sampras won:

1. 1990 US Open
2. 1993 Wimbledon
3. 1993 US Open
4. 1994 Australian Open
5. 1994 Wimbledon
6. 1995 Wimbledon
7. 1995 US Open
8. 1996 US Open
9. 1997 Australian Open
10. 1997 Wimbledon
11. 1998 Wimbledon
12. 1999 Wimbledon
13. 2000 Wimbledon
14. 2002 US Open


And here are all of Sampras' losses in slams:

1988 US Open R128: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2)
1989 Australian Open R128: Christian Saceanu def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
1989 French Open R64: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
1989 Wimbledon R128: Todd Woodbridge def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-3)
1989 US Open R16: Jay Berger def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)
1990 Australian Open R16: Yannick Noah def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2)
1990 Wimbledon R128: Christo Van Rensburg def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 7-6)
1991 French Open R64: Thierry Champion def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-1, 6-1)
1991 Wimbledon R64: Derrick Rostagno def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1991 US Open QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 7-6, 7-6)
1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
1992 Wimbledon SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
1992 US Open F: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2)
1993 Australian Open SF: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 7-6)
1993 French Open QF: Sergi Bruguera def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 4-6, 6-1, 6-4)
1994 French Open QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4)
1994 US Open R16: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 7-6, 7-5)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 French Open R128: Gilbert Schaller def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4)
1996 Australian Open R32: Mark Philippoussis def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
1996 French Open SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-0, 6-2)
1996 Wimbledon QF: Richard Krajicek def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
1997 French Open R32: Magnus Norman def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4)
1997 US Open R16: Petr Korda def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6)
1998 Australian Open QF: Karol Kucera def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 6-3)
1998 French Open R64: Ramon Delgado def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1998 US Open SF: Patrick Rafter def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3)
1999 French Open R64: Andrei Medvedev def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 1-6, 6-4, 6-3)
2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
2000 French Open R128: Mark Philippoussis def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6)
2000 US Open F: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
2001 Australian Open R16: Todd Martin def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
2001 French Open R64: Galo Blanco def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 6-2)
2001 Wimbledon R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
2001 US Open F: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-1, 6-1)
2002 Australian Open R16: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6)
2002 French Open R128: Andrea Gaudenzi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 7-6)
2002 Wimbledon R64: George Bastl def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4)

Man Pete used to get his *** HANDED to him at the French o_O

borg number one
05-02-2011, 11:43 PM
We always discuss the wins of great players, yet see the losses of some great players below. These are losses by Sampras, Federer, and Borg at the US Open, Wimbledon, and the French Open only:


Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton (retired), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S. Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.


Roger Federer:

US Open:
N. Djokovic, J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
Berdych, R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
Soderling, R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.

Xemi666
05-03-2011, 01:33 AM
not too many at wimbledon and flushing the two biggest

USO isn't bigger than the other slams, no matter how much americans want to think so.

mctennis
05-03-2011, 02:05 AM
USO isn't bigger than the other slams, no matter how much americans want to think so.

Each person has their own opinion about the slams. Anything is sports can be argued either way.

Xemi666
05-03-2011, 03:12 AM
Each person has their own opinion about the slams. Anything is sports can be argued either way.

No. Try to argue that Rochus is greater than Federer and after they rip you a new one, come back to me. Opinions must be based on reality or they are worthless.

Gorecki
05-03-2011, 03:15 AM
Man Pete used to get his *** HANDED to him at the French o_O

wich is the place where real champions win right?

pmerk34
05-03-2011, 04:39 AM
Man Pete used to get his *** HANDED to him at the French o_O

eh, oh well. The dirt is dirt. He thrived everywhere else. Phenomenal player.

Xemi666
05-03-2011, 05:02 AM
wich is the place where real champions win right?

Real champions win slams on every surface :)

mellowyellow
05-03-2011, 05:55 AM
Real champions win slams on every surface :)

Especially when surface and balls are tailored to their NEEDS....

ksbh
05-03-2011, 06:12 AM
Great post! I wonder if Namranger was raised by an abusive care taker who insisted he score a 100 in math every time.

And I'm certain Namranger believes that the sun shined out of Sampras' <you know where>!

:)

he lost to a few on grass, but only to Richard K at wimbledon.

Funny, you think Federer has no chance against Nadal, and Nadal would have no chance against Sampras on grass and HC... yet Federer has a better record on grass and HC than Sampras.

Here's a tid-bit for you, and I hope you stop using the ******** Player X vs Y vs Z crap to prove X > Z under certain conditions.

Agassi pretty much owned (or at least had a winning record against) everyone (Wayne Ferreira, Michael Stich, ) that gave trouble to Sampras, but was himself owned by Sampras. Go figure...

Xemi666
05-04-2011, 12:56 AM
Especially when surface and balls are tailored to their NEEDS....

When you're a great champion you diversify your game until every surface and equipment is tailored to you, that's right ;)

Wombat_Joe
06-04-2011, 08:59 PM
Joe, It's great that you FEEL that way about the attacking game and are teaching your kids about it. But I believe you are wrong when you say
"And attacking tennis will return in a big way in the next 5-10 years.. Technology can only do so much". Actually technology will only make the "bash and grind" (as you say) more prevalent in the future.

Besides, When you are talking about the professional tour, it's all about the number of ATP/WTA points and $$ you earn. Nothing else matters. Coaches teach kids how to move UP and STAY in the rankings. Not what style the coaches like.

Well how do you explain a player like Schiovone (spelling) She plays very much old school and is a big match player against the so called better payed and rated players.. I put it down to her being able to think on her feet.. Most players have their rythem, and if it is off, it is off for a very long time....