Stupid post. Not even 5 years ago Andre WAS in the top 10. This was a year before he retired. Nonsense. At their best Pete would probably be #2 or #3. Andre probably somewhere between 3 and 10 depending on how serious he is taking it.
Even in their prime I do not think they would be in the top 10 in this day and age
That's your nostalgia talking. The surfaces have slowed down considerably that Pete would have trouble staying in the top 10 today -- unlike Fed, Pete needs the surface to assist him (and his serve), otherwise he's dead meat. No knock on him, but his style of play would not cut it today.
Having said that, Agassi might have more success than Pete today. However, i don't see him being in the top 5 now. All of the top 5 have comparable ground strokes to him, and are much better movers.
Sampras can hang with anyone for a set or two but 3 out of 5 for 7 matches? No way. Tennis is a young man's game. The ATP is not like the WTA chkefest!
Yea right.!?Even in their prime I do not think they would be in the top 10 in this day and age
Even in their prime I do not think they would be in the top 10 in this day and age
If they were 10 years younger they'd have a good chance. Pete at Wimby and USO, and Andre at the AO. Not guaranteed because of Fed, and the slowing down of the surfaces. No chance at the French
Yea right.!?
Sampras in his prime would not be in the top-10 today? Prime Sampras and Agassi (not the present retired guys) could not hang with Tsonga, Soderling, and Cilic? Really?
You cannot be serious!
Right, everyone know the current field of players is the best of all time. Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, or Sampras? Gimme a break. They are jokes. No of them would even make the top-20 today. No one can compete with the quality of today's players. No one! Darwin proved it!
The mighty Djokovic or Murray or Roddick or Cilic would bagel them all ever time. I mean come on, look at how many slams Djokovic has, he is the GOAT. . . except for Federer and Nadal who are better, of course.
To say Sampras and Agassi would make the top ten today doesn't make sense. Of course they would if they were healthy and in their primes.
Someday in the future someone will say Roger Federer in his prime won't win a game from the current number one at the time and of course that won't be true. Unfortunately as a great player is out of the spotlight, the opinions of them in comparison to the current players tends to become lower and lower until people often falsely says they this player won't be any competition for the worst player on the ATP tour.
I will venture to say that there will be more and more people who would not believe Sampras and Agassi could compete on the current ATP tour as more time passes by. It will be wrong but I'm sure someone will say Agassi is too short to compete or nonsense like that.
Yea right.!?
Sampras in his prime would not be in the top-10 today? Prime Sampras and Agassi (not the present retired guys) could not hang with Tsonga, Soderling, and Cilic? Really?
You cannot be serious!
In this prime, Pete had the most complete game pre-Federer. You are seriously underestimating him by saying he has only a serve.
Says a lot about what constitutes "complete" at that time? btw, I never said sampras only has a serve. that would be karlovic
Federer after his AO victory accurately captured the state of tennis today: no weaknesses in players (except may be at the net) today. Sampras may have been the most "complete" of his era, but in today's slower conditions, his offensive game would not be as effective. He does not have a good defensive game, which is very critical today. also, his BH would be taken to the cleaners. In short, he's not what you'd call a "complete" player in today's standards.
You may claim that he could have adapted, but it's very hard to argue for that when he did not show any adaptability on clay...
S
Federer after his AO victory accurately captured the state of tennis today: no weaknesses in players (except may be at the net) today. Sampras may have been the most "complete" of his era..
Anyone who says this is indeed very ignorant regarding tennis. This statement could only constitute:
1.a joke
2.referring to the current style of play
The latter is more likely, and indeed, the players today are VERY well trained at the relatively mono-dimensional style which dominates the tour today. That is not a slight towards today's players, the style is formidable, and one cannot blame them for doing what they see, and what they have been trained to do. However, there is little doubt that this era is the most lacking in terms of variety, all-court play, and strategic versatility. Within the baseline realm ONLY, the players are quite complete in terms of moderate to heavy topspin baseline play. Most also have serviceable tools with which to approach the net on odd occasion. There is little variety in approach to play, either between or within players however.
Anyone who says this is indeed very ignorant regarding tennis. This statement could only constitute:
1.a joke
2.referring to the current style of play
The latter is more likely, and indeed, the players today are VERY well trained at the relatively mono-dimensional style which dominates the tour today. That is not a slight towards today's players, the style is formidable, and one cannot blame them for doing what they see, and what they have been trained to do. However, there is little doubt that this era is the most lacking in terms of variety, all-court play, and strategic versatility. Within the baseline realm ONLY, the players are quite complete in terms of moderate to heavy topspin baseline play. Most also have serviceable tools with which to approach the net on odd occasion. There is little variety in approach to play, either between or within players however.
The strings and surfaces have really ushered in the heavy heavy topspin hyper aggressive baseline play we almost exclusively see today. The game 25 years ago didn't have variety for the sake of variety it had it because different styles could be successful when gut ruled and grass and indoor carpet were very fast surfaces.
I agree with all you said. Also the fact someone talking about the completeness of todays players would even include in their statement "except at the net" as if that is some easy insignifcant throw off (to me that is the equivalent of saying except for the baseline which is basically all of most of todays guys games today) is already telling enough, and not in a positive way.
LOL. Yes, I noticed that as well! In any case, again, while I do not like this aspect of the modern game, I miss the strategic versatility, wildly varied strokes/styles, and SV vs baseliner battles, I dont' slight the individual players. The best players of today, would be fierce opponents for the best of any era, it's just that when they go to the historic time-travelling, all-time, tournament...they can save energy by only sending 1-3 players through time who can represent the entire current tour!
The idea that a peak sampras/agassi wouldn't be in the top 10 in this era is AS absurd as the idea of them making a major final now . Enough said
This. Even now Sampras or Agassi could give anyone fits in a best-of-3 match on one day, but not over 2 weeks in a best-of-5 format. Dude's too old for that.
Anyone who says this is indeed very ignorant regarding tennis. This statement could only constitute:
1.a joke
2.referring to the current style of play
The latter is more likely, and indeed, the players today are VERY well trained at the relatively mono-dimensional style which dominates the tour today. That is not a slight towards today's players, the style is formidable, and one cannot blame them for doing what they see, and what they have been trained to do. However, there is little doubt that this era is the most lacking in terms of variety, all-court play, and strategic versatility. Within the baseline realm ONLY, the players are quite complete in terms of moderate to heavy topspin baseline play. Most also have serviceable tools with which to approach the net on odd occasion. There is little variety in approach to play, either between or within players however.
Q. How do you keep doing it year after year, Grand Slam after Grand Slam? You make it look so easy, and obviously it isn't.
ROGER FEDERER:
.......
Because when I came on tour, matches were played very differently. It was more of a bluff game, guys serving well, but there was always a weakness you could go to. Today that doesn't exist anymore. I think that's also thanks to guys like Murray. They've made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances, you know, in a long time, or maybe forever.
I agree with all you said. Also the fact someone talking about the completeness of todays players would even include in their statement "except at the net" as if that is some easy insignifcant throw off (to me that is the equivalent of saying except for the baseline which is basically all of most of todays guys games today) is already telling enough, and not in a positive way.
Sorry, yes, I was being facetious--trying to illustrate the absudity of such a position..I can't tell if this is a real quote or a joke......Joko, Murray, Roddick and Cilic...all far better than Borg/Connors/Mac/Lendl/Sampras?
Maybe in some twilight zone universe, perhaps...
Really? I didn't know that.Cocker I never said anything about a final I just said I don't think they would be in the top ten in today's game. Federer would be the first to tell you that he is a better player now than he was 4 years ago.
I think fed was talking about "holes" in the baseline game.
And fed-rulz, net-play isn't that significant now, but it was earlier , hence you cannot throw it off like that while talking about completeness , when comparing these players
Whether you like it or not, expertise at the net has been obviated today thanks to the strings & slower surfaces. so yeah, it is an "insignificant throw off"...
If it had been rendered oblivious how did Henman, a guy who never reached a slam final even in his prime, have his best ever year at age 30 in 2004? Even beating prime Federer twice in late 2003 and early 2004. I dont think that game style is rendered oblivious if it done really well, guys who do it better and more explosively than Henman (and there are many of those in history). There just arent those guys around today.
If it had been rendered oblivious how did Henman, a guy who never reached a slam final even in his prime, have his best ever year at age 30 in 2004? Even beating prime Federer twice in late 2003 and early 2004. I dont think that game style is rendered oblivious if it done really well, guys who do it better and more explosively than Henman (and there are many of those in history). There just arent those guys around today.
Whoaa...there Davey...you're using common sense there again....you should know that iS NOT appreciated here! yes, there are other examples of isolated SV'ers doing well...Henman is of course a great example, given the span of his career. Real problem there...
I've discussed this many times before...even if we pretended that the surfaces had slowed down enough to be the key factor, the timing isn't right. It takes a LONG time to develop world-class SV, the alleged DRASTIC change in surfaces didn't happen at the right time. In addition, the "SLOW" grass at Wimbledon, still remains far faster than most surfaces of any era. That is another fact...the hyperbole...gee, it's slower than hardcourts now...yuck...
I was around world-class junior circles at that time, having coached a couple of players....one who played Federer and Nalbandian...I can assure you that, there WERE NOT a horde of SV'ers coming down the pipe, who then found their games selected against...LOL. That's NOT what happened. I believe it was the Agassi/Courier etc. generation that had the biggest impact on junior tennis, and one that lasted through to the current gen. The majority of juniors wanted to play this way, even though those guys hardly rendered SV inferior (Sampras..at times, Becker, Edberg, Henman, Rafter etc). But the topspin baseline bash game is very appealing, very risk free, very dominating in appearance, and can be done with much earlier success than SV. All of this added to the transition. In many ways, the 1 handed backhand suffered a similar loss in the popularity game, but NOT due to it being obsolete, though rumours and articles flew about that to. In fact, were Federer not using it now(gosh, one the fedfanboys WON'T have to scream about), we would probably be subjected to numerous "it's obsolete and could never work at the top" nonsense theories right now!
I have posted before that the proliferation of well-trained topspin baseliners and overall increase in athleticism would make it harder for an SV player today...you'd have to be a bit better to get into the top 100 today, than in past eras. But at the top? A great SV'er would do fine. In fact, frankly, I believe that had he been injury free, and stayed fit/focused, lunk-footed Taylor Dent would have made the top 20 SV'ing! Heck, even Roddick had a bit of success doing it...and...he's got the worst hands of any top 50 player I've ever seen....sorry Andy!
Whoaa...there Davey...you're using common sense there again....you should know that iS NOT appreciated here! yes, there are other examples of isolated SV'ers doing well...Henman is of course a great example, given the span of his career. Real problem there...
I've discussed this many times before...even if we pretended that the surfaces had slowed down enough to be the key factor, the timing isn't right. It takes a LONG time to develop world-class SV, the alleged DRASTIC change in surfaces didn't happen at the right time. In addition, the "SLOW" grass at Wimbledon, still remains far faster than most surfaces of any era. That is another fact...the hyperbole...gee, it's slower than hardcourts now...yuck...
I was around world-class junior circles at that time, having coached a couple of players....one who played Federer and Nalbandian...I can assure you that, there WERE NOT a horde of SV'ers coming down the pipe, who then found their games selected against...LOL. That's NOT what happened. I believe it was the Agassi/Courier etc. generation that had the biggest impact on junior tennis, and one that lasted through to the current gen. The majority of juniors wanted to play this way, even though those guys hardly rendered SV inferior (Sampras..at times, Becker, Edberg, Henman, Rafter etc). But the topspin baseline bash game is very appealing, very risk free, very dominating in appearance, and can be done with much earlier success than SV. All of this added to the transition. In many ways, the 1 handed backhand suffered a similar loss in the popularity game, but NOT due to it being obsolete, though rumours and articles flew about that to. In fact, were Federer not using it now(gosh, one the fedfanboys WON'T have to scream about), we would probably be subjected to numerous "it's obsolete and could never work at the top" nonsense theories right now!
I have posted before that the proliferation of well-trained topspin baseliners and overall increase in athleticism would make it harder for an SV player today...you'd have to be a bit better to get into the top 100 today, than in past eras. But at the top? A great SV'er would do fine. In fact, frankly, I believe that had he been injury free, and stayed fit/focused, lunk-footed Taylor Dent would have made the top 20 SV'ing! Heck, even Roddick had a bit of success doing it...and...he's got the worst hands of any top 50 player I've ever seen....sorry Andy!
I agree with your points. It's not the S&V is incapable of winning, it's just that the attacking game is not taught. It is easier to win young with the Agassi/Chang game, easier to learn, easier to execute. That is what this generation is all about immediate positive feedback. It takes a superior athlete to learn all the attacking shots (volleys, half volleys, overheards, slice approaches) than it is to learn two shots: topspin FH and BH. Think of Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, Becker as superior athletes.
Ha, if Agassi made a final in 2005 then why wouldn't he now? Peak Agassi would defeat Nadal, Del Potro, Murray and Djokovic on hard without much of a problem and it would be a toss up with Federer.
I honestly believe that Sampras could be a top3 player if he still played
Ha, if Agassi made a final in 2005 then why wouldn't he now? Peak Agassi would defeat Nadal, Del Potro, Murray and Djokovic on hard without much of a problem and it would be a toss up with Federer.
I honestly believe that Sampras could be a top3 player if he still played
Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, and Becker never had the speed of Chang or consistency of Andre from the baseline.
Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, and Becker never had the speed of Chang or consistency of Andre from the baseline.