Fed's Decline or Competition's Rise?
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
How did Federer lose to Sampras on their exhibition series in 2010?
Laver lost at MSG to Gonzales in a round robin match in the WTT Series, at a time when Gonzales was 43 and Laver was 32 and already suffering from back arthritis.
Laver and Gonzales met again in the semi-final, and Laver won in straight sets.
It is important to put things into context.
There were many "powerful" players in the fifties and sixties.
In 1995, Gonzales rated Hoad as the most powerful hitter of all time.
Hoad rated Gonzales as the hardest hitter he ever saw.
Budge and Vines were powerful hitters.
All four of these players had great finesse as well.
Kramer picked these five names as the greatest ever in 2006.
(Kramer did not include Borg, Sampras, Becker, etc.).
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Jimmy Connors was 39 when he reached the USO SF in 1991. 39 is not far enough of 40 to consider that a more gifted athlete or an athlete with a more forgiving style could last longer.
What these guys managed was not due to the lack of physicality at the USO in 1975 or 1991, it was due to them being abnormal.
forzamilan90
Legend
It's the cow milk...that's the secret ingredient behind it. That and his father's mustache.
Last edited:
1477aces, Rather strange post of your's.
I did not say that Gonzalez was infinitely better than Sampras.
Muster had been retired for ten years.
Ferrer, by far not a Rosewall, is a good example that even now a small player can succeed. He is ahead of GOAT Federer.
Haas is not a giant like Gonzalez.
1477aces, You keep to send strange posts.
You are clueless about pre-open era (I agree) but are writing about it?!?
The old pros had best of 5 and best of 3, just as the players nowadays have.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Federer lost an exhibition. not a match that counted for anything. And if gonzales made the world tour finals, doesn't that mean he was a top 8 player? Connors wasn't close to top 10 even by the time of his 91 USO run. And when eh got to play world no 1 courier, he was streamrolled. Whereas, back then, you had world no 1's lose to 43 year olds. And 43 year olds could remain in the top 8? I'm not diminishing that era, just saying the lack of physicality enabled players to play (if they worked hard enough) long past their prime.
that's cause federer isn't trying anymore (believes he has accomplished all there is to accomplish, one day he will regret is as someone else passes him). So, Ferrer has all the weapons and fitness that novak and murray have. The only reason he hasn't won slams is because he's short. And he's still taller than rosewall. Rosewall probably had less power than Serena does. How much touch he has is really irrelevant. That's why we shouldn't compare such vastly different eras. There was the pre-open era post world war II era (till 74), and then the open era (minus 6 years). Rosewall or gonzales is the goat of that era, and federer is the goat of the open era.
1477aces, You are so inconsequent: You write we should not compare different eras but yet you say the old era was weaker. That's not a comparison???
Ferrer does not have the weapons of Djokovic and Murray and Rosewall.
Do you really believe Rosewall would lose to S. Williams? Lol.
Ferrer does technically match the weapons of djokovic and murray (though rosewall likely had better technique. He just lacks the size. I didn't say the old era is weaker, I said it is less physical (largely due to the more forgiving style of play possible back then). Big difference. No, but Serena could probably get games off of his as she doesn't face a severe power disadvantage.
The Sampras/Federer matches were no more or less exhibitions than the WTT events.
And remember, when the chips were down in the 1969-72 era, Gonzales got whipped by Laver and co.
If i am not mistaken Gonzalez beat Laver in a $ 10000 winner-takes-all type of match. That is far from being an exo where nothing is at stake. $10000 is a lot of cash in the early 70`s, i seriously doubt that Rod did not try his best.
On topic, IMO the top 4 is nowadays stronger than 6 or 7 years ago. The consistency showed by Djokovic and Murray is far ahead from whoever Fed faced during his heyday. With that being said, i do believe that the top 10 overall was better during Fed`s prime. Players like Berdych, Del Potro, Tsonga, Ferrer, Tipsarevic etc, do not seem any better than old Agassi, Nalbandian, Coria, Davydenko, Henman, Gonzalez, Ljubicic, etc.
I have no doubt in my mind that if Fed was born in 86-87 like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, he would remain as the number 1 player of his generation, because he would dominate the second half of the season, perhaps not at the same extent he did in his prime, and he would also be very competitive in the first half.
It is a combination of both, but the main factor is his physical decline.
Yes they were exhibitions. Let's not remember who won in their only tour match. If sampras at the age of 29 couldn't beat 19 year roger federer I highly doubt he'd beat prime federer at the age of 40.
You have proven my point.
When it really counted, at Wimbledon, the younger player prevailed in 2001.
The 1970 WTT match was a preliminary affair, really no more important than the Sampras/Federer exhibition tour, one match of which Sampras won.
Didn't gonzales beat laver in a 10000 dollar match (a pretty high total at that time) at the age of 41 or 42. I'm not degrading this era, just saying it was less physical enabling players to stay on tour a lot longer.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Oddly Laver declined at a similar sort of age to players nowadays. Gonzales and Rosewall may have been aided by the faster conditions and less grind, but they were also God's of longevity. Especially Rosewall.
Sampras beat Federer for a lot more than $10,000 in about 2008 or 2009.
The 1970 WTT match you are referring to was just a preliminary match in a round-robin series, and in the semifinal, with big money on the line, Laver beat Gonzales in three straight sets.
are you sure? I doubt federer would have lost if there was lots of money on the line. but don't you have to qualify out of the round-robin series? So it still matters. And also, was gonzales still in the top 8 in the world at the age of 42?
Dan, In 1970 there was no WTT. Guess you mean WCT. It was an important match of the tennis champions classic.
Last edited:
Excuse me, the TCC.
It was no more important than any other preliminary round match, and less important than the final playoffs, where Laver clobbered Gonzales in three straight sets.
forzamilan90
Legend
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
It's in his schnozz.
Recently, Hewitt beat some young guys at Wimbledon.
Where is the great young talent you are making noise about?
Just the same old guys hanging around the finals.
Hewitt won exactly one match. And he's 32 not 42 yet he's not even a top 100 player.
Give us a break.
Hewitt has been a marginal player for years.
Yet, he beat the WORLD NUMBER 10, Wawrinka, at Wimbledon.
Where is this great young talent we hear so much about?
Again, it's the same old guys hanging around the major finals.
Similar threads
