NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Fedfan34, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nadal also wasnt really any good on any non clay surfaces until Wimbledon 2007 for grass, and sometime in 2008 for hard courts. Remember until 2008 Nadal didnt even make a hard court slam semifinal for the first time, and had an abysmal combined head to head vs Berdych/Youzhny/Gonzalez/Blake on hard courts, the same Berdych who now as a much better player gets b1tchslapped by Nadal on all surfaces. He did make the 2006 Wimbledon final but that was really a huge fluke at the time. Robert Kendrick should have beaten him in 3 straight sets but choked, and his 2 previous grass events he lost early rounds to Muller and some German outside the top 100.
     
  2. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Nadal won 2 hardcourt masters in 2005, though, Montreal and Madrid indoors, and had a big win over Federer in the 2006 Dubai final.
     
  3. Semi-Pro

    Semi-Pro Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,199
    Location:
    Toronto
    that win over Fed was kind of fluke honestly..
     
  4. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,972
    Nadal beating Fed is a fluke ..........:twisted: Thank you for making me laugh!
     
  5. Semi-Pro

    Semi-Pro Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,199
    Location:
    Toronto
    i clearly stated that specific win
     
  6. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Nope. It was a classic case of Nadal soaking up punishment and then winning the most important points in the second and third sets. Bascially, Federer punched himself out and got clobbered with a KO punch.
     
  7. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    Federer was almost beaten by Nadal in 2007, and was beaten in 2008 during a down year. To be honest, he was also almost beaten by his perrenial punching bag Roddick in 2009 (despite how well Roddick was playing, seriously, Federer should pretty much win every time against Roddick just because the match-up is that bad).


    Also, Federer has never faced a quality field of grass players like Sampras did. Facing the likes of Goran, Rafter, and Richard K already puts Sampras' competition way ahead of anything that Federer faced. There were only two real threats during Federer's best years at Wimbledon, and those two were Roddick and Nadal, and Nadal didn't become a threat until the tail end of Federer's best years. Sampras had the likes of Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Richard K, among various other dangerous floaters/specialists in the draw like Henman.
     
  8. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    He had barely recovered from hip surgery. 2 years later he beat Federer at the FO, in straight sets, rather routinely, still not 100% in terms of mobility.
     
  10. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    True. Sad that he had to retire prematurely because of injuries.
     
  11. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,661
    Depends on the Court surface

    I think that on a fast surface peak Sampras would have advantage. His game was highly explosive. The slower the surface the more things move to Federer.

    So really that is it - one cannot say one is better than the other - it depends on the surface.
     
  12. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Let's be real here; the reason these guys are considered specialists were because they had results to show it; Federer played several guys who could hold their own, including Roddick, Hewitt, and Nadal.

    While this generation may not have the net attackers of the past, does that automatically mean that somehow these three are lesser players? It shouldn't, and it's a foolish assumption to make.

    For instance, you take Federer out of the equation, and Roddick could have won as many as 4 Wimbledon titles himself, which would put him among the best Wimbledon titlists in history. Hewitt also came close to more than one, again running into Federer. Same with Rafa; he could be sitting here with 4 instead of 2.

    While I'm in no way suggesting that one generation is better than another, I am suggesting that PERHAPS the reason the current one looks somehow less worthy of being called grasscourt greats is because Federer was in their way; I mean think about it, Ivanisevic lost how many times to Sampras at Wimbledon? He only finally won it when Sampras was not in his way, and even then it took him a 5th set to do it; What is the difference, truly, between he and Roddick, except that Roddick hasn't ever really gotten that same break from Fed? Roddick may have had his ups and downs, but 3 Wimbledon finals is quite a display of knowing what to do on a grasscourt.

    I don't feel this generation should be discounted because a bunch of Nostalgic posters (not naming names, just stating a general opinion) can't fathom that Serve and Volley could be anything other than superior to baseline play.

    I for one, recognize that it's foolish to ASSUME that guys like Hewitt, Roddick, or Nadal aren't in the same leagues as an Ivanisevic, Agassi, Rafter, etc.

    There's no way to prove or truly justify one generation as being superior to another.

    So let's stop with the acting as if this is the case; it's not.

    I mean, hasn't Federer beaten every one of those 'grass specialists' you mentioned early in his career? Who's to say they'd trounce him on a surface where holding serve and attacking is the name of the game? I mean Fed has one of the best career hold percentages out there, and he didn't win 16 majors by camping 20 feet behind the baseline, but by stepping up, taking it early, and hitting winners. Come on..
     
  13. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    That isnt exactly a positive though. Someone like Roddick should NEVER have 4 Wimbledons. 1 or 2 maybe. A guy like Ivanisevic, who was a very similar kind of player to Roddick, even the blind can see was a better grass player than Roddick, and even he didnt win 1 Wimbledon until he was almost retired. I assume you have seen 90s Ivanisevic play on grass, do you really think Roddick is better (I am just talking grass, not other surfaces). I wont even get into the very idea of Roddick ever having more Wimbledons than Boris Becker, and just how wrong that would be.

    3 potential Wimbledons for Hewitt and 4 potential Wimbledons for 25 year old Nadal also seem very high.
     
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Ivanisevic did beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 1992, by the way, without facing a single break point in the whole match, and I think Goran hit 36 aces in the 4 sets played. Sampras beat Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 1994, 1995 and 1998. Ivanisevic reminds me more of a 1990s Tanner than a 1990s Roddick. Tanner was capable of beating players like Connors and Borg in majors, just like Goran could beat Sampras in a major. What's the biggest scalp for Roddick in a major? Beating Murray at 2009 Wimbledon or Ferrero at the 2003 US Open?
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  15. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Roddick though was a more consistent player and more of a fighter than Ivanisevic. Still Ivanisevic skiill and game wise > Roddick on grass. Comparing Ivanisevic to Roddick is kind of funny as when you discuss who is better overall Ivanisevic was really better on 3 of the 4 surfaces (clay, indoor/carpet, grass) but Roddick was a contender at 3 of the 4 slams (all but the French) vs Ivanisevic at only 1 (Wimbledon). So overall it is hard to say who is better.

    However just talking Wimbledon and grass it is all Ivanisevic. Is there even one thing Roddick does better than Ivanisevic on grass, maybe hitting the forehand when he really zones. He definitely doesnt serve, return, move, volley, transition, slice, or hit backhands, any better or as well as Ivanisevic on grass. The very thought of Roddick having 4 Wimbledons to 1 for Ivanisevic is laughably wrong.
     
  16. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    no arguments regarding the bolded sentence; however, why must the mental strength component be evaluated only against the main rival, and not the field in itself? IMO, Federer gets dinged a lot because of his "weakness" against Nadal, and Sampras always seems to get a free pass for his performances against Agassi, overlooking other deficiencies.
     
  17. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    But it also goes to show when the pieces are put together, Roddick has been in more major finals, top 10 for what, 10 years? and won more titles. My point is that he's being discounted by people when he shouldn't be. Just because you find his game ugly doesn't mean he's not an effective player, when its obvious he is.
     
  18. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Very good post. But most of the people here with limited intelligence will not comprehend it unfortunately.
     
  19. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623

    Cup, I agree wholeheartedly :)
     
  20. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    NA has no real clue about tennis. He pulls statements out of the air like Ivansevic is magically more skilled on grass than Roddick just because his idiot eye says so, and somehow it becomes a fact for him. The people on this forum are really just inane sometimes. No logic exists in their brains.
     
  21. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Let's be fair, though. That was before Sampras even won Wimbledon, when by his own admission he was still trying to find his best game on grass. Not a discount of a win, just pointing that out.
     
  22. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    282
    lol so I assume then with Guga's win over Roger, you'll also want to "point out" that 2004 was before Fed made a French Open final, and was still trying to find his best game on clay, right?
     
  23. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Yes.. I would agree to that.
     
  24. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    282
    Excellent, we toast to you Cup
     
  25. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Sampras had destroyed defending champion, Stich, in less than 90 minutes in the quarter finals, and Stich is a player that Sampras has a losing head-to-head against. 1992 was the first year that Sampras was a serious threat at Wimbledon, and it was also the first year when he had Tim Gullikson as his coach.
     
  26. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    I do agree with this. I prefer Ivanisevic over A-Rod, particularly on grass.
     
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,384
    Any player in previous generations are better than the current one. That's how it works for NadalAgassi. If 7 Wimbledon is > 6 Wimbledons but 16 slams < 14, what's there for him to use logic. All he needs to do is to know any players playing in this current era are << previous era. A simple method without using any logic.
     
  28. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    LOL now he's obsessed with trying to prove that you and I are the same poster to take attention away from his alias Davey25 :) LOL, what a desperate clown.
     
  29. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Yes but my point was that he went down in 4 sets after winning the first; I've seen the match and while I can't say that I know the context of it, him losing in 4 after winning the first looked, to my eye, like he wasn't willing to dig deep to win it. The point i was trying to make before was that Sampras beat Ivanisevic the majority of the time in their wimbledon encounters, and so Ivanisevic was Sampras' Roddick, in that sense. except he won an early meeting there between the two.
     
  30. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I dont doubt his game is effective, but Ivanisevic's on grass (again we are talking about grass only, not the overall year) was more effective. His serving, returning, all court game, ball striking, movement were all more effective on grass. As another poster pointed out Ivanisevic has beaten the likes of Sampras, Becker (destroyed Becker in the 94 semis), Edberg, Rafter (beaten him numerous times and not lost to him), and others at Wimbledon. What is Roddick's biggest ever win at Wimbledon. Andy Murray?

    My comments comparing the two on grass gave nothing to do with an aesthetic game. Ivanisevic also didnt have an aesthetic game, and his serve was so efficient he could be boring to watch. Which alone shows his serve on grass was more effective and efficient than Roddick's as Roddick's serve was much more returnable, especialy by the good returners. In addition to Ivanisevic having a much more complete game to back up his serve on the surface than Roddick.

    On hard courts Roddick's consistency and ability to grind points makes him better than Ivanisevic. Grass is about the first strike, being adaptable, and being athletic, and Ivanisevic is ahead in all of those.

    I would bet if John McEnroe, Boris Becker, or Pete Sampras were asked to choose between Ivanisevic or Roddick on grass they would probably laugh.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2012
  31. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Federer was ranked #1 and that loss to Kuerten was his only loss in the 4 major tournaments that year. He wasn't an all time great clay courter, and he still isn't.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  32. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    But that's making the assumption that Roddick WOULDN'T have been able to beat those players, and we can't say that for sure. I mean, Roddick is one of the best, PERIOD, at holding serve. Against some of the best returners he still does it the vast majority of the time, and I dont think you'd put Becker, Sampras, or Edberg in the same returning ability as say Djokovic, who Roddick has a winning H2h against. If roddick can force tiebreaks, his big serve would be of tremendous aide in such a situation, and especially early on Roddick could bully ANYONE from the backcourt, even Fed (Fed won the 2004 final by coming forward because Roddick was beating him from the baseline).

    Now, I want to clarify once more: I'm not saying Roddick is or isn't Ivanisevic's equal on grass. I'm simply saying that taking wins against players from one generation can't be used to gauge one's likely outcome against a player from another generation. I mean think about it: Borg dominated the clay field during his prime, but would you really take his results from said period to mean he'd be able to match Rafa on clay today? I already know that you think Nadal is the GOAT on clay, which is why I brought it up. Beating guys from one generation doesn't mean that you can beat guys from a different generation. Do you think a guy like Bill Tilden would beat Borg? Just making my point here.
     
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,384
    I know. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. But we all know he's Davey25 with 20+ different accounts. Our friend(Polaris) have kept track of all the names Davey25 have been posting on this board. I can ask Polaris to list all the banned usernames again but there's no point.
     
  34. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,384
  35. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Nice, another fact by Mr. winduphisass :) Where does a lamebrain come up with this crap? Seriously. Just no sensibility whatsoever.
     
  36. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    He had the opportunity numerous times to go onto play and beat not only Federer, but Nadal or Djokovic on grass. Anytime he was in the same draw, especialy when he was in the half with either and Federer wasnt, that was an opportunity. That he didnt get far enough at Wimbledon to even possibly play any of those people on any occasion since 2005 (bar 2009) that is his problem. Since 2005 he has in fact lost before the semis 5 times out of 6, before the quarters 4 times out of 6, and before the round of 16 3 times out of 6 which also doesnt bode well for the argument he was an Ivanisevic caliber grass courter. He was basically a top grass courter for around 2 years, then had one great Wimbledon many years later, and that is it, even in an era of extremely little grass court depth. Granted Ivanisevic had some bad losses at Wimbledon too, especialy past his absolute prime years, but he was making Wimbledon finals over a decade long stretch, I doubt Roddick will come close to that. Roddick did get to play Nadal once on grass, very fast grass at Queens to boot, and still lost in straight sets. Of course the opportunities to play great grass courters today are limited since there are almost none who exist, which you seem to be conceding with this sentence, which is pretty much the whole jist of the discussion anyway.

    Also compare Ivanisevic's matches with Sampras at Wimbledon to Roddick's vs Federer. Ivanisevic has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon and taken him to 5 sets twice. Only once in four tries did he not take atleast 2 sets. You already conceded that Sampras is probably the best grass courter, including Federer, yet Roddick has come nowhere near that overall in his 4 matches with Federer on grass.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2012
  37. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    I'm not conceding that there are not great grasscourters, just that the grass game itself has changed. As I said before, era's cant be truly compared, just speculated on.

    And you have to look at some of those results in context as well; Ivanisevic wasn't being stopped by just Sampras at Wimbledon either, he lost to others during that period. He played against Sampras in 94, 95, and 98; what about 96 and 97, or 99 and 2000?

    It's a similar scenario to Roddick, in fact, except Roddick hasn't to date had that dream Ivanisevic run to the title (might have been 2009, but we all know what ended up happening there).

    My whole contention was that I don't believe either to be the better player, but rather that both have a similar pedigree in their respective generations, and that the grass game itself is no longer about rushing the net, but about who is best at selective offense. The guys who win the Wimbledon title are the best at this: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. They all can defend well, and are effective attackers when the moment is right. That's not to say Djokovic is a grass specialist in any way, but Fed and Nadal sure as hell are, and I'd wager Roddick is as well; maybe even Murray, who despite the trash talk he receives on a daily basis is a great player on grass, when he's got the right mindset.

    Bah, quit editing your posts lol. Addressing the sets Ivanisevic took vs. Roddick: I think that relates to the matchup; Roddick's game is a perfect fit to occasionally receive beatdowns from Fed, since he can return the serve so easily. However, Sampras and Goran were similar in that they relied on the serve to let them come forward and attack, and so of course they had close matches. Much like the way Nadal and Djokovic always are close, they are similar styled players of similar ability on certain surfaces (IE Djokovic can cream Nadal on Hard, but if it's slower the match is closer)
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  38. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    In addition to his 4 Wimbledon finals some of Ivanisevic's other losses at Wimbledon were to Becker in the 1990 semis, Todd Martin (a solid top 10 player and perennial Wimbledon and U.S Open contender of the time) in 1993 and 1999, and Hewitt in his final Wimbledon in 2003. So his only bad losses at Wimbledon any year from 1990-2003 were 1991, 1996 1997, and 2000. By contrast Roddick has had bad losses at Wimbledon in 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, and counting, that is if exclude his loss to Wild Card Ivanisevic at Wimbledon 2001 (which I will since Roddick was a kid and Ivanisevic did go on to win Wimbledon that year). You are entitled your opinion but no matter how one breaks it down I think Ivanisevic is easily a better grass courter than Roddick, and pretty much all experts would rate him as the better grass courter too. Now considering all surfaces Roddick might be the better player, he is certainly the stronger and more consistent hard court player, I will concede that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2012
  39. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    1988: Round of 128 loss to Amos Mansdorf
    1989: Round of 64 loss to Ken Flach
    1990: Semi Final loss to Boris Becker
    1991: Round of 64 loss to Nick Brown (a huge upset, the world number 591 beat the world number 10)
    1992: Runner-up to Andre Agassi
    1993: Round of 32 loss to Todd Martin
    1994: Runner-up to Pete Sampras
    1995: Semi Final loss to Pete Sampras
    1996: Quarter Final loss to Jason Stoltenberg
    1997: Round of 64 loss to Magnus Norman
    1998: Runner-up to Pete Sampras
    1999: Round of 16 loss to Todd Martin
    2000: Round of 128 loss to Arnaud Clement
    2001: CHAMPION
    2002: DID NOT PLAY
    2003: DID NOT PLAY
    2004: Round of 32 loss to Lleyton Hewitt
     
  40. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
  41. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Ah, I'm so glad you're around, that 91 loss is crazy!

    I wanted to bring just one final thing up: Roddick and Ivanisevic actually played one time on grass at Wimbledon, the year Ivanisevic won the title. He won it in 4 sets, with Roddick losing two close first sets and then taking the third 6-3 before bowing out meekly.

    I don't want to draw any major conclusions from one match, but the fact that Roddick took a set at that age (eighteen) against the eventual champion, who was 29, has to show he's not a terrible grass player, doesn't it? I mean sure, I'll give that in terms of accomplishments on the surface Ivanisevic is undoubtedly ahead of Roddick, but when baby Roddick takes a set on old grass off of the seasoned Ivanisevic, doesn't that mean they'd have competitive matches on the surface? Speculation of course, but I wouldn't be that surprised if prime Roddick (2004-2005, and 2009) on grass could hang with Ivanisevic, even on old grass, just by virtue of his ability to hold serve.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2012
  42. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    How did this turn into a Ivanisevic-Roddick thread?
     
  43. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    282
    because Samp tards have to discredit Fed by saying his competition was weak. So they look at his main grass competition as Rod-Dick, and claim he's weak. Fed fans return the favor by pointing out that one shot wonder Ivanisevic was Sampras's main grass competition, and almost beat Samps on one occassion on that surface, and so then the back and forth goes from there.
     
  44. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    Well what do you expect, one camp discredits the other. A never ending song.
    Neither Fed nor Sampras are responsible for whom they have to face or not face at Wimbledon.
    While Fed is the GOAT, imo Sampras is the better grass court player.

    As for Ivanisevic and Roddick on grass. Ivanisevic would spit him out like chewing tobacco.
     
  45. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I wasnt going to draw anything from that match since I dont conclude things from one competitive match betweeen two out of prime players typically (just like Federer-Sampras Wimbledon 2001 which the Federer fanatics use as some supposed proof Federer is better, LOL). However since you address it, Roddick was much higher ranked, had been having a very good year, and was the heavy favorite to win that match vs 100 something ranked/why hasnt he retired already Ivanisevic. Ivanisevic was a wild card, he was barely winning any matches on tour, and despite that he won Wimbledon in a huge upset even that Wimbledon he was serving and hitting the ball nothing like he did 5-9 years earlier (which also reflects on the grass field in the post Becker/Sampras/Ivanisevic years that he could ever win that Wimbledon). So for Ivanisevic to win says much more about him than it does about Roddick.

    Anyway this has gotten way off from the original point. The original point was someone like Roddick should never win 4 Wimbledons, that is a crazy number for someone like him, and even his most ardent fans on this forum would probably concede as much. If he had won that many Wimbledons he would be by FAR the worst grass player to win that many. Especialy when he never had a forehand again after 2004 (other than blips of time) which in his youth was his second great weapon, post 2004 his serve was his only great weapon cobbled together with fight, decent grinding from the baseline, and consistency. So the fact that he might have won 4 Wimbledons without Federer is not a positive endorsement on the current grass era. Nor is the possible hypothetical of Nadal having 4 or 5 Wimbledons at only 25 (and I say that as a Nadal fan).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2012
  46. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,273
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    The reasonable Federer fans never point at that win as a decisive proof, that Federer is better than Sampras. Some of them, however, use it, to stop Samprastards, from claiming, that Pete was better grasscourt player, although, for a lack of better measure, the numer of Wimbledon titles gives the edge to Sampras. However, typical of you, you choose to make interpretations, that are harmful to Federer fans.

    About the second bolded part. It amazes me, how much people like you like to understate the quality, that Nadal represents. Moreover, since you claim, that the current field of grasscourt specialists is pathetic, since Federer has declined, it is only natural, that the second most skillful player (considering the current surfaces)will start raking up Majors (including Wimbledon). And while I do not see, how you get the 5 Wimbledons by the end of Nadal's 25 year, it is not extraordinary, that someone with his experience and gamestyle could get to such numbers.

    Also, you are using such a hypothetical to prove your claim, that the grass specialists field is weak. Of course it is, since those conditions do not create grasscourt specialists, as we know them. Moreover, the current conditions help CC specialists like Nadal thrive on the surface. Actually, the fact, that so many clay courters are making deep runs at SW19 is rather telling, about the reasons, what exactly made the grasscourt specialists extinct. It would have been the same with Sampras, should he have played in the current era.

    What you fail to understand, is, when there are no grasscourt specialists still you have to be the best on the surface, to win it. You are competing against the players, that have developed their skills on grass in similar conditions, that is why it is a moot point to compare the grasscourters from the past and the present. They developed different skillsets. Saying that Federer's (or Nadal's wins at SW19, for that matter) are less valuable, because they do not compare to the skills of the past great grasscourt players, is simply stupid. Put kid Edberg in today's conditions, and see what kind of skills he develops.
     
  47. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    This is perhaps one of the best posts I have seen on this topic. Players and their skill-sets are a product of the environment they exist in. If the overall talent pool doesn't change (and there is no logical reason to believe that it has unless someone has data showing that less kids are playing tennis today), then in no objective way can competition have declined. Surface homogenization means you have a pool of players who are competent on ALL surfaces which actually means that while you have 4 chances to win a slam in a year, winning on any surface is harder than it used to be.
     
  48. BrooklynNY

    BrooklynNY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,627
    Right, but the effect of that is a rank and file system.

    The best players of this homogenized surface and style of play rise to the top, simply because they are better versions of the next player, with a few notable exceptions(Fed, Nadal, etc)

    Which is why the top 4 have virtually been locked in that position, and 7-25 have been the same cast of characters, just swapping positions based on the results.

    You have a tour where there are virtually no big upsets. Where rankings are basically static unless there is some wild rising talent shooting up the rankings, like a Milos Raonic.

    What truly seperates Gilles Simon, David Ferrer, and Novak Djokovic?
    Mental game? They all have extremely similar games, its just that, one guy hits a bit harder, is a bit faster, etc.... Matchups become less of a factor, especially if you catch a top guy on his worst surface, it ends up being natural selection of people who all do the same thing.

    One could view this as more difficult, or one could view this situation as once the dust is cleared and settled, the strong have their pickings.
     
  49. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,132
    Location:
    New York
    Well, Sampras is still better in Wimbledon. At USO, they're pretty similar. Everywhere else, Fed is better (by a landslide on clay).
     
  50. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,184
    Location:
    Antarctica
    You 24-carat phony.

    I have no Pete or Fed dog in this fight - that's not what this is about. Here's what this is all about: to begin with, refer to the "red" portion of what YOU posted above.

    You phony, you 'politely' attempted to come across as unprovocative with your mildly worded "NOT a GOAT thread" title, yet from there you immediately launched into a snarky and insulting tirade, insulting Sampras ("Sampr-ass"), insulting people who like and/or admire Pete Sampras and by extention, Sampras' "creampuff" opponents like some petulant, ball-less fanboy brat. In reading your other insulting fanboy whiny posts, I thought you were simply a whiny jerk. I was wrong. You are an assh0le.
     

Share This Page