Originally Posted by zagor
Actually 68-9 is a decline compared to 92-5,81-4 and 74-6,that's some basic math.
However if we go by your logic of counting only slam finals(that seems to be your main argument)consider the fact that Pete reached 2 slam finals in 2000 which is more than he did in 1996,1998 and 1999 and equal to what he did in 1993,1994 and 1997.
In fact the only time Sampras reached more than 2 slam finals in his entire career was in 1995.
So was Sampras in decline in 2000? Yes or no?
In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.
To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.
When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.
Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????
****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.
In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.
Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT