Originally Posted by ark_28
I am aware that lately there have been a few threads on how Pete would have got on today, interestingly my coach said last week he is of no doubt that Pete being a special talent would have done fine today because he would have adapted his game.
He made a very good point which was that he could pretty much beat anyone from the baseline apart from Andre but he played a game suited to the fast courts of the 90's which he would not do today!
People say that with the courts today being slower Pete would have found it tough, purely basing this on his performances on Clay, but I do not think this is accurate because Pete's biggest issue on clay was not the slowness of the surface but how he struggled to move and slide properly on the surface!
I found this clip of a couple of points Pete played V Andre to me they show in a nutshell exactly why Pete would have no problem today and IMHO at his peak would be there ot there abouts!
Have a watch and would love to hear yours thoughts
One needs to be careful--when watching highlights--not to leap to unrealistic conclusions. Watching these highlights, one could make oneself believe that Sampras should have won the French Open from the baseline.
And we all know that he never did. (Everyone looks awesome in highlights.) JMHO
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt.
Last edited by hoodjem : 02-20-2013 at 09:08 AM.