Federer is taking advantage of the situation because...

laurie · Nov 27, 2004

I feel that the competition this year is not what it should be at top ten level in men's tennis. Most of the players have been on and off form and suffering injuries to really challenge Federer. The main point for me is that everyone plays the same way, which is why Federer stands out so much.

Of course, he is an incredible talent. But for me this has been the worst crop of top ten players I have seen with hardly any variety and no real netrushers or similar all court players to challenge Federer. Nor are there any players who really use the serve as a skill like a specialist fast bowler in cricket.

I think the Masters event was a case in point. Coria, Gaudio, Henman, Moya are not good enough at that level consistently. They have too many 'off' days for me.

The level Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Wilander etc around 1990 was much higher.

Sure players now may be more physical, but that has been sacrificed for an extreme lack of technical and tactical nous. By the way, tennis around 1990 was extremely physical with lots of 4 hour close matches in slams as these guys were well matched.

These are my opinions. Whats yours?

Rabbit · Nov 27, 2004

laurie said:
But for me this has been the worst crop of top ten players I have seen with hardly any variety and no real netrushers or similar all court players to challenge Federer.

I couldn't have said it better. I've said it before, the academy game may be the best way to win at tennis, but it's not the best tennis to watch. Fans are getting bored with cookie cutter players sitting on the baseline ripping balls back and forth forehand to forehand trying to get at their opponents backhand or open up the court.

laurie said:
The level Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Wilander etc around 1990 was much higher.

Again, I agree. You look at that group and every one is a Hall of Famer. There may not have been as much talent in the first round, but the later rounds were much more enjoyable to watch. Again, I think they were more enjoyable to watch because the game was more diverse then. It's better to watch a serve/volley player against a basliner than two baseliners. I think when Borg played Vilas in the French Open finals, the suicide rate went up 20%.

laurie said:
Nor are there any players who really use the serve as a skill like a specialist fast bowler in cricket.

Yeah, exactly!

Shaolin · Nov 27, 2004

IMO Fed's abilities are not diminished by lack of big servers and serve and volleyers. Fed owns Henman now, and is not troubled by big servers like Roddick. He would find a way to beat anyone. I do believe that only a player like a Krajicek, Ivanisevic or Sampras at their prime, playing perfectly, could beat him right now. Also, there are way more big hitters now to deal with, everyone hits huge, unlike 15 years ago when some did, some didnt.

Kobble · Nov 27, 2004

The lack of variety in the players these days is what the problem is. Back in the 90's you had all sorts of combinations. Some had great volleys and movement like Edberg and Rafter. Some had great serves and decent volleys like Ivanisevic and Rusedski. Then you had the the people like Krajicek who had nearly perfected the serve and volley combination. Also, allcourters like Larsson and Sampras were tough in any draw. Not to forget the variety in the baseliners as well. Loopy, flat, junkballers, speedy, they had it all. Today it is basically the same forehand and backhands with variations in footspeed and serve power. I also can't stand the bigger return excuse for people not coming to net. What about chipping and charging, because it is not like second serves are too tough to handle. The only reason is incompetent volleys and/or movement. IMO, Federer has a limited variety of challengers to beat, and none can consistently take his strengths out of play. I now believe that the best way to beat Federer is to grind him down on red clay, and take the rhythym right out of the match on faster surfaces. Strip him of his transition game and force him to hit a winner or lose the point right from the start. Basically, make him hate to play you regardless of the outcome.

laurie · Nov 27, 2004

I like what you say Kobble. For me, the second serve right now is the saddest shot in men's tennis today.

Especially on the advantage court. None of these players have the skill to hit a slice second serve down the centre on the advantage court to change the game. Every second serve is a kick serve to the backhand. Every player I can think of has no clue how to mix up the second serve. That suggests to me they just don't practice different strategies and patterns in training so they don't have the confidence to try it in live situations.

That makes for incredibly predictable stuff and if you are receiving at the other end on a break point, you know you have a great chance to break. You're opponent cannot surprise you.

bdawg · Nov 27, 2004

I agree with a lot of you but I would like to remind you that in Sampras' day the crop wasn't that good either.

Lambsscroll · Nov 27, 2004

bdawg said:
I agree with a lot of you but I would like to remind you that in Sampras' day the crop wasn't that good either.

Hmm, Edbeg, Becker, Guga, Courier, Chang, Agassie, Rafter, Henman, Kafelnikov, Moya, Michael Stich, Cedric Pioline, Sergi Bruguera

pound cat · Nov 27, 2004

The player I watched Federer hate playing was Santoro. If Santoro had a more powerful game he would have beat him. There was absolutely no predictabily about what the next shot would be, and Federer was extremely frustrated & losing his composure.

Jayzzz · Nov 27, 2004

Didn't Bahgdatiz win a set again Roger at the U.S. Open? The TGI Friday's guy!

perfmode · Nov 27, 2004

pound cat said:
The player I watched Federer hate playing was Santoro. If Santoro had a more powerful game he would have beat him. There was absolutely no predictabily about what the next shot would be, and Federer was extremely frustrated & losing his composure.

No. Santoro frustrates people because he is a professional pusher. If he could hit shots with power, he wouldn't be a pusher and therefore wouldn't bother anyone. He hits junkballs and that's why he's effective.
He's the ATP version of your local pusher. Just as annoying and ten times better at being a wall.

Golden Retriever · Nov 27, 2004

Again you are missing the point pervmode. If Santoro could hit with more power he could still be a pusher only a better one. He could mix up his slice and dice game with an occasional powerful topspin shot which could only make him a more effective pusher. Also, even a pusher could use a powerful serve. Your post just proves that your knowledge of the game is very shallow and your eagerness to prove otherwise only makes you look stupid.

ZhuangCorp · Nov 27, 2004

That's kinda pointless to say though, because If Roddick could hit volleys and had finesse, he could beat Federer, so what? he doens't.

If Federer's backhand was as good as his forehand, he would be invincible, but it isn't.

In the few occasions where a talent arises, thats' when we get a Roger Federer.

perfmode · Nov 27, 2004

Golden Retriever said:
Again you are missing the point pervmode. If Santoro could hit with more power he could still be a pusher only a better one. He could mix up his slice and dice game with an occasional powerful topspin shot which could only make him a more effective pusher. Also, even a pusher could use a powerful serve. Your post just proves that your knowledge of the game is very shallow and your eagerness to prove otherwise only makes you look stupid.

Listen idiot. The same could be said for every ****ing player on the atp. Get over it. If Santoro had power and a regular game, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to perfect his slice n dice game. A player can't have it both ways. It just isn't in Santoro's nature.

You can't just tell Hewitt to just learn to hit 30 winners in a set. As much as it would be "cool", it's just not a reality.

If Roddick was better at the net, he'd be better.
If Hewitt hit more winners, he'd beat Fed.

If X was Y, he'd be Z.

Go up to the local pusher in your area and tell him to get a big serve or a powerful forehand. Pushers just don't have those. If they had weapons, they wouldn't be pushers.

Go fetch a bone.

VamosRafa · Nov 27, 2004

Don't you all think there was a reason that Roddick was out-volleying Henman in Houston last week? He's trying to develop an all-court game. Goodness knows, he has the forehand and serve to back it up. What was surprising during that match was his backhand and volleys. And who better to try it out on than his nemesis Henman? He's working his way up the ranks.

It's going to take time for him to get it all together, but he's trying. He knows he has to, and that's what separates him from a Gonzalez or a Philippoussis, who really is all about power.

Will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or two. Roddick will never be Rafter at the net, but Federer also will never serve like Roddick. Will be interesting to see where these guys meet when they are at their peak -- and they aren't there yet -- far from it.

I think it's exciting -- especially since they are both developing a game style that isn't all about pounding it out from the baseline.

What do you all think? Will it change the whole ATP tour?

perfmode · Nov 27, 2004

VamosRafa said:
Don't you all think there was a reason that Roddick was out-volleying Henman in Houston last week? He's trying to develop an all-court game. Goodness knows, he has the forehand and serve to back it up. What was surprising during that match was his backhand and volleys. And who better to try it out on than his nemesis Henman? He's working his way up the ranks.

It's going to take time for him to get it all together, but he's trying. He knows he has to, and that's what separates him from a Gonzalez or a Philippoussis, who really is all about power.

Will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or two. Roddick will never be Rafter at the net, but Federer also will never serve like Roddick. Will be interesting to see where these guys meet when they are at their peak -- and they aren't there yet -- far from it.

I think it's exciting -- especially since they are both developing a game style that isn't all about pounding it out from the baseline.

What do you all think? Will it change the whole ATP tour?

Why should Fed serve like Roddick when he gets broken less than Roddick?

VamosRafa · Nov 27, 2004

Good question.

I'm no Brad Gilbert, and neither are you, but I think we can spot a plot. :lol:

Andy and Roger won exactly 74 matches this year, but Roger lost less matches. He lost 6, and Andy lost 16. Ten matches difference -- which is very huge given the matches they lost, and at what times.

There's no doubt that Andy is changing his attacking game because of Federer, and I think that's exciting.

At this point, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin seem a pretty safe bet for the Top 5 next year. The question is whether any of them can challenge for No. 1. Seems doubtful -- but there's no doubt Andy is trying to improve his game. Hewitt and Safin likely will do the same, as will Federer. Again, it's a win-win for tennis fans.

mlee2 · Nov 28, 2004

Personally, I always thought the 90s were by far, more monotnous and boring (baseline bashing, academy tennis, etc.) than today's crop. Lendl, Edberg, et al. were the few exceptions to the Kuceras, Corretjas, Costas, Changs, etc.

Today's players are an improvement of the real baseline bashers of the 90s and they're only going to mix the game up even more as Fed continues to @ss-rape everyone for another year or two.

Roddick moves up to the net A LOT more than Courier or Agassi ever did in the 90s yet those guys are mentioned as "legends of talent" and so forth.1

If anyone's not satisifed by the current trend of tennis, then you're never going to be satisified; Not until you tennis nazis get racquets capped at 90 inches and a prohibition on anything stiffer than graphite, and baseline tactics become institutionally banned from the USPTA, ITP, etc.

Young Pete · Nov 28, 2004

perfmode said:
pound cat said:

The player I watched Federer hate playing was Santoro. If Santoro had a more powerful game he would have beat him. There was absolutely no predictabily about what the next shot would be, and Federer was extremely frustrated & losing his composure.

Click to expand...

No. Santoro frustrates people because he is a professional pusher. If he could hit shots with power, he wouldn't be a pusher and therefore wouldn't bother anyone. He hits junkballs and that's why he's effective.
He's the ATP version of your local pusher. Just as annoying and ten times better at being a wall.

SANTORO = THE TYPICAL HUSTLER

Rabbit · Nov 28, 2004

VamosRafa said:
Don't you all think there was a reason that Roddick was out-volleying Henman in Houston last week?

That's a fairly bold statement. Out-volleying Henman? Roddick? Andy Roddick? I don't know that anyone in the professional game today could out volley Tim Henman. Now, Roddick may have made more approaches. The Roddick I saw at the Masters really wasn't effective at net. Kudos for trying something different, but I see this path for Roddick much like the path that Chang took when he tried to get a bigger serve. You ignore your strengths too much and you lose them as strengths. Roddick's stay at number 1 was brief, but I think that's more due to the other players figuring out how to play him. I don't believe that radically changing his approach to the game is the answer, it's a band aid that isn't going to help long term. IMO, Roddick should be focusing on the same thing that helped Agassi, fitness and grinding opponents down. Reign in the power some and work the court, if they win the first set, well fine, too good. But, make it hurt them to win the first set and Roddick should be prepared to go the distance. IMO, he doesn't look as fit as Agassi, even at 35.

PJVA · Nov 28, 2004

Lambsscroll said:
bdawg said:

I agree with a lot of you but I would like to remind you that in Sampras' day the crop wasn't that good either.

Click to expand...

Hmm, Edbeg, Becker, Guga, Courier, Chang, Agassie, Rafter, Henman, Kafelnikov, Moya, Michael Stich, Cedric Pioline, Sergi Bruguera

I think that the above group offered no more high a level of competition than what Federer faces today. I am not saying they were easy.....but no tougher than what we have today.

Pioline, Bruguera, and Kuerten were threats only on clay. Chang only won one major and it was on clay. Courier ended his career early. Edberg and Becker ended their careers as Pete was reaching his prime. Agassi had his ups and downs during Sampras' prime.....so he wasn't always a factor.

In the current field Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick are all former #1 players. Safin and Hewitt have both beaten Sampras soundly in a USOpen. They aren't slouches.

To say that there isn't variety also does not seem true. Hewitt plays much different than Safin for example. Roddick has a huge serve....much harder than what any one served during Sampras' prime.

PJVA · Nov 28, 2004

Rabbit, I totally agree that the key for Roddick would be to improve his overall fitness. In his matches with Federer and Hewitt it's evident that he gets too tired out being forced into rallys by opponents who return his serves and make him play.

Actually I think Roddick was lucky to have won the 2003 USOpen because Federer drew his nemesis Nalbandian whom he had never beaten back then. Federer had match points but choked, and Nalbandian went through to the semis. If Federer hadn't choked then he certainly would have had an excellent chance of beating Ferrero in the semi and Roddick in the final.

PJVA · Nov 28, 2004

VamosRafa said:
Andy and Roger won exactly 74 matches this year, but Roger lost less matches. He lost 6, and Andy lost 16. Ten matches difference -- which is very huge given the matches they lost, and at what times.

We should also look at WHERE Andy had his match wins......some of them were in the US at lower level tournaments like San Jose, Memphis, and Indianapolis.......not facing top ten opponents.

Roger seemed to win more agaisnt top 10 opponents than Andy.

PJVA · Nov 28, 2004

ZhuangCorp said:
If Federer's backhand was as good as his forehand, he would be invincible, but it isn't.

In the few occasions where a talent arises, thats' when we get a Roger Federer.

Federer's backhand seems to be getting A LOT better now that everyone has been attacking it all year! He is almost equal on both wings now. He's also probably the fittest player on tour as well.

I can't wait to see what he tries at the French. He's said to be working on his forehand drop shot. :wink:

perfmode · Nov 28, 2004

PJVA said:
VamosRafa said:

Andy and Roger won exactly 74 matches this year, but Roger lost less matches. He lost 6, and Andy lost 16. Ten matches difference -- which is very huge given the matches they lost, and at what times.

Click to expand...

We should also look at WHERE Andy had his match wins......some of them were in the US at lower level tournaments like San Jose, Memphis, and Indianapolis.......not facing top ten opponents.

Roger seemed to win more agaisnt top 10 opponents than Andy.

Roger didn't lose to ANY top 10 opponents this year.

VictorS. · Nov 29, 2004

Rabbit said:
VamosRafa said:

Don't you all think there was a reason that Roddick was out-volleying Henman in Houston last week?

Click to expand...

That's a fairly bold statement. Out-volleying Henman? Roddick? Andy Roddick? I don't know that anyone in the professional game today could out volley Tim Henman. Now, Roddick may have made more approaches. The Roddick I saw at the Masters really wasn't effective at net. Kudos for trying something different, but I see this path for Roddick much like the path that Chang took when he tried to get a bigger serve. You ignore your strengths too much and you lose them as strengths. Roddick's stay at number 1 was brief, but I think that's more due to the other players figuring out how to play him. I don't believe that radically changing his approach to the game is the answer, it's a band aid that isn't going to help long term. IMO, Roddick should be focusing on the same thing that helped Agassi, fitness and grinding opponents down. Reign in the power some and work the court, if they win the first set, well fine, too good. But, make it hurt them to win the first set and Roddick should be prepared to go the distance. IMO, he doesn't look as fit as Agassi, even at 35.

Good point. It's tough to imagine Roddick ever having the well-rounded game of a roger federer. I agree, roddick should maybe focus his attention more on physical training a la Andre Agassi. In addition, I think he should make some adjustments on the backhand side. against a guy like federer, you gotta have a better backhand than the one roddick currently has. Federer obviously has everyone's number at the moment...but guys like agassi and safin seem to be slightly tougher challenges for federer, which I think is largely due to their superior backhands.

davey25 · Nov 30, 2004

laurie said:
I feel that the competition this year is not what it should be at top ten level in men's tennis. Most of the players have been on and off form and suffering injuries to really challenge Federer. The main point for me is that everyone plays the same way, which is why Federer stands out so much.

Of course, he is an incredible talent. But for me this has been the worst crop of top ten players I have seen with hardly any variety and no real netrushers or similar all court players to challenge Federer. Nor are there any players who really use the serve as a skill like a specialist fast bowler in cricket.

I think the Masters event was a case in point. Coria, Gaudio, Henman, Moya are not good enough at that level consistently. They have too many 'off' days for me.

The level Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Wilander etc around 1990 was much higher.

Sure players now may be more physical, but that has been sacrificed for an extreme lack of technical and tactical nous. By the way, tennis around 1990 was extremely physical with lots of 4 hour close matches in slams as these guys were well matched.

These are my opinions. Whats yours?

Wilander was well past his best by 1990, he wasnt even in the top 20, Agassi was still a bit green, and Lendl was starting to age a bit. The only reason he was 1 was Edbergs default in Australia. So the 1990 group wasnt as glowing as you make it out to be by any means. After all Andre Gomez won the French Open, and a way past his past John McEnroe was in the U.S open semis. At that point they were not good either.

Anyway knowing you are a Sampras addict you should discuss a year Pete was most dominant. Lets take 97 for example. This year his chief rivals were Rafter who had mediocre return of serve and groundstrokes, Bjorkman a very ordinary top player, Kafelnikov a far less talented Safin version, Moya not that great on fast surfaces, Chang who lacked power and truly great talent although hugely tenacious and fast, Korda a hugely erratic player, Krajicek ditto and mostly just a big serve and pretty good volley. How about 94? An erratic big-serve and little else Ivanisevic. Agassi who only played well for half the year and was ranked as low as 20 at one point to show it. Brugera the clay courter. Berasetegui the clay courter. A fading Becker, who flucuated between 3 and 11 during that period. A quickly fading Edberg who was struggling to stay in the top 10 by now.

Yes compared to Samprass stellar competition Rogers competition was very weak. LOL! I think Rogers competition is quite decent thank you very much.

jhhachamp · Nov 30, 2004

I dont see how people can compare the guys Sampras played against and the guys Federer is playing against. Making the argument that Sampras played more multiple slam winners than Federer is stupid. Of course he would have, the players he played against are mostly finished with their careers, while Federer's main competition is still young. Its not really fair to compare the competion using the factor of how many multiple slam winners each faced throughout their careers until after Federer's current competition and future competion is retired. How do you know that Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt, and whoever else rises up will not win more slams than Becker, Edberg, Lendl, etc? You dont, so it seems quite trivial to use this comparison.

BiGGieStuFF · Nov 30, 2004

perfmode said:
Roger didn't lose to ANY top 10 opponents this year.

Federer lost to Henman but I don't think Tim was in the top 10 at the time. I didn't watch that match so I don't know what transpired but I noticed it when comparing head to head records a while back. Must have been early in the year. What was tim ranked at the time?

2004 Rotterdam, Hard, Q
The Netherlands Hard Q Henman 6 3 7 6

rhubarb · Dec 1, 2004

Henman was 11th at the time.

grafselesfan · Sep 24, 2009

And all these years later he is still taking advantage of it.

dropshot winner · Sep 24, 2009

Lambsscroll said:
Hmm, Edbeg, Becker, Guga, Courier, Chang, Agassie, Rafter, Henman, Kafelnikov, Moya, Michael Stich, Cedric Pioline, Sergi Bruguera

- Edberg wasn't really a contemporary of Sampras.
- Becker was far from his best for the most part of the mid 90s.
- Guga is a clay courter and never played Sampras on that surface or in a slam, the only big match between the two was at the 2000 Masters Cup. As a matter of fact, Federer played Kuerten as often as Sampras did.
- Courier was done after 93
- Agassi played Sampras only twice in slams in the 6 years between 93 and 99 Wimbledon (Sampras prime)
- Rafter was definately a great player, but he wasn't a factor until the late 90s

grafselesfan · Sep 24, 2009

dropshot winner said:
- Edberg wasn't really a contemporary of Sampras.

One has to keep in the Sampras became a contender to win slams starting in 1990 as he won the U.S Open title in 1990. Edberg was still in or close to his prime from 1990-1993 and one the very best in the World those 4 years where he and Sampras were mutally contending for big titles. Edberg also denied Sampras the 92 U.S Open title and possibly the 93 Australian Open title.

- Becker was far from his best for the most part of the mid 90s.

Fail. Becker was still very formidable as late as 1996 when he won the Australian Open and played one of the greatest matches ever vs Sampras in the year end Championships finale. So Sampras as a slam contender had to cope with a very strong Becker from 1990-1996.

- Guga is a clay courter and never played Sampras on that surface or in a slam, the only big match between the two was at the 2000 Masters Cup. As a matter of fact, Federer played Kuerten as often as Sampras did.

Agreed.

- Courier was done after 93

Again a fail. Courier in 1994 was almost certainly only denied the 94 Australian Open title by an on fire Sampras in the 94 semis. He defeated Sampras who was one of the favorites in the French Open quarters of 94, only falling to Bruguera the French Open winner of both 93 and 94. He lost a n incredible 5 setter with Sampras in the 95 Australian Open quarters, made the 95 U.S Open semis with straight sets over both Muster and Chang before losing a very tough 4 setter to Sampras in the semis. His 6 match win streak over Agassi lasted into 1995 and was only broken in 1996 when #2 ranked Agassi as defending Champion on his best surface triumphed over Courier in a very tough 5 setter from 2 sets to 0 down to the supposably "done" Courier in the 96 Australian Open quarters.

- Agassi played Sampras only twice in slams in the 6 years between 93 and 99 Wimbledon (Sampras prime)

Just goes to show the incredible depth in the mens game back then. With Becker, Edberg, Courier, Ivanisevic, Chang, Krajicek, Kafelnikov, all seriously contending, plus a slew of other dangerous players just behind the top guys, of course even the games 2 greatest players arent going to meet in every slam.

- Rafter was definately a great player, but he wasn't a factor until the late 90s

Agreed with that.

dropshot winner · Sep 24, 2009

grafselesfan said:
One has to keep in the Sampras became a contender to win slams starting in 1990 as he won the U.S Open title in 1990. Edberg was still in or close to his prime from 1990-1993 and one the very best in the World those 4 years where he and Sampras were mutally contending for big titles. Edberg also denied Sampras the 92 U.S Open title and possibly the 93 Australian Open title.

Fail. Becker was still very formidable as late as 1996 when he won the Australian Open and played one of the greatest matches ever vs Sampras in the year end Championships finale. So Sampras as a slam contender had to cope with a very strong Becker from 1990-1996.

Agreed.

Again a fail. Courier in 1994 was almost certainly only denied the 94 Australian Open title by an on fire Sampras in the 94 semis. He defeated Sampras who was one of the favorites in the French Open quarters of 94, only falling to Bruguera the French Open winner of both 93 and 94. He lost a n incredible 5 setter with Sampras in the 95 Australian Open quarters, made the 95 U.S Open semis with straight sets over both Muster and Chang before losing a very tough 4 setter to Sampras in the semis. His 6 match win streak over Agassi lasted into 1995 and was only broken in 1996 when #2 ranked Agassi as defending Champion on his best surface triumphed over Courier in a very tough 5 setter from 2 sets to 0 down to the supposably "done" Courier in the 96 Australian Open quarters.

Just goes to show the incredible depth in the mens game back then. With Becker, Edberg, Courier, Ivanisevic, Chang, Krajicek, Kafelnikov, all seriously contending, plus a slew of other dangerous players just behind the top guys, of course even the games 2 greatest players arent going to meet in every slam.

Agreed with that.

Sampras prime started around 93, that's where Edberg's ended.

At times Becker played some horrible tennis (for his standards) during the mid-90s. The 96 AO and the amazing match against Sampras makes him look better than he was for the most time, just look at his losses.

Courier was not a bad player, but essentially he was a fit player with a big forehand. He's by no means a player that would trouble Federer, just look at what he did to Moya even as a 17 year old.

Agassi lost to Woodruff, Flach (ranked 281), past his prime Berasategui on hardcourt, 116 ranked Safin on clay amonst other. That has nothing to do with depth.
That's like saying Gublis can't win two matches in a row because the tour has such great depth.

jack the lad · Sep 24, 2009

how come the OP has no information

grafselesfan · Sep 24, 2009

dropshot winner said:
Sampras prime started around 93, that's where Edberg's ended.

Sampras began winning slams in 1990, 3 years before when you estimate Edberg's prime ended.

At times Becker played some horrible tennis (for his standards) during the mid-90s. The 96 AO and the amazing match against Sampras makes him look better than he was for the most time, just look at his losses.

1993- semifinalist at Wimbledon (lost to Sampras)
1994- semifinalist at Wimbledon (lost to Ivanisevic), finalist at ATP World Championships (lost to Sampras after beating him in RR)
1995- finalist at Wimbledon (lost to Sampras), semifinalist at U.S Open (lost to Agassi), champion of ATP World Championships
1996- champion of Australian Open, incredible loss in finals to Sampras of ATP World Championships

You were saying?

Courier was not a bad player, but essentially he was a fit player with a big forehand with a short prime. He's by no means a player that would trouble Federer, just look at what he did to Moya even as a 17 year old.

Yeah since Courier is really the equivalent of Moya.

Agassi lost to Woodruff, Flach (ranked 281), past his prime Berasategui on hardcourt, 116 ranked Safin on clay amonst other. That has nothing to do with depth.

The only truly bad slam losses of Agassi from 93-98 were to Woodruff, Flach, and Berasetegui. His other slam losses were either to Sampras, Becker, Kafelnikov on clay, Kucera in the year he ended top 8 and beat Sampras in the Australian Open quarters also, Rafter, Safin, Haas who is still a ****** for todays top players at 31, Muster on clay, and Chang on hard courts. Hardly chumps.

Omega_7000 · Sep 24, 2009

davey25 said:
Wilander was well past his best by 1990, he wasnt even in the top 20, Agassi was still a bit green, and Lendl was starting to age a bit. The only reason he was 1 was Edbergs default in Australia. So the 1990 group wasnt as glowing as you make it out to be by any means. After all Andre Gomez won the French Open, and a way past his past John McEnroe was in the U.S open semis. At that point they were not good either.

Anyway knowing you are a Sampras addict you should discuss a year Pete was most dominant. Lets take 97 for example. This year his chief rivals were Rafter who had mediocre return of serve and groundstrokes, Bjorkman a very ordinary top player, Kafelnikov a far less talented Safin version, Moya not that great on fast surfaces, Chang who lacked power and truly great talent although hugely tenacious and fast, Korda a hugely erratic player, Krajicek ditto and mostly just a big serve and pretty good volley. How about 94? An erratic big-serve and little else Ivanisevic. Agassi who only played well for half the year and was ranked as low as 20 at one point to show it. Brugera the clay courter. Berasetegui the clay courter. A fading Becker, who flucuated between 3 and 11 during that period. A quickly fading Edberg who was struggling to stay in the top 10 by now.

Yes compared to Samprass stellar competition Rogers competition was very weak. LOL! I think Rogers competition is quite decent thank you very much.

Ouch that's gotta hurt!

I agree with you. But this cycle will never end. There will always be people stuck in the past thinking everything that took place in their era was the greatest ever.

GasquetGOAT · Sep 24, 2009

grafselesfan said:
And all these years later he is still taking advantage of it.

How arrogant! 6 years and 15 slams won later! I say he is the GOAT of taking advantages!

TheFifthSet · Sep 24, 2009

grafselesfan said:
And all these years later he is still taking advantage of it.

There's still hope. If he sticks around long enough he may match Pete's 6 consecutive first week RG exits.

I feel like I'm jinxing it tho.

grafselesfan · Sep 24, 2009

This Laurie is an excellent and obviously very intelligent poster. It is too bad she closed her account.

Deleted member 21996 · Sep 24, 2009

davey25 said:
Wilander was well past his best by 1990, he wasnt even in the top 20, Agassi was still a bit green, and Lendl was starting to age a bit. The only reason he was 1 was Edbergs default in Australia. So the 1990 group wasnt as glowing as you make it out to be by any means. After all Andre Gomez won the French Open, and a way past his past John McEnroe was in the U.S open semis. At that point they were not good either.

Anyway knowing you are a Sampras addict you should discuss a year Pete was most dominant. Lets take 97 for example. This year his chief rivals were Rafter who had mediocre return of serve and groundstrokes, Bjorkman a very ordinary top player, Kafelnikov a far less talented Safin version, Moya not that great on fast surfaces, Chang who lacked power and truly great talent although hugely tenacious and fast, Korda a hugely erratic player, Krajicek ditto and mostly just a big serve and pretty good volley. How about 94? An erratic big-serve and little else Ivanisevic. Agassi who only played well for half the year and was ranked as low as 20 at one point to show it. Brugera the clay courter. Berasetegui the clay courter. A fading Becker, who flucuated between 3 and 11 during that period. A quickly fading Edberg who was struggling to stay in the top 10 by now.

Yes compared to Samprass stellar competition Rogers competition was very weak. LOL! I think Rogers competition is quite decent thank you very much.

funny.. i look at your post and i could replace 90% of the names you state with current field ones and it would still be 100% truth...

Lets take 2009 for example.

This year his chief rivals were Nadal who had mediocre return of serve (great groundstrokes though), and was 90% of the time in the hospital...

Soderling a very ordinary top player,

Djokovic a far less talented Safin version,

Davidenko not that great on fast surfaces,

Simon who lacked power and truly great talent although hugely tenacious and fast,

Murray a hugely erratic player,

Roddick ditto and mostly just a big serve and crappy volley.

How about 2006?

An erratic big-serve and little else Roddick.

Agassi who only played well for half the year and was ranked as low as 20 at one point to show it.

Nadal the clay courter.
...

you get the drill no?:twisted:

ps: i just replaced the names and adjusted one or two points... some i kept integral

obsessedtennisfandisorder · Sep 24, 2009

stop taking the ****.

So many people on here, like azzuri refered to, i think have only been watching tennis since 2003 or so....I don't want to generalise too much
because I know many have watched more than me (i watched since agassi 92)

Point: they just don't "get" what grafselesfan and myself have been saying:

The lack of variety in todays game is a disappointment.

That's it..TWers.

try refuting that statement comparing todays game to the 90's.

rafa is just a version of muster with a superior forehand.

I laugh with rafa's ridiculous carry on these days....get on the court and play
the best you can and stop whining.

because today's tennis is heading towards short number 1reigns and rafa types in wheelchairs by 25. del po will be another one I reckon.

Fed "owned" henman? oh really? is that before or after the walking stick?

this post is not trying the knock fed's achievements completely...I'm just
trying to put it in perspective.

A new rule comes in soccer that you are no longer allowed to head the ball into the net...can't use the head.

Argentina and Brazil win the next 10 world cups and claim SA players are
inheritly better than europeans....

strange analogy I know..but that's what i see in tennis world.

Fed is the undisputed GOAT of baseliners

P_Agony · Sep 24, 2009

laurie said:
I feel that the competition this year is not what it should be at top ten level in men's tennis. Most of the players have been on and off form and suffering injuries to really challenge Federer. The main point for me is that everyone plays the same way, which is why Federer stands out so much.

Of course, he is an incredible talent. But for me this has been the worst crop of top ten players I have seen with hardly any variety and no real netrushers or similar all court players to challenge Federer. Nor are there any players who really use the serve as a skill like a specialist fast bowler in cricket.

I think the Masters event was a case in point. Coria, Gaudio, Henman, Moya are not good enough at that level consistently. They have too many 'off' days for me.

The level Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Wilander etc around 1990 was much higher.

Sure players now may be more physical, but that has been sacrificed for an extreme lack of technical and tactical nous. By the way, tennis around 1990 was extremely physical with lots of 4 hour close matches in slams as these guys were well matched.

These are my opinions. Whats yours?

I have to disagree, though some fans claim Federer always had no competition, which is pure BS IMO. This year has been very powerful in men's tennis IMO. Nadal at his peak (until the FO), the rising of Del Potro, who couldn't beat top 4 players last year and today can beat them all, the consistency of Murray, who has shown he can own just about everybody when he's not playing at slams, Roddick who's had one of his better years in his career, Soderling who proved his win over Nadal was not a fluke, as he fell to only one man in all three slams. The only guy I can think of who didn't have a great year for his standards is Djokovic, as he's yet to reach a slam final this year, and he's yet to win a MS title as well.

Andres · Sep 24, 2009

obsessedtennisfandisorder said:
A new rule comes in soccer that you are no longer allowed to head the ball into the net...can't use the head.

Argentina and Brazil win the next 10 world cups and claim SA players are
inheritly better than europeans....

I wouldn't mind that!

MichaelChang · Sep 24, 2009

P_Agony said:
I have to disagree, though some fans claim Federer always had no competition, which is pure BS IMO. This year has been very powerful in men's tennis IMO. Nadal at his peak (until the FO), the rising of Del Potro, who couldn't beat top 4 players last year and today can beat them all, the consistency of Murray, who has shown he can own just about everybody when he's not playing at slams, Roddick who's had one of his better years in his career, Soderling who proved his win over Nadal was not a fluke, as he fell to only one man in all three slams. The only guy I can think of who didn't have a great year for his standards is Djokovic, as he's yet to reach a slam final this year, and he's yet to win a MS title as well.

You noticed the OP posted in 2004, and you replying in 2009?

It is not even funny any more. some a$$hole resurrected a 5 year old thread and people start posting without even looking.

jack the lad · Sep 24, 2009

MichaelChang said:
You noticed the OP posted in 2004, and you replying in 2009?
It is not even funny any more. some a$$hole resurrected a 5 year old thread and people start posting without even looking.

i posted because i anted to know why the OP's got a n/a to her name

MichaelChang · Sep 24, 2009

jack the lad said:
i posted because i anted to know why the OP's got a n/a to her name

that user may left the board, got deleted, got banned, whatever.
5 years later your name or maybe my name could end up like that too

or even maybe the TT forum may no longer exist at that time.

Fedfan1234 · Sep 24, 2009

Why does nobody play serve and volley anymore?
I think it is strange that nobody asks this question or just assume the players are too lazy, dumb or whatever.
If s&v is so succesfull why do players choose to play from the baseline. Do you really believe they are this stupid? Some players in the top 20 have good enough volley's, yet they choose to stay back and lose slam after slam. Unlike some people here I believe there is a good reason for this. The return of the opponent is just too good. Just look at Federer he always plays into the opponents feet when they approach the net, the ball jumps up giving him enough time to hit the passing shot. Other players do exactly the same. Returners nowadays are smarter, they don't go for the direct winner but let the s&v player play a difficult volley which enables them to run to the ball and hit the winner. I think a really good player like Sampras might still be able to win a lot of slams, but he is something special. Other players like Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker etc. would not stand a chance in this field.

Winners or Errors · Sep 24, 2009

The real question is... why did some Sampras fan go back to a nearly 5 year old thread to rehash a discussion that makes its way through this board seemingly every week? Yawn. Haven't we figured out that you can't compare eras by now?

Also, since we're talking about this today, if you didn't see the variety in Del Potro's game when he beat Federer to win the US Open (yes, something that happened recently, not 5 years ago), you are simply blind.

jack the lad · Sep 24, 2009

MichaelChang said:
that user may left the board, got deleted, got banned, whatever.
5 years later your name or maybe my name could end up like that too or even maybe the TT forum may no longer exist at that time.

ok

10 char

jamesblakefan#1 · Sep 24, 2009

grafselesfan said:
And all these years later he is still taking advantage of it.

What a bitter jerk you are. Horrible bump.

This thread was made BEFORE the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, JMDP came along and stepped it up to challenge Federer.

Federer is taking advantage of the situation because...

laurie

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

laurie

Guest

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Rookie

Rookie

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Professional

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads