I understand recency bias - but you are not right if you think he is better than Pete at aspects like volleying, running forehand or overhead smashes.
Good stuff, nothing to add. Nice to see someone is still using their brains.
Also, better doesn't mean you are better, it means higher level of play. Pete would have better strokes with modern training and tehcnique and strings too, but it wasn't available at the time. If Pete was playing today, wouldn't he also be a better player? Logic say he will be. So, I don't see why people are using evolution against past greats, seems a bit unfair. Like saying Caesar was a bad general, just because Napoleon army can defeat him with technology.
I don't know why Fed changed. Fed at first was like Pete, not showing any emotion, just killer poker face, then he started to show emotions and started to lose more. At the time you never knew when Fed was tired or struggling, but now you can tell. But yeah, Pete was cool to watch, so calm all the time and not showing emotions.
But the logic doesn't add up. In the last 50 years where barely one guy wins over 10 majors per era and in some eras nobody, now suddenly 3 guys will win over 20? The odds of that happening is so low that something has to give. Yes, they are good, but they can't be that good.
I think this also has to do with different play styles. For example, SnV matches had much more variance involved. I feel like today's baseline game has increased the chance that the better player also actually wins.
Great players adapt and he would have developed a different way of playing if conditions required.
Talking about exaggeration, but your estimate is downright hilarious, to say the least.
Highly overrating Federer’s volley skills here. Sampras and Edberg clearly had better volleys.
This is actually true. Borg at 25 had more slams than any Big three at the same age and this even though he skipped almost all AO and also deliberately skipped one FO where he was a huge favorite. This is an outlier though.
Pete’s overhead was also superior.
Edberg is a different matter altogether. Sampras used to pick up almost impossible volleys nearly off his shoelaces. Most objective observers would agree that Sampras was better than Fed at volleying.
Add Becker and Mac for sure as better volliers than Fed. Fed is a good vollier, who was better earlier in his career when he did it more and was in better practice of doing it. He is ok now as a vollier, compared to the players of the past.
Nothing of this sort can happen these days.
Add also Henman.
Rafter is every bit Edbergs equal IMO. His matches against Agassi and Goran at Wimbledon, his US Open semi against Pete and countless other matches I watched him, his volleys were always beyond impressive.
The game is actually much faster today, due to the new racquets. The only exception may be grass in the 90s, but even that is debatable. Getting balls back was more difficult because of bad bounces and non-poly racquets, but not because of faster game as such.
Rebound Ace, Plexicushion and...?
That's your opinion, as above is (some of) mine. I think that from at least the R of 32 on (in majors) that players should be seeded by ranking, and matched up strictly numerically. Of course, upsets can still happen and either complicate or open up the draw, and a #29 can be playing better than a #9 or represent a tougher matchup for his opponent. There is still variation.
