The second half of this decade was much tougher than the second half of the 90's

JennyS · Dec 18, 2009

Total times Sampras had to face his toughest competitors in the second half of the 90's

Philippoussis: 6
Agassi: 3
Courier: 3
Ivanisevic: 3
Henman: 3
Martin: 3
Becker: 2
Chang: 2
Rafter: 1
Krajiceck: 1
Kafelnikov: 1
Safin: 1
Haas: 0

Total Slams won by Sampras in the second half of the 90's: 7

Total times Federer had to face his toughest competitors:
Nadal: 6
Roddick: 6
Djokovic: 5
Hewitt: 4
Safin: 4
Davydenko: 4
Del Potro: 4
Soderling: 4
Haas: 3
Nalbandian: 2
Murray: 1

Slams won by Federer in the second half of the 00's: 11

egn · Dec 18, 2009

Do you ever stop?

bruce38 · Dec 18, 2009

Jenny, I think he meant DON'T ever stop. Keep up the good work girl.

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Definitely Pete benefitted from the field getting weaker after the mid 90's as he start to decline. Roger's field is getting tougher and potentially be even tougher by 2012, so if a declining Roger continue to do better than Pete every year, more testament of him > Pete.

JennyS · Dec 18, 2009

Here's a great stat:

40 different players made Slam semis from 1995-1999
28 different players made Slam semis from 2005-2009

the top players in the second half of the 90's:
1. Sampras: 10
2. Agassi: 8
3. Chang: 6
4. Kafelnkiov: 4
5. Becker, Moya, Pioline, Ivanisevic, and Rafter tied at 3

Courier only had ONE Slam semi in the second half of the 90's

top players in the 2000's
1. Federer: 20 (100%)
2. Nadal: 11
3. Roddick and Djokovic: 7
5. Davydenko: 4

second half of the 00's>>>>>second half of the 90's

On the flip side, I'd guess that the first half of the 90's was much stronger than the first half of the 00's, where Sampras won 5 and Federer won 4. However, Fed did most of his damage when the competition got STRONGER.

JennyS · Dec 18, 2009

TMF said:
Definitely Pete benefitted from the field getting weaker after the mid 90's as he start to decline. Roger's field is getting tougher and potentially be even tougher by 2012, so if a declining Roger continue to do better than Pete every year, more testament of him > Pete.

Good point. The younger generation that Roger's had to face (Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, etc) is much better than the younger players Sampras had to face.

Camilio Pascual · Dec 18, 2009

JennyS said:
Total Slams won by Sampras in the second half of the 90's: 7
Slams won by Federer in the second half of the 00's: 11

I assume you mean tougher for Sampras and Federer and not their competition?
In which case I would say your thesis is completely incorrect and undercut by the bottom line stats you provided.
The 2nd half of the 00's was MUCH easier for Federer than the second half of the 90's was for Sampras.

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

JennyS said:
On the flip side, I'd guess that the first half of the 90's was much stronger than the first half of the 00's, where Sampras won 5 and Federer won 4. However, Fed did most of his damage when the competition got STRONGER.

Could you imagine if the mid 90's was getting stronger instead of getting weaker? Pete might not even break Emerson's GS record.

dropshot winner · Dec 18, 2009

Camilio Pascual said:
I assume you mean tougher for Sampras and Federer and not their competition?
In which case I would say your thesis is completely incorrect and undercut by the bottom line stats you provided.
The 2nd half of the 00's was MUCH easier for Federer than the second half of the 90's was for Sampras.

I'm not sure if I agree with the topic of the thread, but guys like Moya were #1 in the second half of the 90. As much as I respect Moya (and his forehand), that pretty much disproves your statement.

Moya couldn't even beat a 17-year old Federer (ranked somewhere between #200 and #300) when he was top5.
Between 2007 and now Moya probably wouldn't even been in the top3 with the game he reached #1 in the 90s.

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Camilio Pascual said:
I assume you mean tougher for Sampras and Federer and not their competition?
In which case I would say your thesis is completely incorrect and undercut by the bottom line stats you provided.
The 2nd half of the 00's was MUCH easier for Federer than the second half of the 90's was for Sampras.

Fed made it easier b/c he's a better player. And most fans would agree Roger's 2n half is tougher than Pete's 2nd half.

Kuerten, a clay court specialist end the year #1. No way in hell that can happen in this era when you have fed, rafa, novak, murray, davy, etc. The players today are skillful to compete in all four GS.

Cesc Fabregas · Dec 18, 2009

Another JennyS thread that puts down Nadal/Sampras and kiss' Federer's behind...What about the early 90's, you know the part where Pete won a large number of his slams?

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

TMF said:
Fed made it easier b/c he's a better player. And most fans would agree Roger's 2n half is tougher than Pete's 2nd half.

Kuerten, a clay court specialist end the year #1. No way in hell that can happen in this era when you have fed, rafa, novak, murray, davy, etc. The players today are skillful to compete in all four GS.

Pete's 2nd half is weak, to a point where many fans have Kafelnikov, Rios, Rafter as candidate of being the worst #1 in the history of mens' tennis.

chanee · Dec 18, 2009

JennyS said:
Total Slams won by Sampras in the second half of the 90's: 7

MY BAD -ccasdfas

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
Another JennyS thread that puts down Nadal/Sampras and kiss' Federer's behind...What about the early 90's, you know the part where Pete won a large number of his slams?

Where's the part that she put down rafa? His achievements are mainly in the 2nd half, in case you didn't know.

Praetorian · Dec 18, 2009

I personally don't see the purpose of these threads. Is it to legitimize Federer's greatness, or to minimalize Sampras' accomplishments? How do we know someone is actually better than someone else? Can't we just say that they are the best of their respective generation.

fed_rulz · Dec 18, 2009

Praetorian said:
I personally don't see the purpose of these threads. Is it to legitimize Federer's greatness, or to minimalize Sampras' accomplishments? How do we know someone is actually better than someone else? Can't we just say that they are the best of their respective generation.

to dispel any notion that Pete somehow had better competition than Federer to win his slams.

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Praetorian said:
I personally don't see the purpose of these threads. Is it to legitimize Federer's greatness, or to minimalize Sampras' accomplishments? How do we know someone is actually better than someone else? Can't we just say that they are the best of their respective generation.

You can argue that no one know. You can even say Mac, Andre, or Lendl the greatest b/c it's all about opinion. However, when you backup for the player you pick, Roger(and even Laver) has numbers/facts to support a stronger case than other players.

Camilio Pascual · Dec 18, 2009

dropshot winner said:
but guys like Moya were #1 in the second half of the 90. As much as I respect Moya (and his forehand), that pretty much disproves your statement.

Not at all.
I'll even hand you what looks like a better case given the argument you are making. Rios, who also was #1 for 2 whole weeks just like Moya out of the 260 weeks we're talking about. I can flip this argument on you and say it shows the competitiveness level was higher in the late 90's.
The bottom line is that Roger won 11 as compared to 7 for Sampras. That's a pretty powerful argument right there that it was easier. But, we're not going to "prove" any such thing on this topic. Unless we see some real discussion of competitiveness levels throughout the men's game, we're really just talking about 2 individual tennis players and not addressing the environment they were playing in that would tell us how "easy" it was.
What the results indicate more than anything else is that Roger's peak was higher and more concentrated than Pete's peak, which was lower and spread over a longer time span.

dropshot winner · Dec 18, 2009

Camilio Pascual said:
Not at all.
I'll even hand you what looks like a better case given the argument you are making. Rios, who also was #1 for 2 whole weeks just like Moya out of the 260 weeks we're talking about. I can flip this argument on you and say it shows the competitiveness level was higher in the late 90's.
The bottom line is that Roger won 11 as compared to 7 for Sampras. That's a pretty powerful argument right there that it was easier. But, we're not going to "prove" any such thing on this topic. Unless we see some real discussion of competitiveness levels throughout the men's game, we're really just talking about 2 individual tennis players and not addressing the environment they were playing in that would tell us how "easy" it was.
What the results indicate more than anything else is that Roger's peak was higher and more concentrated than Pete's peak, which was lower and spread over a longer time span.

I'm really not interested in the 10000th discussion over that topic.

I guess the WTA is in the best state ever? Because just like in the 2nd half of the 90s we've inconsistent #1s.

Federer almost never loses in early rounds of slams, so he gives himself more chances to win slams. Had he lost matches like those against Andreev (USO 08) and JMDP (RG 09) he'd be close to Sampras numbers, but the competitiveness of the tour would hardly be any higher.

Deleted member 21996 · Dec 18, 2009

JennyS said:
Total times Sampras had to face his toughest competitors in the second half of the 90's

Philippoussis: 6
Agassi: 3
Courier: 3
Ivanisevic: 3
Henman: 3
Martin: 3
Becker: 2
Chang: 2
Rafter: 1
Krajiceck: 1
Kafelnikov: 1
Safin: 1
Haas: 0

Total Slams won by Sampras in the second half of the 90's: 7

Total times Federer had to face his toughest competitors:
Nadal: 6
Roddick: 6
Djokovic: 5
Hewitt: 4
Safin: 4
Davydenko: 4
Del Potro: 4
Soderling: 4
Haas: 3
Nalbandian: 2
Murray: 1

Slams won by Federer in the second half of the 00's: 11

what a convenient choice of time frames...

lets look at the first halves, where Rogelio was facing a crippled Agassi and a no power grinder like Hewitt...

mandy01 · Dec 18, 2009

wow..this is quite interesting

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

I'll agree with that. Late 90s was a rather dire time for tennis. However, I do think the field in the late 00's have been a bit overrated. At least, top ranking wise. It was still primarily a Nadal-Federer show. And for all the praise Djokovic and Murray get as being, "Top threat contenders" Well the hell were they for the slams? Both failed to even reach a final this year. Late was still a bit more competitive than late 90s (at least until Andre got back on the scene) but late 00's I still feel in terms legit threats is overrated.

The early 90's had quite a few specialists and many threats and talent players. I would put the early 00s ahead of any period of the 00's at least at the top. Maybe not all the way down to 50-100 rank in the world

mandy01 · Dec 18, 2009

Gorecki said:
what a convenient choice of time frames...

lets look at the first halves, where Rogelio was facing a crippled Agassi and a no power grinder like Hewitt...

She did say that she thinks the first of the 90s was stronger.
But like she said Federer did most of his damage in the second half

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

Driver's Seat said:
I'll agree with that. Late 90s was a rather dire time for tennis. However, I do think the field in the late 00's have been a bit overrated. At least, top ranking wise. It was still primarily a Nadal-Federer show. And for all the praise Djokovic and Murray get as being, "Top threat contenders" Well the hell were they for the slams? Both failed to even reach a final this year. Late was still a bit more competitive than late 90s (at least until Andre got back on the scene) but late 00's I still feel in terms legit threats is overrated.

The early 90's had quite a few specialists and many threats and talent players. I would put the early 00s ahead of any period of the 00's at least at the top. Maybe not all the way down to 50-100 rank in the world

Sorry I meant to say I would put the early 90's ahead of any 00's period

jamesblakefan#1 · Dec 18, 2009

Honestly who cares. There's no reason to constantly make these threads to defend Federer's greatness. Anyone who's seen him play knows how great he is, numbers really only matter to morons who know close to nothing about tennis. All these numbers threads really are annoying. Fed is GOAT, IMO, not just because of 15 slams, but because he's the greatest I've seen play. Bringing in these stats really isn't going to shift anyone's mind as far as if they think Fed's GOAT or not.

Camilio Pascual · Dec 18, 2009

dropshot winner said:
I guess the WTA is in the best state ever?

How do we define best?
As a sports fan, I pretty much define best by how high the competitiveness level is, the higher the better, at least in baseball, football, and tennis. I like low competitiveness levels in sports I'm less interested in (bowling, golf, gymnastics) to keep it simple for me.
A New York Yankees baseball fan may see the baseball eras with low competitive levels as being best.
Sports promoters and many fans, I'm guessing, like low competitive levels where only 1, 2, or 3 teams/individuals are "branded" and sold to the public at large who otherwise would not care. Tiger Woods 2 weeks ago, for example.
The NFL, which I think does the best job of managing a major sport, adjusts the schedules and teams' incomes to increase competitiveness.

Deleted member 21996 · Dec 18, 2009

mandy01 said:
She did say that she thinks the first of the 90s was stronger.
But like she said Federer did most of his damage in the second half

but neither you nor me started popcorn threads for no reason do we?

my point is : why start such meticulously framed threads like Jennys does every two hours?

it another of those "roger is the greatest ever to wear Kriskross pants" in a final of wimbledon...

mandy01 · Dec 18, 2009

Gorecki said:
but neither you nor me started popcorn threads for no reason do we?

my point is : why start such meticulously framed threads like Jennys does every two hours?

it another of those "roger is the greatest ever to wear Kriskross pants" in a final of wimbledon...

I agree with this.

Deleted member 21996 · Dec 18, 2009

mandy01 said:
I agree with this.

in a way, i agree with what JBF#1 said, with the difference that for me
GOAT=LAVER (and not Fed)

dropshot winner · Dec 18, 2009

Camilio Pascual said:
How do we define best?
As a sports fan, I pretty much define best by how high the competitiveness level is, the higher the better, at least in baseball, football, and tennis. I like low competitiveness levels in sports I'm less interested in (bowling, golf, gymnastics) to keep it simple for me.
A New York Yankees baseball fan may see the baseball eras with low competitive levels as being best.
Sports promoters and many fans, I'm guessing, like low competitive levels where only 1, 2, or 3 teams/individuals are "branded" and sold to the public at large who otherwise would not care. Tiger Woods 2 weeks ago, for example.
The NFL, which I think does the best job of managing a major sport, adjusts the schedules and teams' incomes to increase competitiveness.

Competitiveness in a way only says how close together a group of athletes are, skill-wise (parity).
To say it blunt, 10 equally ****ty players have a VERY high level of competitiveness.

Have you really enjoyed the level of tennis of the 2009 WTA season?

mandy01 · Dec 18, 2009

Gorecki said:
in a way, i agree with what JBF#1 said, with the difference that for me
GOAT=LAVER (and not Fed)

Well,a lot of people who watched both Laver and Federer say that the two have been the best to watch.Roger plays a game I like to watch.Thats what I care for the most.

ChrisCrocker · Dec 18, 2009

JennyS said:
Total times Federer had to face his toughest competitors:
Nadal: 6
Roddick: 6
Djokovic: 5
Hewitt: 4
Safin: 4
Davydenko: 4
Del Potro: 4
Soderling: 4
Haas: 3
Nalbandian: 2
Murray: 1

Slams won by Federer in the second half of the 00's: 11

this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Is Murray even a threat to anyone in slams? besides gulbis?

Nalbandian isnt a threat in slams since 03, right before fed won almost all his slams.

Haas? took fed to 5 sets at RG one time. of course after 04-07

Del potro beat fed once at 09 uso, WELL after 04-07.

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

dropshot winner · Dec 18, 2009

ChrisCrocker said:
this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Is Murray even a threat to anyone in slams? besides gulbis?

Nalbandian isnt a threat in slams since 03, right before fed won almost all his slams.

Haas? took fed to 5 sets at RG one time. of course after 04-07

Del potro beat fed once at 09 uso, WELL after 04-07.

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

Have you seen the 2007 US Open final?
Even in Australia that year he played really well, but Federer was just untouchable.

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

ChrisCrocker said:
this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Is Murray even a threat to anyone in slams? besides gulbis?

Nalbandian isnt a threat in slams since 03, right before fed won almost all his slams.

Haas? took fed to 5 sets at RG one time. of course after 04-07

Del potro beat fed once at 09 uso, WELL after 04-07.

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

I agree.. People are forgetting that fact that up until early 2009, Federer never once had to deal with Nadal at a HC slam. And my issue should still have some merit. IF today is so strong, top heavy, why havent Murray and Djoker made a final all year? Hell both went down to Roddick at a slam this year. So maybe Djoker and Murray are not on the level that so many people want to put them on.

At the end of the day, Im sorry I would still pick Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Goran (for the most part), Courier etc even if they were a tad passed their primes or yet to reach it over guys like Davydenko, Blake, Roddick, Hewitt, etc. The early 90s had a pretty big all star cast. And for those who say Edberg was passed his prime. He was still a top 1-3 player in the world in the early 90s. So he wasnt some washed up player

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

dropshot winner said:
Have you seen the 2007 US Open final?
Even in Australia that year he played really well, but Federer was just untouchable.

Djokovic hasnt been a threat since. So that settles that.

jamesblakefan#1 · Dec 18, 2009

ChrisCrocker said:
this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

BS. Nadal won HC MS events as far back as 2005, don't blame Federer for Nadal's fitness and game not being good enough to perform in HC slams as well.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Haha, so I guess making a slam final in 07 still doesn't make you a threat?

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

Funny how you leave out Roddick, just because Federer happens to own him doesn't mean Roddick sucks, just means Fed is that damn good. You mention a guy like Haas, but not Roddick? Ridiculous.

Camilio Pascual · Dec 18, 2009

dropshot winner said:
Competitiveness in a way only says how close together a group of athletes are, skill-wise (parity).
To say it blunt, 10 equally ****ty players have a VERY high level of competitiveness.
Have you really enjoyed the level of tennis of the 2009 WTA season?

True, 10 equal players of any skill level have a VERY high level of competitiveness.
Good question, I guess you know I'm a big WTA fan. I'm going to take your word for it that 2009 is not a good WTA season. I haven't watched much this year, I dumped my cable because I took up cycling. Maybe good timing on my part. Also, I'm a Serena fan. Her behaviour has me unwilling to root for her, I need a new player to root for this next year.
1997 is often cited, for good reason, as a very weak year for the WTA. My favourite all-time player, Amanda Coetzer, was a big beneficiary of this, getting as high as #3. I loved watching the WTA during that crappy year.

JoshDragon · Dec 18, 2009

TMF said:
Definitely Pete benefitted from the field getting weaker after the mid 90's as he start to decline. Roger's field is getting tougher and potentially be even tougher by 2012, so if a declining Roger continue to do better than Pete every year, more testament of him > Pete.

That's a good point. I agree.

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Driver's Seat said:
I agree.. People are forgetting that fact that up until early 2009, Federer never once had to deal with Nadal at a HC slam. And my issue should still have some merit. IF today is so strong, top heavy, why havent Murray and Djoker made a final all year? Hell both went down to Roddick at a slam this year. So maybe Djoker and Murray are not on the level that so many people want to put them on.

Is Nadal the only player competing in the HC slam? Does Roger needs to lower his playing level to NOT making 6 consecutive USO final in order to make the HC field stronger? Is that what you want?

You need to go back and read the thread about JennyS making a comparison about how much Fed/Sampras faced the top ten players at the GS. Roger faced more top ten players means today’s elite players made deeper run at the slam. A testament of Roger’s peers are more consistent at the slams.

Murray/Nole didn’t make the final(and they are still young) this year, but Roddick is the only player(except Fed) to consistently stay at the top 10 in this decade. how many final did Chang made when he spent all of those weeks ranked in the top 10 in the 90s?

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

TMF said:
Is Nadal the only player competing in the HC slam? Does Roger needs to lower his playing level to NOT making 6 consecutive USO final in order to make the HC field stronger? Is that what you want?

You need to go back and read the thread about JennyS making a comparison about how much Fed/Sampras faced the top ten players at the GS. Roger faced more top ten players means today’s elite players made deeper run at the slam. A testament of Roger’s peers are more consistent at the slams.

Murray/Nole didn’t make the final(and they are still young) this year, but Roddick is the only player(except Fed) to consistently stay at the top 10 in this decade. how many final did Chang made when he spent all of those weeks ranked in the top 10 in the 90s?

Thats not what I am trying to reference at all. It just shows that while Fed was grabbing the bulk of his slams, Rafa was just a major threat at clay slams and grass, NOT hardcourt slams. Opposed to Agassi who won every slam, adapted to EVERY SURFACE. Has Nadal done this? I talking about adaptability here. Has Rafa been on par with Agassi in this regard? The answer is no.

JoshDragon · Dec 18, 2009

Driver's Seat said:
I agree.. People are forgetting that fact that up until early 2009, Federer never once had to deal with Nadal at a HC slam. And my issue should still have some merit. IF today is so strong, top heavy, why havent Murray and Djoker made a final all year? Hell both went down to Roddick at a slam this year. So maybe Djoker and Murray are not on the level that so many people want to put them on.

At the end of the day, Im sorry I would still pick Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Goran (for the most part), Courier etc even if they were a tad passed their primes or yet to reach it over guys like Davydenko, Blake, Roddick, Hewitt, etc. The early 90s had a pretty big all star cast. And for those who say Edberg was passed his prime. He was still a top 1-3 player in the world in the early 90s. So he wasnt some washed up player

Djokovic, made the semi-finals at the French 2 years in a row and then made 2 semis and a final at the US Open, not to mention a YEC title.

Andy Murray has a winning h2h over Roger.

As for Roddick, he pushed Roger to five sets on his best surface this year. So is it really that bad, to lose to a guy, that came within a point of beating Roger on grass?

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

JoshDragon said:
Djokovic, made the semi-finals at the French 2 years in a row and then made 2 semis and a final at the US Open, not to mention a YEC title.

Andy Murray has a winning h2h over Roger.

As for Roddick, he pushed Roger to five sets on his best surface this year. So is it really that bad, to lose to a guy, that came within a point of beating Roger on grass?

Both Murray and Djokovic were primarily losing to players lower ranked then them they should otherwise have beaten at the slams outside of Djoker losing to Fed at the USO.

Djoker loss to Roddick at the AO, Kohlschreiber at the French, Haas at Wimbeldon and Fed at the USO.

Murray lost to Verdasco at the AO, Gonzales at the French (Not bad considering Murray isnt great on clay), Roddick at Wimbedon and Cilic at the USO.

So when you look at it in this perspective, their slam results this year have been not on par to what people think they should be considering they are top 3-4 in the world.

Mos

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

Its safe to say that Djoker and Murra are NOT delivering at the slams in the way they should be by now

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Driver's Seat said:
Thats not what I am trying to reference at all. It just shows that while Fed was grabbing the bulk of his slams, Rafa was just a major threat at clay slams and grass, NOT hardcourt slams. Opposed to Agassi who won every slam, adapted to EVERY SURFACE. Has Nadal done this? I talking about adaptability here. Has Rafa been on par with Agassi in this regard? The answer is no.

I can agree with you on HC slam Andre is better, but SW19 and clay Rafa is way better. He won a total of 6 slams in a span of 3 and a half years! Andre won 5 in the entire 90s. Rafa is not on par with Andre, but he’s GREATER player than Andre!

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

TMF said:
I can agree with you on HC slam Andre is better, but SW19 and clay Rafa is way better. He won a total of 6 slams in a span of 3 and a half years! Andre won 5 in the entire 90s. Rafa is not on par with Andre, but he’s GREATER player than Andre!

Well.. I dunno about greater. Agassi has 8 slams, the career slam and I think just makes the cut in the top 20 of all time. Rafa is just below him at this point in his career.

Heres a big question.. Would Rafa have been able to win Wimbeldon in the 90's and reach a final as Agassi did?

TMF · Dec 18, 2009

Driver's Seat said:
Well.. I dunno about greater. Agassi has 8 slams, the career slam and I think just makes the cut in the top 20 of all time. Rafa is just below him at this point in his career.

Heres a big question.. Would Rafa have been able to win Wimbeldon in the 90's and reach a final as Agassi did?

Achievement wise, yes, Andre had better. But don’t act as all of his wins coming at the expense of Pete. During Pete’s prime(1993-98), how many slam did Andre won? How many time they faced at the slam? Meanwhile, Fed/Nadal rivalry was way more intensify.

Your question is futile b/c we never know if Nadal can do it in the 90s. It’ the same can be ask if Andre would of won SW19 in this decade.

GameSampras???

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

TMF said:
Achievement wise, yes, Andre had better. But don’t act as all of his wins coming at the expense of Pete. During Pete’s prime(1993-98), how many slam did Andre won? How many time they faced at the slam? Meanwhile, Fed/Nadal rivalry was way more intensify.

Your question is futile b/c we never know if Nadal can do it in the 90s. It’ the same can be ask if Andre would of won SW19 in this decade.

GameSampras???

Well Rafa may surpass Andre in career achievements. But again, he may not. We dont know where Rafa will go from here. He may never win another slam again. Maybe never even see another USO semifinals.. Andre had the longevity which added to his achievements. Rafa is in a different boat. Neither have had countless dominant years. Andre was dominant in 95 overrall. Rafa had a domiant 08-early 09 year. But has fell of since. Andre had the longevity in his favor.

And Gamesampras? Who is that or what is that

thalivest · Dec 18, 2009

As annoyingly persistent as the thread starter is I think she has a point here. I think when you compare the Sampras field to the Federer field the Sampras field was much stronger from 90-95 than the Federer field was from 2003-2006 but the Federer field from 2007 onwards is showing to be much stronger than the Sampras field from 96 onwards. So overall it will probably balance out.

thalivest · Dec 18, 2009

Driver's Seat said:
Well Rafa may surpass Andre in career achievements. But again, he may not. We dont know where Rafa will go from here. He may never win another slam again. Maybe never even see another USO semifinals.. Andre had the longevity which added to his achievements. Rafa is in a different boat. Neither have had countless dominant years. Andre was dominant in 95 overrall. Rafa had a domiant 08-early 09 year. But has fell of since. Andre had the longevity in his favor.

And Gamesampras? Who is that or what is that

Agassi was not dominant in 95 overall. He was soundly outperformed by 3 other guys in his only grass court event of the year, he wasnt even close to one of the best guys on clay that season, on hard courts he overall was the top but lost the finals of the biggest hard court event of the year (to the same guy who was runner up to him in the 2nd biggest of the year). He wasnt even either the computer or true #1 that year. Sampras with 3 major finals to Agassi's 2 and Wimbledon and U.S Open Champion to Agassi's 1 major clearly was. You cant even come close to comparing to that to Nadal's 2008 where he was far and away the dominant #1 of the year overall.

Driver's Seat · Dec 18, 2009

thalivest said:
Agassi was not dominant in 95 overall. He was soundly outperformed by 3 other guys in his only grass court event of the year, he wasnt even close to one of the best guys on clay that season, on hard courts he overall was the top but lost the finals of the biggest hard court event of the year (to the same guy who was runner up to him in the 2nd biggest of the year). He wasnt even either the computer or true #1 that year. Sampras with 3 major finals to Agassi's 2 and Wimbledon and U.S Open Champion to Agassi's 1 major clearly was. You cant even come close to comparing to that to Nadal's 2008 where he was far and away the dominant #1 of the year overall.

Well if Sampras didnt stop him at the USO, Agassi would have been. Look at his record for the year. I was just going by slams but overrall. Won the AO, won 3 Masters events, 26 match winning streak in the summer, went 73-9 the whole year, and had 30 weeks of Number 1. Pretty dang dominant overrall

The second half of this decade was much tougher than the second half of the 90's

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 21996

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 21996

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads