Compare Federer vs. Agassi; SAMPRAS is in FIELD of HiS OWN

[EZRA]

Steve: Federer lost only 8 sets throughout his Wimbledon matches because? That's a question you should answer and should explain the depth of today's game. Was he ever challenged? Nadal took him 2 five sets and Nadal's game isn't really suited for grass.. nowadays, who really have the game for grass.. Roddick?

Again - I am not denying Federer's greatness .. but it would've been better if he had better competition than what the field is offering right now.

Regardless, we'll remain to have different opinions of the subject matter and although I do not agree to what you have to say about it, I respect it nonetheless.

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving.

 

[anointedone]

Steve: Federer lost only 8 sets throughout his Wimbledon matches because? That's a question you should answer and should explain the depth of today's game. Was he ever challenged? Nadal took him 2 five sets and Nadal's game isn't really suited for grass.. nowadays, who really have the game for grass

Borg's game was not "suited" to grass, does that mean he was less outstanding then all those who were "suited" to grass. Being more suited does not mean you are better. People keep saying Nadal isnt supposed to be suited to a surface other then clay, and keeps defying people by doing so well, his game and abilities to adapt are so underrotated it is crazy. It does not matter if Nadal's game is suited to grass, he is a damn tough player and he is better then almost all the people you named, past-his-prime Becker, past-his-prime Edberg, Todd Martin, Tim Henman, Patrick Rafter, etc.....Nadal would take them all down. Becker and Edberg by the mid 90s were not that great anymore, obviously great players but clearly diminished forces by then, and those other players are definitely not that great. Federer and even Nadal are in another class from them. The fact Nadal was great enough to push Federer as much as he did in this years final when Roger was playing so well already shows he would be more then good enough to win vs players like that.

The other thing you seem to forget is the grass today is not the same grass. Todays grass is much slower, what is supposed to be suited to grass or what was then, would not be suited to todays grass as well. The huge serves of Ivanisevic and Krajicek would not fare as well on todays rye grass as they did then, and even then Krajiceck especialy was vurnerable to alot of early round losses to virtual nobodies. The serve-volley games of Rafter and Henman would not be as effective on todays slowed down grass. Just because it was suited then does not mean it would be as suited for todays slowed down grass grass. What is doing well there now is what fits the new type of grass, people need to realize they arent going to see the same type of tennis as the faster grass ever and just accept it.

 

[FiveO]

The other side of this discussion is mis-interpreting any challenge to the claim that today's game is deeper than its ever been as if we are claiming the '90's are the golden age of tennis. Seems to touch on a sensitive nerve.

The claim that some of us are making are that the mid 90's were in fact deeper than the present decade.

Most of us have said ad-infinitum, that this critique DOES NOT call into question the greatness of Federer. He has already put himself with Laver, Borg and Sampras at the very top of the Open era Greats, and shows no sign of stopping and clearly passing them.

It's not Federer or Nadal, for that matter, being questioned. It's the remainder of the field.

The argument for greater depth today requires a suspension of dis-belief and/or requires "the believer" speak out of both sides of the mouth simultaneously.

First and foremost is Agassi. He is the link to both generations. He is in truth a generation and a half removed. For the depth of today's game to work one is forced into several presumptions:

Agassi was not only as good but a better player after 29 than he ever was

AND

Edberg who vied for titles, won a MS and qualified for YEC through '94 wasn't, that's the first third of Sampras period of dominance.

Becker who vied for titles, won a Major (the same major AA won late in his career) an MS shield and reached the his third consecutive YEC FINAL in '96 and played the reigning #1 to a near draw, but he wasn't viable. That's 2/3's of Sampras's period of dominance.

Stich who won his slam AFTER Sampras's first, beat Sampras in the '93 YEC Final, and reached at least a SF of all 4 majors including the finals of the USO and RG from '93 to '97 and he doesn't compare favorably to anyone today. In and out yes, but spanning almost all of the Sampras era.

Courier has to be an elusion and an even bigger one than Hewitt. From the '92 USO through '96 RG, that's 15 majors he competed in, Courier met Sampras in the QF or later in nearly half, seven, and went 1-6. Did Courier fade or was he shoved off the top of the pyramid? Somehow Courier is discounted despite having twice the Major results as Hewitt.

Rafter a two time Major winner, who, let's say for argument sake, took the place of Becker in '97, was 5-6 v. Agassi from '96 through '01 and splitting their Major match-ups 2-2 AFTER Agassi turned 29 who was "ARGUABLY A BETTER PLAYER" THEN, yet, somehow, Rafter, doesn't measure up by today's standards.

How does that work out? An objective person would conclude that something has to give here.

Either Rafter was better than being credited for or Agassi wasn't as good as he was in '94-'96 or '99. Not both.

How does the premise on AA himself reconcile with his loss to Sampras in the '02 USO Final or AA's absence from the finals of '00 or '01. Sampras was there.

Another two time Major winner, Kafelnikov, who was 4-5 v. AA from '94 to '99 two of those wins coming in '95 and '99, AA's actual best years, has to be a nobody, otherwise the claim can't work.

Chang who aside from his other accomplishments was 7-11 v. Edberg from '88to '94, 5-7 vs. AA from '93 to '98, has to be a non-factor. If he's a "B" what is Davydenko? Chang had winning records vs. the top 16 every year he was advancing in Majors, Davydenko can't make that claim.


The '90's had its Baghdatis-like spikes too. Moya for one. Yeah its early for Bags, but thus far he's taken an eerily similar path to Moya's just not quite as good.

And before attacking Moya, remember that attack will also cut two ways, for despite the claim of the alleged greater depth of the 2000's, not only Moya but another holdover from the end of the Sampras era, Henman at 31, were in the Top Ten as late as mid-2005.

Again if these guys sucked in the '90's what were they doing in the '05 Top 10and why is Moya still in the Top 17 now at 31 in the middle of Fed's run?

One thing missing from today are the champions from the pre-Fed generation.

No, NOT the Sampras era holdovers, who are there, the one between Sampras and Federer, the Kuerten generation.

The class of that class, Kuerten and Norman blew out hips, unfortunately. Rios was well, just nuts. Philippoussis never could find the consistent motivation, and as per another directive of convenience, can't be used to call into question today's depth even though he reached the '03 W Final vs. Fed.

Who else? Grosjean? Hrbaty? Stepanek? Without anyone aside from Kuerten distinguishing themselves it simply subtracts from the depth, today.

Clement? Schuttler? Those are the two "names" the "arguably better Agassi" beat the AO finals in '01 and '03.

Moya and Henman were threats on the specific polarized surfaces when they joined the tour yet somehow emerged in the top ten during this generation. Interesting.

Any Champions from the Kuerten generation lurking/threatening?

Then this class. Ferrero? Safin? Both tremendous promise but both are all but gone.

Hewitt? He actually wore out faster than Courier.

What is the generation left with? Nalbandian with his on/off results? Roddick with tremendous holes in his game? Davydenko with just as big holes? Blake? Ljubicic? Ferrer? Name the player who is setting themselves up at the top just below Federer, Nadal and now Djoker.

There is no Sampras/Federer 'tweener generation. Much of the current generation are absent and have been for longer terms than AA ever was in the 90's.

So you have Fed and a few Fed contemporaries with either serious holes and/or palpable questions of heart, PLUS the "promise" of the next generation.

There's obviously Nadal. And Djoker looks legit. Gasquet and Bags? What have they done so far sets him apart from the, (no offense) but the other French trained Forgets, Lecontes and Piolines. Has Murray shown much other than he's as crazy as a Nastase, Ivanisevic or Safin without the results yet? Yeah they're young. Yeah we don't know yet.

But looking at the Kuerten generation and this generation: How does "promise" manifest itself most often. And NOW, RIGHT NOW, by what mental gymnastics does mere "promise" translate into depth?

That is not a recipe for depth.

 

[anointedone]

The 90s and this decade are both weak fields. The real strong fields were the 60s, 70s, and 80s. McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Laver, would all have won even more titles vs the same competition Federer and Sampras has. Comparing the mid-late 90s field to this decades field is like the battle of the minnows; kind of like arguing who was more deserving of a spot in the top 10 in 2002 between Dokic and Hantuchova, while the Williams totally dominated, and Mauresmo, up and coming Henin, up and coming Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, were next closest behind them. Both decades competition wise pale compared to the fields past greats faced in the end anyway.

Aruging a very weak 2-slam finalist like Pioline vs weak 1-time slam finalists of today like Baghdatis is truly a battle of minnows.

 

[Steve132]

The other side of this discussion is mis-interpreting any challenge to the claim that today's game is deeper than its ever been as if we are claiming the '90's are the golden age of tennis. Seems to touch on a sensitive nerve.

The claim that some of us are making are that the mid 90's were in fact deeper than the present decade.

Most of us have said ad-infinitum, that this critique DOES NOT call into question the greatness of Federer. He has already put himself with Laver, Borg and Sampras at the very top of the Open era Greats, and shows no sign of stopping and clearly passing them.

It's not Federer or Nadal, for that matter, being questioned. It's the remainder of the field.

The argument for greater depth today requires a suspension of dis-belief and/or requires "the believer" speak out of both sides of the mouth simultaneously.

First and foremost is Agassi. He is the link to both generations. He is in truth a generation and a half removed. For the depth of today's game to work one is forced into several presumptions:

Agassi was not only as good but a better player after 29 than he ever was

AND

Edberg who vied for titles, won a MS and qualified for YEC through '94 wasn't, that's the first third of Sampras period of dominance.

Becker who vied for titles, won a Major (the same major AA won late in his career) an MS shield and reached the his third consecutive YEC FINAL in '96 and played the reigning #1 to a near draw, but he wasn't viable. That's 2/3's of Sampras's period of dominance.

Stich who won his slam AFTER Sampras's first, beat Sampras in the '93 YEC Final, and reached at least a SF of all 4 majors including the finals of the USO and RG from '93 to '97 and he doesn't compare favorably to anyone today. In and out yes, but spanning almost all of the Sampras era.

Courier has to be an elusion and an even bigger one than Hewitt. From the '92 USO through '96 RG, that's 15 majors he competed in, Courier met Sampras in the QF or later in nearly half, seven, and went 1-6. Did Courier fade or was he shoved off the top of the pyramid? Somehow Courier is discounted despite having twice the Major results as Hewitt.

Rafter a two time Major winner, who, let's say for argument sake, took the place of Becker in '97, was 5-6 v. Agassi from '96 through '01 and splitting their Major match-ups 2-2 AFTER Agassi turned 29 who was "ARGUABLY A BETTER PLAYER" THEN, yet, somehow, Rafter, doesn't measure up by today's standards.

How does that work out? An objective person would conclude that something has to give here.

Either Rafter was better than being credited for or Agassi wasn't as good as he was in '94-'96 or '99. Not both.

How does the premise on AA himself reconcile with his loss to Sampras in the '02 USO Final or AA's absence from the finals of '00 or '01. Sampras was there.

Another two time Major winner, Kafelnikov, who was 4-5 v. AA from '94 to '99 two of those wins coming in '95 and '99, AA's actual best years, has to be a nobody, otherwise the claim can't work.

Chang who aside from his other accomplishments was 7-11 v. Edberg from '88to '94, 5-7 vs. AA from '93 to '98, has to be a non-factor. If he's a "B" what is Davydenko? Chang had winning records vs. the top 16 every year he was advancing in Majors, Davydenko can't make that claim.


The '90's had its Baghdatis-like spikes too. Moya for one. Yeah its early for Bags, but thus far he's taken an eerily similar path to Moya's just not quite as good.

And before attacking Moya, remember that attack will also cut two ways, for despite the claim of the alleged greater depth of the 2000's, not only Moya but another holdover from the end of the Sampras era, Henman at 31, were in the Top Ten as late as mid-2005.

Again if these guys sucked in the '90's what were they doing in the '05 Top 10and why is Moya still in the Top 17 now at 31 in the middle of Fed's run?

One thing missing from today are the champions from the pre-Fed generation.

No, NOT the Sampras era holdovers, who are there, the one between Sampras and Federer, the Kuerten generation.

The class of that class, Kuerten and Norman blew out hips, unfortunately. Rios was well, just nuts. Philippoussis never could find the consistent motivation, and as per another directive of convenience, can't be used to call into question today's depth even though he reached the '03 W Final vs. Fed.

Who else? Grosjean? Hrbaty? Stepanek? Without anyone aside from Kuerten distinguishing themselves it simply subtracts from the depth, today.

Clement? Schuttler? Those are the two "names" the "arguably better Agassi" beat the AO finals in '01 and '03.

Moya and Henman were threats on the specific polarized surfaces when they joined the tour yet somehow emerged in the top ten during this generation. Interesting.

Any Champions from the Kuerten generation lurking/threatening?

Then this class. Ferrero? Safin? Both tremendous promise but both are all but gone.

Hewitt? He actually wore out faster than Courier.

What is the generation left with? Nalbandian with his on/off results? Roddick with tremendous holes in his game? Davydenko with just as big holes? Blake? Ljubicic? Ferrer? Name the player who is setting themselves up at the top just below Federer, Nadal and now Djoker.

There is no Sampras/Federer 'tweener generation. Much of the current generation are absent and have been for longer terms than AA ever was in the 90's.

So you have Fed and a few Fed contemporaries with either serious holes and/or palpable questions of heart, PLUS the "promise" of the next generation.

There's obviously Nadal. And Djoker looks legit. Gasquet and Bags? What have they done so far sets him apart from the, (no offense) but the other French trained Forgets, Lecontes and Piolines. Has Murray shown much other than he's as crazy as a Nastase, Ivanisevic or Safin without the results yet? Yeah they're young. Yeah we don't know yet.

But looking at the Kuerten generation and this generation: How does "promise" manifest itself most often. And NOW, RIGHT NOW, by what mental gymnastics does mere "promise" translate into depth?

That is not a recipe for depth.

Two questions:

1. Can you identify any post in this thread that states that "today's game is deeper than its ever been?" The only people who have made this comparison are the ones who claim that the 90's are superior.

2. Can you identify any authoritative and impartial tennis sources who share your view that competition in the mid to late 1990's was significantly stronger than it is today? By an impartial source I mean someone who was NOT an active player in the 90's. Quoting Sampras or Becker or Ivanisevic will not do, just as we should not accept today's players' claims (if they make them) that today's competition is stronger, or Borg or Connors claiming that the 70's was a golden age.

 

[FiveO]

Two questions:

1. Can you identify any post in this thread that states that "today's game is deeper than its ever been?" The only people who have made this comparison are the ones who claim that the 90's are superior.

What is your argument then? Clearly the tenor of your posts had to do with a comparison of '90's to '00's. Others from that side have further narrowed the comparison to '93 to '96 compared to '04-'07. Conversely where did I claim the '90's as the "Golden Age" you allude to?

2. Can you identify any authoritative and impartial tennis sources who share your view that competition in the mid to late 1990's was significantly stronger than it is today? By an impartial source I mean someone who was NOT an active player in the 90's. Quoting Sampras or Becker or Ivanisevic will not do, just as we should not accept today's players' claims (if they make them) that today's competition is stronger, or Borg or Connors claiming that the 70's was a golden age.

There's that "Golden Age" thing again. So what did the discussion morph into prior to me joining it then? Was your citing of Pioline or Berasategui a case FOR the 90's? Why suggest AA was a better player after 29? Why dismiss Flipper as getting through to a Major final where he faced Fed who clearly started his period of dominance there and backed it up with the '03 YEC as not being the start of Fed's period of dominance?

To me the conversation was no longer Sampras/Federer but who they were facing. Others engaged in that conversation, yourself included. You made "a case" and I addressed it.

The case I made for the '90's being deeper than today came after arguments to the contrary were made in this thread. Have I misinterpreted what you and other have described and implied in this thread? I don't think so, but I'll be glad to listen.

 

[anointedone]

Why suggest AA was a better player after 29?

Perhaps because he won 5 of his 8 slams from 29 onwards, his last one being just before he turned 33. Perhaps because he kept a very consistent ranking and performance for many years from 29 on, rather then many years of inconsistent and quite alot of poor performance like 93, 96, 97, 98 when he was younger and should in theory have been better, but this is Agassi. He did not follow a typical tennis players career, and going by ages someone is supposed to be stronger does not apply to him the same way as others.

Why dismiss Flipper as getting through to a Major final where he faced Fed who clearly started his period of dominance there and backed it up with the '03 YEC as not being the start of Fed's period of dominance?

Realistically 2004 was the start of Federer's period of dominance, as well as the start of his real prime as a player. 2003 was the transition to get there. Keep in mind:

1)Federer ended 2003 ranked below Roddick, lets face it, in hindsight a 110% impossability if it were really Federer's "prime".

2)Federer did not win a single Masters title in 2003, even in a year no player won more then 2 so nobody was dominating the Masters events. Again completely unbelievable to happen in his "prime", and even if you find todays field weak it certainly wasnt much stronger in 2003 then today (heck Roddick ended the year #1 like I said).

3)Federer did not even once reach #1 that year even once, while Ferrero, Roddick, and 33 year old (and we see how much you value his age already) Agassi all took turns at that spot. Again this is the same player who has set a record # of weeks at #1 and has gone a long without relinquishing the spot even once to a much much stronger clay court type player then even prime Ferrero (Nadal) while someone like Roddick has been multiple thousands points behind at all times since.

 

[Steve132]

What is your argument then? Clearly the tenor of your posts had to do with a comparison of '90's to '00's. Others from that side have further narrowed the comparison to '93 to '96 compared to '04-'07. Conversely where did I claim the '90's as the "Golden Age" you allude to?



There's that "Golden Age" thing again. So what did the discussion morph into prior to me joining it then? Was your citing of Pioline or Berasategui a case FOR the 90's? Why suggest AA was a better player after 29? Why dismiss Flipper as getting through to a Major final where he faced Fed who clearly started his period of dominance there and backed it up with the '03 YEC as not being the start of Fed's period of dominance?

To me the conversation was no longer Sampras/Federer but who they were facing. Others engaged in that conversation, yourself included. You made "a case" and I addressed it.

The case I made for the '90's being deeper than today came after arguments to the contrary were made in this thread. Have I misinterpreted what you and other have described and implied in this thread? I don't think so, but I'll be glad to listen.

You have managed to avoid answering both my questions.

Neither I nor anyone else in this thread has argued that the competition in this decade or in the Federer era is superior to that of any other period. You cannot point to any such examples. My initial post was a critique of the idea that Federer had few challengers whereas Sampras was "a champion amongst Champions." Saying that the competition of the Federer era is not inferior to that of the Sampras era is NOT the same thing as saying that it is superior.

For the record, my view is that neither the Sampras nor the Federer eras is outstanding in terms of top-level talent, although I would not describe them as weak. Ivan Lendl is probably the Open era champion who can claim to have faced the toughest opposition, since he was old enough to face Borg, Connors and McEnroe in their prime in Slam finals but young enough to meet Wilander, Edberg and Becker at their best. 15 of his 19 Slam finals were played against these six.

My second question was intended to address your claim (reiterated in your latest post) about "the '90's being deeper than today." I simply asked you to identify knowledgeable and impartial tennis analysts who supported that claim. Many of the people who make this claim seem to think that it is a self-evident truth, but as I pointed out in an earlier post the only people that I know who support it are either players from the 90's or Sampras fans who are trying to preserve their hero's GOAT claims.

If it is really so obvious that competition in the mid to late 1990's was stronger than it is today, I would expect many tennis journalists, analysts and commentators to have argued this. Again, can you identify authorities who do so?

 

[FiveO]

Perhaps because he won 5 of his 8 slams from 29 onwards, his last one being just before he turned 33. Perhaps because he kept a very consistent ranking and performance for many years from 29 on, rather then many years of inconsistent and quite alot of poor performance like 93, 96, 97, 98 when he was younger and should in theory have been better, but this is Agassi. He did not follow a typical tennis players career, and going by ages someone is supposed to be stronger does not apply to him the same way as others.

Agassi:

'93 he finished ranked #24. This was the year of his wrist surgery which came in December of that year. In truth I don't recall if this was a lingering thing which effected his year, (AA skipped RG for the first time in seven years and five MS events, two more than the prior three years) or an acute injury which would make it a non-factor.

'97 no dispute.

'96? AA won two Master's Shields and reached the SF of two Majors, but had placed himself in such a bind to defend his '95 points ended the year #8 qualifying for the YEC.

'98? Well here's how the ATP describes it:

1998 – Made biggest one-year jump into Top 10 in history of ATP Rankings (since 1973) by climbing from 122 previous year to No. 6… Compiled a 68-16 record and won five titles while reaching five other finals… His 10 finals was second-most in his career..His 68 match wins was co-leader on Tour with Rios

#6 is the same year end ranking he attained in 2000, except that in 2000 it was a fall to #6 from #1 after the USO that year.

'99 was a great results year for AA. Of course, coincidentally, Sampras ostensibly abdicated his position at #1, missing the AO and more importantly the USO. Sampras, however did win the h2h in AA in '99, 4-1, including that one-sided Wimbledon Final. Agassi's sole win over Sampras that year came in the RR of the YEC which Sampras reversed in the Final there, days later, in a straight setter of his own.

The '99 RG. Agassi did beat the then current #4, Moya in the R16. Yeah Moya was the defending champ. But as we're all aware he ended the year outside the top Twenty and hasn't been past the QF at the biggest event held on his best surface before or since that year.
AA's other opponents that year?

1R #38 Squillari,
2R #81 Clement,
3R #158 Woodruff,
4R Moya,
QF #140 Fillipini who one more than one round at RG only once in 9 prior attempts including 5, 1R exits,
SF #30 Hrbaty who hasn't won more than two rounds at RG in his 9 other attempts,
Final #100 Medvedev

'99 USO? It was a win. Sampras withdrew leaving the top 1/4 completely open. Rafter retired with injury in 1R leaving the top 1/2 open.

After Pioline, there's that name again, beat Kuerten the #5, Martin #7 did what he was expected to do in the top 1/2 of the draw.

Kafelnikov did as expected as well, being the #3 and reaching the SF.

Agassi was the #2 seed and held up his end, barely. The #2 seed beat the #3 and #7 go figure.

2000? AA was #6 as stated and won the AO.

You are aware that was the ONLY tourney AA won that year.

Curiously, Sampras, who was on the decline, played AA closer at AA's best event than he had in AA's best playing year of '95.

At the USO in 2000, Sampras who continued his downward slide finalled while AA bowed to Clement in 2R.

Then of course we have their USO meetings of '01 and '02 where Sampras had been at his worst for over a year and a half vs. the BETTER Agassi on Agassi's second best Major surface.

...Agassi Better
+Sampras worse

...Same Result?

Then of course the gauntlets he ran at the '01 and '03 AO's?

2001 Australian Open, opponent's rankings in bold.

R128 Vanek, Jiri (CZE) 78
R64 Goldstein, Paul (USA) 80
R32 Prinosil, David (GER) 39
R16 Ilie, Andrew (AUS) 49
Q Martin, Todd (USA) 54
S Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 15
W Clement, Arnaud (FRA) 18

Agassi's ranking at the time? #6

2003 Australian Open,

R128 Vahaly, Brian (USA) 93
R64 Lee, Hyung-Taik (KOR) 67
R32 Escude, Nicolas (FRA) 37
R16 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 45
Q Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA) 16
S Ferreira, Wayne (RSA) 39
W Schuettler, Rainer (GER) 36

Agassi's Ranking at the time #2

Rafter's a good win, I suppose in light of the fact that Rafter got AA in the SF of Wimbledon in 2000 and 2001. But Rafter and Martin were aging right along with AA.

Someone in this thread questioned Pioline. Clement? Schuettler? and those were the 2nd and 4th BEST players AA faced on the way to those Major wins. Combined with the "Gauntlets" AA battled through on his way to the '99 RG and USO titles, the continued results vs. a "more clearly" declining Sampras IMO brings AA's 5 Majors after 29 into better perspective

AA better? Only when failing to see the forest for the trees.

Realistically 2004 was the start of Federer's period of dominance, as well as the start of his real prime as a player. 2003 was the transition to get there. Keep in mind:

1)Federer ended 2003 ranked below Roddick, lets face it, in hindsight a 110% impossability if it were really Federer's "prime".

Federer reached #1 the week of February 2, 2004.

As we all know the rankings a based on the prior twelve completed months of play/points.

More than 11/12's of Fed's accumulated points on the calendar came from '03.

2)Federer did not win a single Masters title in 2003, even in a year no player won more then 2 so nobody was dominating the Masters events. Again completely unbelievable to happen in his "prime", and even if you find todays field weak it certainly wasnt much stronger in 2003 then today (heck Roddick ended the year #1 like I said).

He won 2 of the 3 biggest events in the second half of '03 including The Masters Championship, for the rest refer to the above.

3)Federer did not even once reach #1 that year even once, while Ferrero, Roddick, and 33 year old (and we see how much you value his age already) Agassi all took turns at that spot. Again this is the same player who has set a record # of weeks at #1 and has gone a long without relinquishing the spot even once to a much much stronger clay court type player then even prime Ferrero (Nadal) while someone like Roddick has been multiple thousands points behind at all times since.

Again, see #1.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Before 2004 Fed wasnt that good because in order to succeed one needed excellent volleying and allcourt game and this type of game was harder to consistently win with unless you were Sampras. Luckily for Fed the conditions slowed and the new string technology came and made his game much more consistent and he could develop different strengths to win instead of developing his serve volleys more and using the higher risk game needed under the previous eras conditions.

Luckily for Fed he still has soem of his all court skills which he was developing before. All of Feds competition became a generation of baseline bashers who dont have any all court skills or volleying skills. Fed is taking advantage of this now. He only has to beat one style of player that has limted skills, instead of players with all different skills and styles. Feds generation is like a bunch of claycourters playing on hardcourts.



U.S. Open - Federer: Sampras on my mind 2007

Roger Federer swiftly turned his gaze to Pete Sampras and the all-time record for grand slam titles after hoisting aloft the US Open trophy for a fourth straight year.
TENNIS 2007 U.S. Open Roger Federer final

The victory over Novak Djokovic was worth $2.4 million to the Swiss world number one, but the only figure Federer really cared about was moving his grand slam titles haul to 12 to tie Roy Emerson for second place on the all-time list, two behind Sampras.

"I think about it a lot now, honestly," Federer, 26, said when asked about his quest to reign as the most successful grand slam winner in tennis.

"In the beginning I felt pushed a little bit in the corner, because you don't win slams (just) like that. It's just too tough.

"I feel these two and a half weeks, it's so draining. I'm exhausted in the end.

"I know how tough it is. So to come so close already at my age is fantastic, and I really hope to break it."

Federer, who became the first man since Bill Tilden in the 1920s to win four U.S. titles in a row, has also won five Wimbledons in a row -- the only man to possess such a streak in the final two grand slams of the year.

Despite all his grand slam experience, Federer said he still gets nervous before the big matches.

"You're like, 'I hope I didn't come all this way to lose'. You start asking yourself questions. Of course, the more I win the more I ask myself questions. In the end to win, it's relief, happiness, just all together. It's the best feeling."

The Swiss master said his greatest advantage is his mental toughness and how he can raise his game on the big points. Federer said his game has changed a lot since he was an up-and-coming 20-year-old like Djokovic.

"I would chip and charge, serve and volley a little bit, play like my idols basically -- Becker, Edberg, Sampras. They all did it, so for me it was like I got to play the same way.

"Then I realised things were slowing down. The new string generation came along where returning and passing shots was made easier. It was harder to attack in some ways.

"But at the same time that helped me now because I do have the game to attack, I do have the solid volleys, I do have the opportunities and the option if I have to. That's good that I did it when I was young. I took some chances.

"Maybe that cost me a lot of matches, but the reward was fantastic. It's been a long road. I had to work hard on my game. In the end, I think I've really come along in the last few years."

In the last two years, Spain's Rafael Nadal has been Federer's chief rival, beating him in the finals of the last two French Opens -- the only slam that has so far eluded him. Federer said Djokovic, who defeated the Swiss in this year's Montreal final after beating Andy Roddick and Nadal on the way, might join Nadal as a challenger to his supremacy.

"It's very possible, you know. Honestly I've enjoyed the challenge of young guys challenging me. This is probably my biggest motivation out there.

"You know, seeing them challenge me, beating them in the final, it's really for me the best feeling, to be honest," Federer said with a smile.

"If a rivalry comes along, great." Federer said he was unsure how close world number three Djokovic was to overtaking Nadal as number two.

"Number two, number three, doesn't matter much," said Federer. "It's number one that matters. That's how it goes."

 

[grafrules]

Before 2004 Fed wasnt that good because in order to succeed one needed excellent volleying and allcourt game and this type of game......blah blah blah

Yeah that is why Hewitt was year end #1 in 2001 and 2002, and Agassi was his closest challenger for the #1 ranking. That is why Roddick and Ferrero each spent time at #1 in 2003. Real masters of allcourt game and volleying there. Some of you clowns are amusing in a pitiable sort of way.

 

[Steve132]

Yeah that is why Hewitt was year end #1 in 2001 and 2002, and Agassi was his closest challenger for the #1 ranking. That is why Roddick and Ferrero each spent time at #1 in 2003. Real masters of allcourt game and volleying there. Some of you clowns are amusing in a pitiable sort of way.

Grafrules: Great post.

You could also add players like Muster, Rios and Moya, who all reached No. 1 in the 90's. If they are models of "excellent volleying and allcourt game" I don't think Fed has much to be worried about.

 

[FiveO]

Pete Sampras November 6, 1995 January 28, 1996 12
Andre Agassi January 29, 1996 February 11, 1996 2
Thomas Muster (13) February 12, 1996 February 18, 1996 1
Pete Sampras February 19, 1996 March 10, 1996 3
Thomas Muster March 11, 1996 April 13, 1996 5
Pete Sampras April 14, 1996 March 29, 1998 102
Marcelo Ríos (14) March 30, 1998 April 26, 1998 4
Pete Sampras April 27, 1998 August 9, 1998 15
Marcelo Ríos August 10, 1998 August 23, 1998 2
Pete Sampras August 24, 1998 March 14, 1999 29
Carlos Moyà (15) March 15, 1999 March 28, 1999 2
Pete Sampras March 29, 1999 May 2, 1999 5
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (16) May 3, 1999 June 13, 1999 6
Pete Sampras June 14, 1999 July 4, 1999 3
Andre Agassi July 5, 1999 July 25, 1999 3
Patrick Rafter (17) July 26, 1999 August 1, 1999 1
Pete Sampras August 2, 1999 September 12, 1999 6
Andre Agassi September 13, 1999 September 10, 2000 52
Pete Sampras September 11, 2000 November 19, 2000 10
Marat Safin (18) November 20, 2000 December 3, 2000 2
Gustavo Kuerten (19) December 4, 2000 January 28, 2001 8

In a time when season/surface changes meant more than they do today.

 

[grafrules]

Pete Sampras November 6, 1995 January 28, 1996 12
Andre Agassi January 29, 1996 February 11, 1996 2
Thomas Muster (13) February 12, 1996 February 18, 1996 1
Pete Sampras February 19, 1996 March 10, 1996 3
Thomas Muster March 11, 1996 April 13, 1996 5
Pete Sampras April 14, 1996 March 29, 1998 102
Marcelo Ríos (14) March 30, 1998 April 26, 1998 4
Pete Sampras April 27, 1998 August 9, 1998 15
Marcelo Ríos August 10, 1998 August 23, 1998 2
Pete Sampras August 24, 1998 March 14, 1999 29
Carlos Moyà (15) March 15, 1999 March 28, 1999 2
Pete Sampras March 29, 1999 May 2, 1999 5
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (16) May 3, 1999 June 13, 1999 6
Pete Sampras June 14, 1999 July 4, 1999 3
Andre Agassi July 5, 1999 July 25, 1999 3
Patrick Rafter (17) July 26, 1999 August 1, 1999 1
Pete Sampras August 2, 1999 September 12, 1999 6
Andre Agassi September 13, 1999 September 10, 2000 52
Pete Sampras September 11, 2000 November 19, 2000 10
Marat Safin (18) November 20, 2000 December 3, 2000 2
Gustavo Kuerten (19) December 4, 2000 January 28, 2001 8

In a time when season/surface changes meant more than they do today.

I dont know what you are trying to show by that. How is the likes of Moya, Muster, or Rios reaching #1 when Sampras faltered a bit supposed to show how strong the field was. In fact it does quite the opposite.

 

[grafrules]

Grafrules: Great post.

You could also add players like Muster, Rios and Moya, who all reached No. 1 in the 90's. If they are models of "excellent volleying and allcourt game" I don't think Fed has much to be worried about.

Yeah exactly. Federer would sure be shreaded in the last decade by the superb volleying and allcourt game of 90s #1s Muster, Rios, and Moya. :lol:

 

[FiveO]

I dont know what you are trying to show by that. How is the likes of Moya, Muster, or Rios reaching #1 when Sampras faltered a bit supposed to show how strong the field was. In fact it does quite the opposite.

Oh, I don't know. Titles by Surface? Maybe?

Muster:

Hard (3)
Grass (0)
Clay (40)
Carpet (1)

Moya:

Hard (4)
Grass (0)
Clay (16)
Carpet (0)

Rios:

Hard (7)
Grass (0)
Clay (9)
Carpet (2)

Rios actually didn't have a bad split, but was crazier than Safin.

In fact neither Muster nor Moya reached #1 in their single Major win years.

Rios never won a major.

They were clay court accumulators.

So while the serve and volleyers, all-courters, big serve/big fh'ers and pure ball strikers, et al, were beating each others brains in throughout the year playing on polarized playing surfaces and whacking up majors the clay-courters would be playing their own tour.

What do you think?

 

[grafrules]

Oh, I don't know. Titles by Surface? Maybe?

Muster:

Hard (3)
Grass (0)
Clay (40)
Carpet (1)

Moya:

Hard (4)
Grass (0)
Clay (16)
Carpet (0)

Rios:

Hard (7)
Grass (0)
Clay (9)
Carpet (2)

Rios actually didn't have a bad split, but was crazier than Safin.

In fact neither Muster nor Moya reached #1 in their single Major win years.

Rios never won a major.

They were clay court accumulators.

So while the serve and volleyers, all-courters, big serve/big fh'ers and pure ball strikers, et al, were beating each others brains in throughout the year playing on polarized playing surfaces and whacking up majors the clay-courters would be playing their own tour.

What do you think?

Similar to what Nadal does today, except that he is much better then Muster or Moya on non-clay surfaces, while being much more dominant on clay, and yet he somehow cant reach #1 in todays supposably "much worse field which pails in comparision to the golden 90s" (according to you that is).

 

[FiveO]

Golden? Again (if you've been reading) NO!

Better, deeper and more diverse? Yep.

You realize where these guys (Muster, Moya and Rios) would average out for the decade right?

Somehow your argument implying greater depth today, in an era with less legitimate challengers, guys occupying the top ten who have losing winning percentages to the top 16 being deeper seems in conflict with itself.

They don't have to beat Fed or Nadal. How about their peers more times than not?

 

[FiveO]

...also be careful when critiquing Moya too harshly, as he was one of the Top Tenners into '05 and is currently #17 at 31 years of age, in a generation you apparently believe to be deeper than the '90's.

 

[FiveO]

Rios was considered a true talent, but for other reasons (more Safin-like) than other top guys of his generation like Kuerten and Norman (who, again, suffered debilitating injuries) was from the generation between the Sampras and Federer eras, but disappeared very prematurely from the tennis landscape.

Had they continued as they started, and Safin and Hewitt, or even a JCF or Coria for that matter, maintained a better level, this may have been an era of very good depth.

But they didn't and here we are.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I was referring more to a bit before this period. Fed obvously aslo had an adjustment period to get used to the new conditions as well

Agassi and Hewitt were just about the only guys who could consistently hit precision grundstrokes, they lost their advantage relative to the average baseliner who wasnt very consistent or precise when the slower conditions and new technology strings came, then every bozo was able to be a pretty good baseline basher.

Fed became way way more consistent under the new conditions and then started to beat Hewitt.

Now Fed is lapping it up against the baseline bashers. After getting whipped by Sampras Fed is at home laughing his as_s off because no one can play allcourt tennis or pressure him at net. He can just hang back and float back returns all day long..lol

Yeah that is why Hewitt was year end #1 in 2001 and 2002, and Agassi was his closest challenger for the #1 ranking. That is why Roddick and Ferrero each spent time at #1 in 2003. Real masters of allcourt game and volleying there. Some of you clowns are amusing in a pitiable sort of way.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

They counted many less tournaments back then for the #1, so it shouldnt be a surprise to have any style of player as #1. but amongst the best there was always a group of talented all courters,and great volleyers and whichever style of player played, it was much harder to be consistent under the faster conditions and older technology strings, so only the precise shotmakers or most talented would be at the top. The talent pool was WAY more balanced. Now anyone can control the ball easily with the new strings and slower conditions so you have a generation of baseline bashers playing the easiest style of tennis under these conditions and no one is learning any extra skills like volleys.

Grafrules: Great post.

You could also add players like Muster, Rios and Moya, who all reached No. 1 in the 90's. If they are models of "excellent volleying and allcourt game" I don't think Fed has much to be worried about.

 

[FiveO]

You have managed to avoid answering both my questions.

Neither I nor anyone else in this thread has argued that the competition in this decade or in the Federer era is superior to that of any other period. You cannot point to any such examples. My initial post was a critique of the idea that Federer had few challengers whereas Sampras was "a champion amongst Champions." Saying that the competition of the Federer era is not inferior to that of the Sampras era is NOT the same thing as saying that it is superior.

For the record, my view is that neither the Sampras nor the Federer eras is outstanding in terms of top-level talent, although I would not describe them as weak. Ivan Lendl is probably the Open era champion who can claim to have faced the toughest opposition, since he was old enough to face Borg, Connors and McEnroe in their prime in Slam finals but young enough to meet Wilander, Edberg and Becker at their best. 15 of his 19 Slam finals were played against these six.

So, the depth of the 90's and 2000's are neither inferior nor superior as compared to each other. No offense, but isn't that a little obtuse?

Now the Lendl era gets thrown in. Steve, if you disagree with my assessment of the TWO eras, not to include any other, debate it.

My second question was intended to address your claim (reiterated in your latest post) about "the '90's being deeper than today." I simply asked you to identify knowledgeable and impartial tennis analysts who supported that claim. Many of the people who make this claim seem to think that it is a self-evident truth, but as I pointed out in an earlier post the only people that I know who support it are either players from the 90's or Sampras fans who are trying to preserve their hero's GOAT claims.

If it is really so obvious that competition in the mid to late 1990's was stronger than it is today, I would expect many tennis journalists, analysts and commentators to have argued this. Again, can you identify authorities who do so?

Steve, come on. Instead of debating performance we're now to line up opinions, and from a very narrowed list, to bolster an argument. We either disagree or we don't, it's hard to tell after this post. Opinion supported by opinion?

I'm comfortable with my conclusions based on having seen the various eras and how they compare to each other, and articulated that position offering records and results in support of my stance. I don't believe citing others opinions especially if the players are omitted has much weight, whether they support my argument or not. Besides, if you don't feel one way or another about the two eras, is there even a debate?

 

[grafrules]

I was referring more to a bit before this period. Fed obvously aslo had an adjustment period to get used to the new conditions as well

Agassi and Hewitt were just about the only guys who could consistently hit precision grundstrokes, they lost their advantage relative to the average baseliner who wasnt very consistent or precise when the slower conditions and new technology strings came, then every bozo was able to be a pretty good baseline basher.

Fed became way way more consistent under the new conditions and then started to beat Hewitt.

So now your argument is that Hewitt is a "special" baseliner, while Federer is just the best of alot of average baseliners benefitting from the conditions. Ok exiting this thread of fiction of fantasy before I lose my sanity.

 

[grafrules]

...also be careful when critiquing Moya too harshly, as he was one of the Top Tenners into '05 and is currently #17 at 31 years of age, in a generation you apparently believe to be deeper than the '90's.

So in the 90s he was able to reach #1, at 31 he was able to reach #17. Wow you have really convinced me, what a terrible reflection of the game that is. Also you are of course supposed to be completely hopeless at 30 and beyond, looking back over the years tennis players never played even decently past 30; I never realized tennis was gymnastics. :roll:

 

[FiveO]

So in the 90s he was able to reach #1, at 31 he was able to reach #17. Wow you have really convinced me, what a terrible reflection of the game that is. Also you are of course supposed to be completely hopeless at 30 and beyond, looking back over the years tennis players never played even decently past 30; I never realized tennis was gymnastics. :roll:

While you're rolling your eyes I think you missed key points. How long was Moya in that spot? How long was he in the top 10? How did he get there in the first place? It seems you're skimming the thread. Go back and answer the question as to where you believe Moya averages out in the late '90's.

If your stance is that today is deeper then how could the historical trend continue into next generation? There shouldn't be room but there was. It shouldn't happen but did.

Moya had a 1 week stay at #1 in 1999, contrasted by 22 weeks at 10 or below ending at #22, in a year that Kafelnikov and Rafter also enjoyed short stays, with Agassi and Sampras in and out of the top spot after Sampras had set the unprecedented mark of 6 year end #1's.

Not only that but Sampras didn't defend his QF AO or SF USO points from 1998. He didn't play either event that year.

AA finally got his year end #1 at the end of 1999.

What does that tell you?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

just read this article a few mins ago. Sampras sums it up well, as to why this generation sux and lacks allcourt and volley skills:

Federer: Sampras Would Crack Top Five By Tennis Week
Friday, November 23, 2007

It's been five years since Pete Sampras beat Andre Agassi to capture his 14th career Grand Slam championship at the 2002 U.S. Open. But World No. 1 Roger Federer believes Sampras would secure a spot in the top five in the world if he returned to the ATP Tour today.

Showing some vintage serve-and-volley skills, Sampras took advantage of quicker court conditions to push Federer to two tight sets in the second of their three-match exhibition series in Kuala Lumpur. Federer prevailed 7-6(6), 7-6(5), but said after the match Sampras' serve and his ability to attack net would make him a top 5 player if he returned to the pro circuit.

"It was very difficult to return his serve," Federer said. "I think if he was playing he would still be a top five player."

Sampras showed his skills and a playful side in sometimes celebrating winners with a gleeful jiggle. The match offered moments of sparkling shotmaking by both men. Sampras did not drop serve in the 89-minute "Clash of Times" and when the match was over the pair received a standing ovation from the capacity crowd of 12,000 fans in Malawati Stadium in Shah Alam.

"Conditions were really fast today and it helped our service games," Federer said. "I was really impressed by how Pete pushed me till the end. It was a great match and I really enjoyed it."

Staring across the net at Federer in admiration after a few shots, Sampras said the man who would equal his record for most majors next season, hit some shots he had yet to see on a tennis court.

"I had a taste of what the best is tonight," Sampras said. "He has that extra gear. I hit some good volleys, but he gets the ball back with his backhand flick. Honestly, I've never seen a shot like that."

It was the second time in three days the Swiss stylist scored a straight-sets win over Sampras. Federer was a 6-4, 6-3 victor over Sampras in Seoul, Korea earlier this week. The final match in the best-of-three match exhibition series will be played in Macau.

The 36-year-old Sampras, who is undefeated on the Outback Champions senior circuit, said he has no plans to launch a comeback and is enjoying life at his Los Angeles home with his family.

"No, it's a tough lifestyle and I'm happy with a great wife and two great kids living in Los Angeles," Sampras said.

While Sampras was competitive with Federer in their second exhibition, he concedes that as a serve-and-volleyer he is one of the last of a dying breed in the sport today.

"Serve and volley is extinct," Sampras said. "In my day we had some great serve-and-volley players. There was myself, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic and others. But with the size of the racquets getting bigger, junior players these days are only taught to hit the ball as hard as they can. There are some players who can come in, but they are not natural serve-and-volleyers."

Sampras sad he's saddened by the state of the game that largely lacks the classic contrast of serve-and-volleyer vs. baseliner.

" I see a lot of big servers that aren't really looking to come in. You look at Wimbledon the last few years," Sampras said. "Everyone is staying back, hitting big groundstrokes. A lot of it is technology. These young guys are growing up with big racquets and strings. They don't really learn how to hit a proper volley. I learned with a wood racquet, so I had to have the right technique. Guys are hitting big, a lot of spin, a lot of control. Serve-and-volley tennis, sadly, in my opinion, it's not — you don't see anyone attacking Roger or anyone. He's dictating what he wants from the back court. That's always the best contrast, I felt, having a serve-and-volley player, playing against a baseliner. It's a good clash. I don't see it changing. I don't see any really serve and volleyers coming up. It's extinct. It's sad to see."

 

[Steve132]

So, the depth of the 90's and 2000's are neither inferior nor superior as compared to each other. No offense, but isn't that a little obtuse?

Now the Lendl era gets thrown in. Steve, if you disagree with my assessment of the TWO eras, not to include any other, debate it.



Steve, come on. Instead of debating performance we're now to line up opinions, and from a very narrowed list, to bolster an argument. We either disagree or we don't, it's hard to tell after this post. Opinion supported by opinion?

I'm comfortable with my conclusions based on having seen the various eras and how they compare to each other, and articulated that position offering records and results in support of my stance. I don't believe citing others opinions especially if the players are omitted has much weight, whether they support my argument or not. Besides, if you don't feel one way or another about the two eras, is there even a debate?

I don't see what is obtuse about the assumption that the standard of tennis has remained roughly the same over the past 10-15 years. If anything that is the default assumption. It's up to those who argue otherwise to make their case.

For reasons articulated earlier I strongly disagree with your thesis that the standard of tennis was higher in the 90's than it is today. It's also obvious from this thread that many other people share my view. For what it's worth, the available analytical measures (see Wuornos' excellent posts on this and the General Pro Player boards) also do not suggest that the quality of tennis was higher in the 90's.

We can go back and forth over this ad infinitum. In these circumstances, it is not in my view unreasonable to review what tennis experts have to say. You appear to believe that not only was the competition stronger in the 90's, but that this conclusion is obvious. One of my main problems with this view is that I have not heard any analysts, journalists or former players from eras other than the 90's make this argument. The only people who make or support this claim (apart from some, though by no means all, of the players of that era) are Sampras fans who are looking apprehensively over their shoulders as Federer obliterates their hero's records and, in the process, his GOAT claims as well.

The views of experts are not definitive. For one thing, they often disagree with each other, and for another the conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong. It is striking, however, that Sampras fans have been unable to cite any disinterested tennis analysts who share their view. It does not exactly inspire confidence in the validity of an argument if it is made only by those with an ax to grind in ongoing debates.

Incidentally, the point about Lendl is to show what evidence you would need to supply if you wanted to critique Federer's competition. I would certainly agree that Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg and Becker are collectively superior to Federer's opponents. They are also superior to Sampras' opponents. This does not, of course, mean that Lendl was a greater player than either Federer or Sampras.

 

[FiveO]

... The only people who make or support this claim (apart from some, though by no means all, of the players of that era) are Sampras fans who are looking apprehensively over their shoulders as Federer obliterates their hero's records and, in the process, his GOAT claims as well.

This is the projected sensitive nerve I alluded to earlier in the thread.

Despite the caveats, qualifiers, and the specificity of my critique being confined to the comparative depths of the two eras and in no way a questioning of Federer's or even Nadal's abilities, here at TT, it always comes down to the above.

Unfortunately, Fed-fanatics, view anything critical in the vicinity of Fed, even his environment, as being anti-Federer and motivated by fear on the part of a Sampras-fanatic.

It's a repetitve behavior exhibited by the extremists on both sides, demonstrated in similar prior threads or debates no matter the discussion: Fed v. Nadal or Sampras v. Agassi, or Borg facing no grass-courters.

Go back and re-skim or re-read my posts for those caveats and/or qualifiers, that's why they're in there.

Fed has already put himself on my Open GOAT List of Laver, Borg and Sampras, with Lendl, not McEnroe, a tick below. I feel that you can't rank the best of eras against one another because the playing conditions/formats/quality of events/equipment have varied so radically from era to era. But I'm also aware that statement, in and of itself, is bound to tweak the antennae of some other player's fanatic. There's no hint of American bias in my list, another accusation thrown around on these boards, as the list includes an Aussie, Swede, American and Swiss. Fed may put the records so far out of reach that he creates another level altogether, we'll see. He's already redefined Open era dominance over longer than a single year period.

Both Sampras and Federer happen to be my favorite players of the last 20 years, period. I am very thankful that Fed and JHH on the women's side are playing today and that they are at the top of their sports because of their talents in every element of the game and area in every area of the court.

I am a fan of the sport and a fan of each of these players but not fanatical about any. I enjoy well-rounded excellence. I am one who enjoys the precision and dominance of each player, I actually root for it, as I operate with the feeling we may never see the likes of it again and didn't think we would see anything approaching Sampras let alone surpass his level, and certainly not so soon after Sampras completed his career. But I'm elated to have the opportunity to watch it.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, I'm rooting for Fed to shatter records, simply because I want to see it. I want to see a calendar Slam and resent having to use the term "calendar", as I feel "career" and non-calendar "Slams" are contrivances. It will be an incredible feat if Fed can accomplish it, and one I want to see. I would prefer to see him using all his skills more often whether being forced to or simply by choice, but I'll take what I can get, knowing that he is the best, most well-rounded player I have ever seen in a lifetime of playing, coaching and watching tennis and like the others on my Open GOAT List a class act to boot.

Your veiled assumption/accusation that my critique of depth today is rooted in some anti-Fed/pro-Sampras bias is a false one on your part and actually couldn't be further from the truth, but one which brings each of your posts into much clearer focus.

 

[Steve132]

This is the projected sensitive nerve I alluded to earlier in the thread.

Despite the caveats, qualifiers, and the specificity of my critique being confined to the comparative depths of the two eras and in no way a questioning of Federer's or even Nadal's abilities, here at TT, it always comes down to the above.

Unfortunately, Fed-fanatics, view anything critical in the vicinity of Fed, even his environment, as being anti-Federer and motivated by fear on the part of a Sampras-fanatic.

It's a repetitve behavior exhibited by the extremists on both sides, demonstrated in similar prior threads or debates no matter the discussion: Fed v. Nadal or Sampras v. Agassi, or Borg facing no grass-courters.

Go back and re-skim or re-read my posts for those caveats and/or qualifiers, that's why they're in there.

Fed has already put himself on my Open GOAT List of Laver, Borg and Sampras, with Lendl, not McEnroe, a tick below. I feel that you can't rank the best of eras against one another because the playing conditions/formats/quality of events/equipment have varied so radically from era to era. But I'm also aware that statement, in and of itself, is bound to tweak the antennae of some other player's fanatic. There's no hint of American bias in my list, another accusation thrown around on these boards, as the list includes an Aussie, Swede, American and Swiss. Fed may put the records so far out of reach that he creates another level altogether, we'll see. He's already redefined Open era dominance over longer than a single year period.

Both Sampras and Federer happen to be my favorite players of the last 20 years, period. I am very thankful that Fed and JHH on the women's side are playing today and that they are at the top of their sports because of their talents in every element of the game and area in every area of the court.

I am a fan of the sport and a fan of each of these players but not fanatical about any. I enjoy well-rounded excellence. I am one who enjoys the precision and dominance of each player, I actually root for it, as I operate with the feeling we may never see the likes of it again and didn't think we would see anything approaching Sampras let alone surpass his level, and certainly not so soon after Sampras completed his career. But I'm elated to have the opportunity to watch it.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, I'm rooting for Fed to shatter records, simply because I want to see it. I want to see a calendar Slam and resent having to use the term "calendar", as I feel "career" and non-calendar "Slams" are contrivances. It will be an incredible feat if Fed can accomplish it, and one I want to see. I would prefer to see him using all his skills more often whether being forced to or simply by choice, but I'll take what I can get, knowing that he is the best, most well-rounded player I have ever seen in a lifetime of playing, coaching and watching tennis and like the others on my Open GOAT List a class act to boot.

Your veiled assumption/accusation that my critique of depth today is rooted in some anti-Fed/pro-Sampras bias is a false one on your part and actually couldn't be further from the truth, but one which brings each of your posts into much clearer focus.

I actually agree that too many discussions tend to become focused on Federer versus Sampras or Federer versus Nadal; or, on the women's side, Henin versus the Williams sisters. In fact, there are tennis forums in which virtually all discussions are hijacked by those who focus solely on such comparisons.

I'll just add three comments:

1. Whatever your personal motives may be, it is undeniable that claims of "weak competition" today compared with the 90's are, as a matter of fact, almost always used in order to belittle Federer's achievements and abilities. In this thread we have seen claims to the effect that Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin might beat Federer on grass. This type of statement is so far removed from the historical evidence of the performance of these players that it caused at least one poster to throw up his hands in disgust and exit the discussion. I do not question your statement that you are not anti-Federer. I would only state that this makes you virtually unique among the posters who insist that competition in the 90's was stronger.

2. I am not a "Fed fanatic", nor do I think that he is perfect. For what it's worth, if I were asked to select a GOAT my choice would be Rod Laver, who completed calendar year Grand Slams in the amateur and Open eras and also completed the professional equivalent of the CYGS in between.

3. From what I've seen Federer fans rarely find it necessary to belittle Sampras, for one simple reason. Any direct comparison between Federer and Sampras ends in Federer's favor, because he is more consistent, versatile and dominant than Sampras ever was. Each of Federer's last four years would rank in the top 10 of those achieved by male players in the Open era, and all are superior to any year that Sampras ever had. If there really is a war going on you might want to check to see who fires the first shots in each battle.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Steve;

You keep on with your amourphous claims that it is not true that 90's competition was more even than today's, and you dont prove otherwise...

im still waiting...

 

[lambielspins]

Steve;

You keep on with your amourphous claims that it is not true that 90's competition was more even than today's, and you dont prove otherwise...

im still waiting...

What the hell is your argument. Others are bringing up examples and arguing points and all you are coming up with is this grand "anyone who thinks the 90s wasnt way better is nonsense." When people point out the flaws in your ridiculous opening statements like Wilander and Lendl being contemparies of Sampras, or Safin being a Sampras contemporary and never a Federer contemporary, which even the 90s backers on here havent gone yet, you come back with some blanket statement of "you havent shown anything, 90s is the king." Either contribute your own arguments to this thread in a real way like others who are posting here or get lost.

Gorecki's contributions so far:

OK;

Sampras and Agassi thru out their carrers faced peers like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Jim Courrier, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Chang, Wilander, Muster, Kuerten, Rafter, Safin...

Federer? who does he face in his time?

Ljubucic? Ancic? "Chokovic", Rafa Nadal and the "Sleevettes*", Blake, Ferrer, EL Fatso argentino?, Leyton "Weak-it", NIk "always a safe bet" davidenko, robredo, gasquet...

who the hell in his perfect sense who dare to compare one era 90's to the other 2000's?

*please include monfils and other "1992 agassi" wannabies

"If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it"

lets see it then... show me i'm wrong...

remember to prove it with facts, scientific ones and not opinions fron idiots like Jmac and "Kourkikova the amazing player" coach who always goes wrong in his guessings Nick Bollitieri

Steve;

You keep on with your amourphous claims that it is not true that 90's competition was more even than today's, and you dont prove otherwise...

im still waiting...

The last part is classic. Gorecki accusing any of us who have all brought up many examples and stats to try and demonstrate our point as proving nothing. The only thing he has proven is he probably knows almost nothing about these players careers, and probably had some favorite player in the 90s which is why he is a 90s cheerleader of tennis on the side, yet cant recall any real facts about any of these players careers, then or today, so can come up with nothing but blanket idiot statements. Also calling a legend of the game and legend of coaching the game, John McEnroe and Nick Bollettieri, "idiots".

 

[Deleted member 21996]

What the hell is your argument. Others are bringing up examples and arguing points and all you are coming up with is this grand "anyone who thinks the 90s wasnt way better is nonsense." When people point out the flaws in your ridiculous opening statements like Wilander and Lendl being contemparies of Sampras, or Safin being a Sampras contemporary and never a Federer contemporary, which even the 90s backers on here havent gone yet, you come back with some blanket statement of "you havent shown anything, 90s is the king." Either contribute your own arguments to this thread in a real way like others who are posting here or get lost.

Gorecki's contributions so far:










The last part is classic. Gorecki accusing any of us who have all brought up many examples and stats to try and demonstrate our point as proving nothing. The only thing he has proven is he probably knows almost nothing about these players careers, and probably had some favorite player in the 90s which is why he is a 90s cheerleader of tennis on the side, yet cant recall any real facts about any of these players careers, then or today, so can come up with nothing but blanket idiot statements. Also calling a legend of the game and legend of coaching the game, John McEnroe and Nick Bollettieri, "idiots".

Your plain simple stupidity deserves no reply. and i was not talking to you was i?

ps: rudeness will not be tolerated

 

[lambielspins]

Your plain simple stupidity deserves no reply. and i was not talking to you was i?

1. You claim I deserve no reply then you give one. So you already contradict yourself moron.

2. Just as I thought, no examples, stats, arguments, ideas, thrown out. Only another nothing statement which doesnt relate to the topic at all. Congrats, you show again you dont have a clue and contribute nothing to this thread.

 

[FiveO]

I actually agree that too many discussions tend to become focused on Federer versus Sampras or Federer versus Nadal; or, on the women's side, Henin versus the Williams sisters. In fact, there are tennis forums in which virtually all discussions are hijacked by those who focus solely on such comparisons.

I'll just add three comments:

1. Whatever your personal motives may be, it is undeniable that claims of "weak competition" today compared with the 90's are, as a matter of fact, almost always used in order to belittle Federer's achievements and abilities. In this thread we have seen claims to the effect that Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin might beat Federer on grass. This type of statement is so far removed from the historical evidence of the performance of these players that it caused at least one poster to throw up his hands in disgust and exit the discussion. I do not question your statement that you are not anti-Federer. I would only state that this makes you virtually unique among the posters who insist that competition in the 90's was stronger.

The problem of painting with a broad brush.

2. I am not a "Fed fanatic", nor do I think that he is perfect. For what it's worth, if I were asked to select a GOAT my choice would be Rod Laver, who completed calendar year Grand Slams in the amateur and Open eras and also completed the professional equivalent of the CYGS in between.

A fair assessment and hard to argue against even if one were inclined to. (for clarity, I'm not so inclined as my Open era GOAT's are a small group from different decades which includes Laver).

3. From what I've seen Federer fans rarely find it necessary to belittle Sampras, for one simple reason. Any direct comparison between Federer and Sampras ends in Federer's favor, because he is more consistent, versatile and dominant than Sampras ever was. Each of Federer's last four years would rank in the top 10 of those achieved by male players in the Open era, and all are superior to any year that Sampras ever had. If there really is a war going on you might want to check to see who fires the first shots in each battle.

As I said in my prior post, I've seen both extreme ends and watched each throw the first stones.

i.e.:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=168041

 

[fastdunn]

His serve has been better, but it was a liability pre-Wimbledon. His 1st service percentage could be atrocious for whole sets. I think, for example, Joker has a better, more Sampras-esque serve. Federer has more sidespin on his serve than Sampras, and he uses that to hit the sidelines. For that reason, it doesn't kick out quite like Sampras could. Both guys are impossible to read.
.

As brad Gilbert said in his book, the key in the success of Sampras' serve is his "management" on it. He mizes up with hairy variety and disguise. He weathers thru down time of his serving via this management. Federer's serving is great exactly because of that. It's just about 90% watered down version of it. He variates more with side spin but I think it's because he is suiting it to today's baseline oriented game.

I don't think Djokovic has this variety, control and disguise. He just has right amount of steady consistency just like all of his other strokes. Djokovic is not at the level of Federer or Sampras and that includes serving, IMHO.

yes, I have seen Federer's 1st serve % goes down for a set and even lost a set to Hewitt.
His serving also suffered more long term in 2005-2006. I think his serve came back now in full force and rises to the occasion just like Sampras.

Federer's serve is the closest thing (to Sampras') I have ever watched in about 20 years.

In the beginning, it was his forehand (and probably still it). But some of young up and commers starting to rally pretty evenly at the baseline. But no one solved his serves yet, may except Nalbandian occasionally or Nadal on clay.

 

[Steve132]

Steve;

You keep on with your amourphous claims that it is not true that 90's competition was more even than today's, and you dont prove otherwise...

im still waiting...

Why do I have to prove anything? You have not done so. In fact, you have not offered any argument at all beyond the ex cathedra assertion that the players of the 90's were better.

I responded to your earlier posts with both arguments and evidence. You did not offer any rejoinder. What do you have to contribute to this debate?

 

[blahblah123]

Federer and Sampras

I think the first misconception is that Sampras had to compete against all these legendary players to fight for his spot at number 1. This is simply not true, at least if you are contriving the argument from the perspective that he had to compete against Conners, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe and Wilander. This is because if you refer to the table for Sampras, it is clear that the average age of the legends that he had to compete against was far greater than the age of Sampras. These guys were heading out of the game when Sampras had already arrived. Thus there is absolutely no point in bringing these guys into the same arena of competition as Sampras.

To understand the competition Sampras was really facing, I would like to refer you to this site: http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml . Consider all the players before 1993 when Sampras first achieved the number 1 ranking. All these spots were filled by Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Conners and Nastase, Wilander if you consider the old guys. Even though Conners and McEnroe had many consecutive year-end number 1 streaks (4-6 years), there was a lot of competition here. This heated competition is indicated by the number of consecutive weeks each player was number each year. Conners, McEnroe, Borg and Lendl especially, were sporadically bouncing off number 1 spots continuously throughout the years.

We see a shift around 1989 to 1992, where Courier, Edberg, Lendl and Becker are exchanging the number 1 position, that is, until Sampras arrives in 1993. Now what? Well by 1993, look at the ages of McEnroe, Borg, Conners, Lendl, Edberg and Wilander in respective order: 34, 37, 41, 33, 27 and 29. Sampras was 22. Considering the peak age of an athlete to be about 30 (which is a high estimate), all these guys were done and only Edberg and Wilander perhaps might have had something left. However, according to the number 1 rankings, Wilander disappears after and Edberg is left to compete against Courier and Becker to battle for the number 1 spot.

This nullifies all suppositions that Sampras was racing against these guys to be number 1. I am so sick of people saying he was competing with these guys. They’re part of a completely different generation. It’s just no longer about skill at a certain point. For example, a 16 year old kid who has just enough skill to put the ball into the court all the time would always destroy a 40-50 year old no matter how good the older guy is. When you consider top-level competition, fitness becomes a very important factor so that even for 30-40 year-olds it becomes tougher to compete against 20 year-old kids, which is the case for Sampras and it is a clear one at that.

But then Sampras was competing against someone right? Well, of course he was, but it wasn’t them and from my deduction, it wasn’t even a group of people, it was just one person.

From 1993 right up to about 2000, look at the people who were number 1. It is quite a respectable group with many strong names. Sampras, Rios, Courier, Agassi, Muster, Kafelnikov, Rafter and Moya all had number 1 for some time between 1993 and 2000. There are some anomalies here though. First, let’s see what happens if we group all the single digit weeks at number into one group, excluding Agassi and Sampras. This puts Muster, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Moya, Courier and Rios into one group with 24 weeks at number 1 in total. 24 weeks? Combined? This is hardly considered competition I would say. So out goes the theory that Sampras was facing so much tough competition. Sure, these guys were all great players and yes they gave Sampras some trouble but it wasn’t long until he came back to claim the number 1 ranking. If these guys were consistently appearing in the number 1 spot over Sampras’ career, then it could be said that they were posing a big problem for him but they weren’t. Muster shows up twice just like Rios and then there’re Kafelnikov, Rafter, Moya and Courier who pop up and disappear quickly.

So who’s left? Interestingly enough, only Agassi and Sampras are left. Agassi was number 1 for 87 weeks, while Sampras, the year-end number 1 between 1993 and 1998, has a total of 286 weeks in total over his career. The largest chunk of this 268 comes between 96 and 98 for a period of 102 consecutive weeks at number 1.

Between 93 and 95, it was only Sampras and Agassi dominating for a combined total of 143 weeks out of 156 weeks and even here, Sampras had a greater total number of weeks at number 1 than Agassi. From 96 to 98, it was only Sampras but what ended that streak? Well, one factor could be age. In 1998, Sampras was 26 when he lost his ranking, aging to 27 later that year. But even after losing it, he reclaimed it for a total of 59 weeks between 1998 and 2000 although not consecutively.

Obviously players at the top level are not competing with each other just physically. To be number 1, you need that sound mentality but it is built upon years of accrued physical work to fine-tune the physical self to the point where it melds with the mental side. So to compete, you do still need peak physical conditioning and these non-consecutive appearances could be explained by Sampras being slightly older or about the same age as these guys. Moya, Kafelnikov and Rios are about 3-5 years younger than Sampras, whereas Rafter and Agassi are about the same age as him.

Despite slowly crumbling apart, Sampras mustered up two more grand slams. His last Wimbledon in 2000 and a U.S. Open title in 2002. These two titles are more representative of Sampras’ strength both physical and mental as he had a much wider field of competition where much younger guys like Safin, Hewitt and even Kuerten were fighting for the number one spot. He was older than them and he wasn’t playing as well but he found it in himself to still claim two more titles and this is what being a champion is all about.

Now Federer. It would be a grievous mistake to consider that Federer has no competition but in terms of the number 1 ranking, Roger has been untouchable thus far. Look at the age differences of the top players in the table for Roger above. Except for Agassi and Sampras, most of the players are pretty much Roger’s age so there are very few younger guys coming in to take his spot. Djokovic, Nadal and Gasquet are immediate contenders in this respect but Canas and Nalbandian have given Federer trouble as well but not enough to shake him from his reign of dominance. So in terms of competition, if only similar age players (+/-5 years) are considered, only the old era of McEnroe, Lendl, Borg and Connors was a true era of competition.

Consider the period before Federer became number 1 but after Nov. 20, 2000 when Safin was number 1 for a little while. This is a period of transition and it is interspersed with a variety of names: Kuerten, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick and even Agassi. Hewitt of course covers the largest portion with 77 weeks at number 1 but look at the general pattern.

A great player dominates for a large number of consecutive weeks, then tapers off with sporadic appearances at number 1 and then calls it a career after some time. Once the great player is gone, there is a period of transition. If we consult the number 1 rankings again, we see that Connors was number 1 for 160 weeks before being overtaken by Borg, who was overtaken by McEnroe. Borg left early and then we have McEnroe and Connors battling each other in a transition period. This period represents a lot of competition among these players but in 85 after lots of exchanges for the number 1 spot, Lendl controls it for 157 weeks and then 20 weeks later for 80 weeks and gradually disappears with a period of transition that leads to Sampras’ dominance of the game. And what we see when Sampras was progressively moving out of the game is the appearance of Roger Federer in the game.

 

[blahblah123]

So what we could be witnessing current with Federer is that level of peak performance we expect from a great champion. His consistency of doing what he does best is what we are currently witnessing just like what Sampras put forth between 1996 and 1998, if only for a much shorter period. If it is said that there is no competition for Federer, then it also holds true for Sampras as he only had Agassi to contend with. Furthermore, look at age difference between Sampras and the older players he is compared with. The differences are 11, 12 and 15 years. A ridiculous comparison? Well, Sampras is 10 years older than Federer. An argument that one player is better or worse than the other is then invalid because they’re playing in two different times. So why do we draw this comparison in the first place? What is that primordial itch that compels us to pit the two against each other?

It is this familiarity with excellence and unchanging rule over a simple game that we enjoy so much. Put simply, history is repeating itself. The greatness that is common to all the champions of the past is what evades our senses. It tantalizes us by bestowing the best with grace and beauty that quells and satisfies us. But our discontent with the strange familiarity and our inner desire for the true form of greatness beguiles our curiosity. We want to know only one truth. Multiplicity in our understanding of the meaning of “best” is a fault, a wrong, a lie, false. Thus we ask who is better and who is best when there is no answer.

What we’re seeing in Federer, what we like so much about him is not that he is far greater than Pete, or that what he is doing is so different. What we are most comfortable with about Federer, that indescribable quality of his is that he embodies all that we have seen before. From Sampras. Federer, like all other geniuses, has built upon the greats of the past and created his own style. Yes, Roger definitely plays differently than Sampras but he also does the same things. Before Sampras we saw it from Lendl and before that, McEnroe, Borg and Connors and so forth.

What we see is all that most mortals can take from Federer’s game and this we should be utmost thankful for. He is simply at the right the place, at the right moment in time and is taking full advantage of it. All the great players did the same thing in their own way during their own time. Whether he (or anyone) is the greatest player of all time is a bogus argument and distracts from his harmonic presence and familiarity.

Federer—if all goes well—will break Sampras’ record, just as Sampras broke Emerson’s record and Emerson broke another guy’s record and so forth. Even if Federer falls off the number 1 rank next year, tennis will enter that phase of transition and he will remain a great threat to any player for years to come until his retirement and the cycle will continue thereafter.

 

[blahblah123]

Table

 

[Swissv2]

very well thought out, blahblah123.

The pinning’s of a truly remarkable player for any generation of tennis is in their ability to consistently dominate at the top against people who legitimately have weapons to beat that player, but very inconsistently.

 

[FiveO]

blahblah123,

Interesting take, but if we're still talking about depth IMO seriously flawed.

To understand the competition Sampras was really facing, I would like to refer you to this site: http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml . Consider all the players before 1993 when Sampras first achieved the number 1 ranking. All these spots were filled by Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Conners and Nastase, Wilander if you consider the old guys. Even though Conners and McEnroe had many consecutive year-end number 1 streaks (4-6 years), there was a lot of competition here. This heated competition is indicated by the number of consecutive weeks each player was number each year. Conners, McEnroe, Borg and Lendl especially, were sporadically bouncing off number 1 spots continuously throughout the years.

We see a shift around 1989 to 1992, where Courier, Edberg, Lendl and Becker are exchanging the number 1 position, that is, until Sampras arrives in 1993. Now what? Well by 1993, look at the ages of McEnroe, Borg, Conners, Lendl, Edberg and Wilander in respective order: 34, 37, 41, 33, 27 and 29. Sampras was 22. Considering the peak age of an athlete to be about 30 (which is a high estimate), all these guys were done and only Edberg and Wilander perhaps might have had something left. However, according to the number 1 rankings, Wilander disappears after and Edberg is left to compete against Courier and Becker to battle for the number 1 spot.

Who included Borg, Connors and McEnroe or implied that they had any great impact by '93 Sampras's era at all? This projection onto the opposing POV is a bit of a red herring isn't it?

Borg retired in '82. Connors was out of the Top Ten for good after '88 and McEnroe was gone by '93.

Lendl barely touched Sampras era but also shouldn't have been expected to.

Wilander WAS suggested by one poster as having an impact but CLEARLY didn't. After winning 3 of 4 majors in '88, Mats by his own admission became disillusioned with the process of reaching #1 and quickly abdicated. I'll stipulate that the absence of his potential impact at the front end of Sampras's period did negatively impact depth then.

Here's what's missing from this flawed "analysis" and has to do with the period '88 through '92 while McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg and Becker were vying for #1 with Wilander topping them in '88.

'88-Agassi was #3 behind only Wilander and Lendl but ahead of Becker, Edberg and Connors

'89-Chang was #5 and would never have a year where he didn't spend time in the Top Ten through 1998 finishing inside the Top Ten each year from '92 through '97.
....Agassi #7

'90-Agassi #4 behind only Edberg, Becker, Lendl
.....Sampras #5
.....Ivanisevic #9

'91-#1 Edberg
.....#2 Courier
.....#3 Becker
.....#4 Stich
.....#5 Lendl
.....#6 Sampras
.....#7 Forget
.....#8 Novacek
.....#9 Korda
.....#10 Agassi

'92-#1 Courier
.....#2 Edberg
.....#3 Sampras
.....#4 Ivanisevic
.....#5 Becker
.....#6 Chang
.....#7 Korda
.....#8 Lendl
.....#9 Agassi
.....#10 Krajicek

From as early as 1988 Sampras's contemporaries, Sampras's generation, was already making a significant impact vs. the prior generation, and when we include Lendl and McEnroe, the prior two generations from '88 to '92. Against the measuring sticks of those generations, minus Wilander, who all but voluntarily disappeared from the landscape.

Yet when we cross that '92-'93 barrier it seems hard for the Sampras era nay-sayers to acknowledge the impact these teens had, early, and in numbers against those prior standards.

Somehow they lose their credentials. The had established themselves prematurely, as teens and in numbers, held their own with the best at their best and yet that somehow loses significance when Sampras leapfrogs them '93.

It also projects that as Edberg and Becker's performance levels extended forward into the Sampras era that by default, the best players from the Kuerten era did in kind.

It is unfortunate, but there were no Edbergs or Beckers to impact the Federer generation. Agassi had an impact but he was from two generations earlier, cast in the role of Lendl/McEnroe to Sampras gen yet had a greater impact than Lendl/Mc did.

If the presumption were automatically true shouldn't it be easy to name the players from the era between Sampras's and Federer's? Then name them. Just tick them right off. Should be easy, but it won't be, simply because, for myriad reasons, they weren't/aren't there.

Coupled with the disappearance of a number of the best Fed contemporaries for longer periods than AA "left" '93 to '98 you'll be hardpressed to articulate greater depth in Fed's generation.

I think that is why no one has attempted to do so thus far in this thread.

No, the '90's were NOT the "Golden Age" of Tennis.

And No, IMO this does not negatively impact Fed's greatness. He can't be held any more accountable for the level/depth of competition than anyone else in any other era.

 

[stormholloway]

Just as Federer shouldn't be held accountable for the lack of greatness in his era, total slams as a measuring stick for historical greatness shouldn't be given that much attention either and wasn't even a real issue until Pete Sampras anyway. Rod Laver sure as hell wasn't thinking about this.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Why do I have to prove anything? You have not done so. In fact, you have not offered any argument at all beyond the ex cathedra assertion that the players of the 90's were better.

I responded to your earlier posts with both arguments and evidence. You did not offer any rejoinder. What do you have to contribute to this debate?

vanitas vanitatum... et omnia vanitas...

 

[akv89]

Only once Federer is past his prime and begins losing more often can one can start making a stronger case for the depth of the competition that Federer is facing.
Strange logic huh?

 

[akv89]

double post

 

[base_liner]

Did you know that Fed beat Sampras?

it dosent help that sampres isnt in his prime ne more... but he still took fed to tie brakes on both sets... i think you could go either way there depending on the day....

and for the agassi and fed im gonna have to go fed... i mean with the exception of nadal on clay fed is just that damn good...

 

[Ripper]

"Compare Federer vs. Agassi; SAMPRAS is in FIELD of HiS OWN"

What the...

 

[joeyscl]

For those of you who think Pete is better than Fed because Pete beat Fed

...so did Canas... twice in a row

 

[World Beater]

as far as idiocy is concerned, tennisdude in field of his own.