Federer is taking advantage of the situation because...

[jamesblakefan#1]

When anyone puts a player's name in their user name or sig. It usually means that they are a troll, or a try hard.. Let's not be silly about this.. People that do this are not fans, but fanatics....

Being fanatical about anything means that you are way above the norm of normal human behavior...

I agree. Anyone that has a player's name as their username is a total fanatic lunatic and should be shot or locked into a mental institution!

Oh wait...

 

[grafselesfan]

using this fine logic, Ivanovic, Kirilenko, Azrenka et. al. should be blasting Kim Clijsters of court...

guess what sport...

Very well done.

 

[grafselesfan]

Are you able to fathom the fact that Federer and Nadal dominating does not necessarily mean the other top players are worse than the top players of the past?

No since Roger's competition from mid 2003-mid 2007: pre pubescent Nadal, past his prime Hewitt, Roddick, past his prime Safin, Nalbandian, and Davydenko, simply isnt that good. They simply do not compare to what Sampras faced from 1990-1996 with Becker, Courier, Agassi, and 90-93 strong Edberg, in addition to surface specialists like Ivanisevic (grass and indoors), Bruguera (clay), Muster (clay), Krajicek (grass and indoors), and Chang (clay, fast hard courts). It is not Federer and Nadal dominating that cause that.

 

[NamRanger]

LOL...not to mention these WTA players are competing in the same era.

Elegant Roger is comparing Nole, Murray, Hewitt or Roddick etc. to the players in the past 10 and 20 years ago, and it’s logical to say these players are just as good as Lendl, Sampras, Mac, Agassi, Edberg and co. The problem is TMF and Nadal are just head and shoulder better than them.

Using this logic the current WTA players are superior players than Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, etc.



Agree or disagree. If you agree, you are an idiot. If you disagree, your argument just got blown up.

 

[Darth_Timmaayyy!!]

says the guy who has "Darth" in his username - way to generalize dude. oh, btw, hope you enjoy getting torn to pieces by the some posters here for this post

My user name if you will is a comical joke. And in no way represents anything to do with tennis. Hence why I chose it..

You sir are upset because you have been found out to either be a troll or a fanatic. I have waited to be torn apart (as you put it) and am yet to experience this sensation.

 

[ubermeyer]

my opinion is that: you (OP) are clinically insane

btw none of the netrushers are good enough to make the top 10, it's not their lack of skill but rather the top 10 has an overabundance of skill

 

[Darth_Timmaayyy!!]

Who?..........

 

[flying24]

Do you think that Williams sister are better than Graf,Seles, Navratilova, sanches vicario etc?

Peak Serena may be comparable to prime Graf and Navratilova. However peak Serena lasted only 18 months, prime Graf and Navratilova lasted 10 years (Graf) or 5 years (Navratilova). Peak Seles may also be similar but her peak ended abruptly due to a knife in the back, not due to laziness and/or inability to sustain your best level. Venus is not an all surface great, predominantly a grass court great who is also very good on fast hard courts, who overall in no way can be compared to Graf, Navratilova, or even peak Seles, even at her best, which like Serena was short lived anyway. Sanchez Vicario is far superior to the last two WTA #1s such as Jankovic and Safina. Serena at her best (like I said short lived anyway) is much superior to Sanchez Vicario, but current Serena would lose easily to Sanchez Vicario on clay and even have a tough time on hard courts. Current Venus would lose to Sanchez Vicario in her prime everywhere except grass.

So to overall answer your question a big NOOOOOOOO.

 

[Fidelio]

I miss the strong number one players in the 90's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKetKv4vPY0&feature=related

 

[TMF]

Using this logic the current WTA players are superior players than Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, etc.



Agree or disagree. If you agree, you are an idiot. If you disagree, your argument just got blown up.

No,no,no! You guys came up with the stupid argument about today's era is so weak than in the past b/c simply only 2 guys are winning everything. But the argument can say TMF and Nadal are so much better that they could of dominate in any era.

If you are one of those blind people who believe the current playing is weak than you are an IDIOT.

 

[grafselesfan]

No,no,no! You guys came up with the stupid argument about today's era is so weak than in the past b/c simply only 2 guys are winning everything. But the argument can say TMF and Nadal are so much better that they could of dominate in any era.

If you are one of those blind people who believe the current playing is weak than you are an IDIOT.

No if Federer and Nadal didnt exist this era would just even be alot weaker than it already is overall even with those two lone great players. Watching Hewitt and Roddick dominate outside of clay for awhile would be a hideous statement of the field, a poor mans Chang and a poor mans Roscoe Tanner as your so called big 2.

 

[TMF]

No if Federer and Nadal didnt exist this era would just even be alot weaker than it already is overall even with those two lone great players. Watching Hewitt and Roddick dominate outside of clay for awhile would be a hideous statement of the field, a poor mans Chang and a poor mans Roscoe Tanner as your so called big 2.

Why? Because you say so?
How do you know Hewitt, Roddick, Nole, Murray, wouldn't of beat Korda, Rafter, moya or overrated Kafelnikov from winning slams in the 90s? Just b/c Nadal guard the gate of RG and Federer won most of the slams doesn't equate that they are weak, because you can argue(again) these 2 are so good they could of be #1 and #2 playing in ANY era.

You have no proof, it just your opinion like everyone else in here.

 

[msc886]

I'm pretty sure the so called "weak era" players could go toe to toe with the 90's players.

 

[grafselesfan]

Why? Because you say so?
How do you know Hewitt, Roddick, Nole, Murray, wouldn't of beat Korda, Rafter, moya or overrated Kafelnikov from winning slams in the 90s? Just b/c Nadal guard the gate of RG and Federer won most of the slams doesn't equate that they are weak, because you can argue(again) these 2 are so good they could of be #1 and #2 playing in ANY era.

You have no proof, it just your opinion like everyone else in here.

The 90-96 period where Pete won 8 of his eventual 14 slams was very strong. Back then you had Sampras, Becker, Courier, Agassi, and from 90-93 Edberg all seriously contending and into or close to their primes. I already mentioned 97-98 was a bit softer, and it got stronger again in 99. Korda, Moya, and to a lesser degree Rafter benefited most from this. Kafelnikov got alot of luck to win 2 slams, kind of like the male Capriati in that sense. It shouldnt inflate what his real position in the game was then or detract from how overall strong a feel it really was.

 

[grafselesfan]

Hewitt's prime was 2000-2002 I would say. 2003-2005 he played at a very good level, not quite prime level but very good, but Federer is a horrible matchup for him. Tennis is alot about matchups, so 1 of the few decent opponents of Federer is an easy matchup for him, making things even easier.

 

[grafselesfan]

As far as Rafter I think he actually beat Roger Federer.

3-0 vs Federer in fact. I believe 2 of the 3 wins in the same year Roger beat Sampras at Wimbledon. So it is not like Federer was a baby in diapers or anything. As for prime that wasnt Rafter's prime either as 97-mid 99 was really his prime. He was too injured the last 2 and a half years to be at his prime level though he was still a great player.

 

[abmk]

No if Federer and Nadal didnt exist this era would just even be alot weaker than it already is overall even with those two lone great players. Watching Hewitt and Roddick dominate outside of clay for awhile would be a hideous statement of the field, a poor mans Chang and a poor mans Roscoe Tanner as your so called big 2.

LMAO @ the bold part !

I haven't seen much of tanner, but from what I've read, I'd say he was inferior to roddick

 

[grafselesfan]

I meant by the time Roger played him in 2004-2005 that is what he was. He had lost a bit from his prime already. The Hewitt of 2000-2002 I would give a more favorable label then that.

 

[abmk]

I meant by the time Roger played him in 2004-2005 that is what he was. He had lost a bit from his prime already. The Hewitt of 2000-2002 I would give a more favorable label then that.

hewitt was/is a superior version of chang either the 2001-2002 version or the 2004-05 version .

I don't believe hewitt 2004-05 was inferior to hewitt in 2001-02 , a little slower yes, but he was smarter,more experienced and serve was better

Lets see, hewitt of 2001-02 and 2004-05 :

Hewitt 2001-02:

2001:

AO: loses to moya in 4R
FO: loses to JCF in QF
Wimbledon: loses to escude in 4R
USO - champ

2002

AO : loses to alberto martin in 1R
FO :loses to canas in 4R
Wimbledon -champ
USO - loses to agassi in SF


Hewitt 2004-05:

2004

AO 4R ( loses to fed , eventual champ)
FO QF ( loses to gaudio, eventual champ)
Wimbledon QF ( loses to fed,eventual champ)
USO F ( loses to fed)

2005

AO F ( loses to safin)
FO - DNP
Wimbledon SF ( loses to fed,eventual champ)
USO SF ( loses to fed,eventual champ)

I see 4 questionable losses in 2001-02 and zero, yes, zero in 2004-05

81 wining % in 2001-02 vs 79.5% in 2004-05 , not much of a difference here either

 

[World Beater]

Using this logic the current WTA players are superior players than Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, etc.



Agree or disagree. If you agree, you are an idiot. If you disagree, your argument just got blown up.

not really.

graf couldnt hit a topspin bh to save her life.

sanchez vicario was a moonballer.

Seles was a ballbasher off both sides

navratilova was s/v player who wouldnt be able to compete with today's women from the ground.

obviously they are all GREAT players and what they accomplished cannot be compared to today's tennis professionals. But you cannot blatantly assume they were better players that today's professionals. More variety, touch, possibly more skill...but better, not really? today's women are more physical and hit the ball harder - it may not make for pretty tennis but its effective and power has a way of paralzying the opposition.

i watched all these players and was impressed but im not going to let my nostalgia get in the way of objectively analyzing the level of tennis in past. Who wants to watch graf paste zvereva in a GS? And everyone likes to trash today's women game...News flash it wasn't that great in the past either.

 

[edmondsm]

God I get so sick of all the old-timer, overly sentimental, Laver/McEnroe/name your retired player nuthuggers on this board. The level of competition is higher then it ever has been and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Oh yeah, back when the game was dominated by three countries, Australia, Sweden, and the US.....those were the years with the highest competition. Get a clue. Stop trying to lower the achievements of the current players just because the style of tennis you like is dead.

I love it when people try and say that Federer wins because nobody rushes the net against him. I just have to laugh. Why do you think no one rushes the net against him. Because it doesn't work! Do you really think you have a better game plan then the top 100 of pro tennis. Get your head out of your arse.

 

[Baikalic]

not really.

graf couldnt hit a topspin bh to save her life.

sanchez vicario was a moonballer.

Seles was a ballbasher off both sides

navratilova was s/v player who wouldnt be able to compete with today's women from the ground.

obviously they are all GREAT players and what they accomplished cannot be compared to today's tennis professionals. But you cannot blatantly assume they were better players that today's professionals. More variety, touch, possibly more skill...but better, not really? today's women are more physical and hit the ball harder - it may not make for pretty tennis but its effective and power has a way of paralzying the opposition.

i watched all these players and was impressed but im not going to let my nostalgia get in the way of objectively analyzing the level of tennis in past. Who wants to watch graf paste zvereva in a GS? And everyone likes to trash today's women game...News flash it wasn't that great in the past either.

what separated those greats from their field is their mental strength, and that's still what would separate them now from the current WTA field.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I watched all these players and was impressed but im not going to let my nostalgia get in the way of objectively analyzing the level of tennis in past. Who wants to watch graf paste zvereva in a GS? And everyone likes to trash today's women game...News flash it wasn't that great in the past either.

Copy and paste this for the GrafSeles ****. :roll:

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

God I get so sick of all the old-timer, overly sentimental, Laver/McEnroe/name your retired player nuthuggers on this board. The level of competition is higher then it ever has been and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Oh yeah, back when the game was dominated by three countries, Australia, Sweden, and the US.....those were the years with the highest competition. Get a clue. Stop trying to lower the achievements of the current players just because the style of tennis you like is dead.

I love it when people try and say that Federer wins because nobody rushes the net against him. I just have to laugh. Why do you think no one rushes the net against him. Because it doesn't work! Do you really think you have a better game plan then the top 100 of pro tennis. Get your head out of your arse.

Again, copy and paste for the GrafSeles ****.

 

[ttbrowne]

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

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

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

I'm wondering which I'd rather have...an opponent return a low ball from the middle of the court or a high, kicking ball off of the court?
Ah, I gotta go with the latter.

 

[ttbrowne]

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

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

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

Well said. Too much of the "if this" "if that".

 

[Steve132]

what separated those greats from their field is their mental strength, and that's still what would separate them now from the current WTA field.

How do you measure mental strength? And why should we believe that players from the past were mentally stronger than, say, Serena or Sharapova?

 

[P_Agony]

Very well said. I always laugh when people talk about Sampras being only a S&V. He of course is not just a baseliner and came to net alot, but he was a true all court master. He played from all parts of the court, he understood when to play where, how to make the transition. He could rally with anyone from the baseline and he also could attack with the best of them. I am fairly certain many TW posters have never seen him play at his peak.

I've seen Sampras play at his peak, I've watched some of his best matches, I've seen him destroy Agassi quite a few times, and at Wimbly it was total domination, and I still say - Federer > Sampras in just about every area of his game other than serve and net game.

 

[billnepill]

No since Roger's competition from mid 2003-mid 2007: pre pubescent Nadal, past his prime Hewitt, Roddick, past his prime Safin, Nalbandian, and Davydenko, simply isnt that good. They simply do not compare to what Sampras faced from 1990-1996 with Becker, Courier, Agassi, and 90-93 strong Edberg, in addition to surface specialists like Ivanisevic (grass and indoors), Bruguera (clay), Muster (clay), Krajicek (grass and indoors), and Chang (clay, fast hard courts). It is not Federer and Nadal dominating that cause that.

Grafselesfan is fun. He/she is trying to prove the mathematical nonsense that 14>15. Good luck, grafselesfan. Other than that what are u trying to prove and to whom? Maybe u want to prove Graf and Sampras the greatest of all time to us? Well , personally I'm flattered, but I' don't deserve it. Otherwise, it's very meaningful. Good job. Be creative as that in the future.

All the best,

 

[Deleted member 21996]

How does this conclusion follow from Elegant_Roger's argument? Are Ivanovic, Kirilenko and Azarenka dominating the WTA in the way that Federer and Nadal dominate the men's tour?

you have reading and comprehension problems. i know that. it's the reason why you are on my ignore list. read it back and use your lonely brain cell!

 

[mandy01]

Grafselesfan is fun. He/she is trying to prove the mathematical nonsense that 14>15. Good luck, grafselesfan. Other than that what are u trying to prove and to whom? Maybe u want to prove Graf and Sampras the greatest of all time to us? Well , personally I'm flattered, but I' don't deserve it. Otherwise, it's very meaningful. Good job. Be creative as that in the future.

All the best,

LOL..Good approach :wink:

 

[NamRanger]

not really.

graf couldnt hit a topspin bh to save her life.

sanchez vicario was a moonballer.

Seles was a ballbasher off both sides

navratilova was s/v player who wouldnt be able to compete with today's women from the ground.

obviously they are all GREAT players and what they accomplished cannot be compared to today's tennis professionals. But you cannot blatantly assume they were better players that today's professionals. More variety, touch, possibly more skill...but better, not really? today's women are more physical and hit the ball harder - it may not make for pretty tennis but its effective and power has a way of paralzying the opposition.

i watched all these players and was impressed but im not going to let my nostalgia get in the way of objectively analyzing the level of tennis in past. Who wants to watch graf paste zvereva in a GS? And everyone likes to trash today's women game...News flash it wasn't that great in the past either.

Wait, you're saying players like Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic, and Ana Ivanovic are stronger players than Navratilova, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Stefi Graf, etc. ?




LMAO. That's a good one. I bet you TODAY Steffi Graf could come out and give those 3 girls a run for their money on nearly every surface.

 

[NamRanger]

God I get so sick of all the old-timer, overly sentimental, Laver/McEnroe/name your retired player nuthuggers on this board. The level of competition is higher then it ever has been and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Oh yeah, back when the game was dominated by three countries, Australia, Sweden, and the US.....those were the years with the highest competition. Get a clue. Stop trying to lower the achievements of the current players just because the style of tennis you like is dead.

I love it when people try and say that Federer wins because nobody rushes the net against him. I just have to laugh. Why do you think no one rushes the net against him. Because it doesn't work! Do you really think you have a better game plan then the top 100 of pro tennis. Get your head out of your arse.

The level of competition is higher, that is a given. However, what many are talking about is how Nadal and Federer simply dominate the field so badly that no one has caught up. I'm not going to try and argue that Roddick is a better grasscourt player than Becker, because you simply can't argue it.



However, relative to Federer and Nadal's skill levels, there's pretty much no competition. Relative to Pete Sampras' skill level, there was alot of competition, which makes his achievements of 14 slams better in some people's eyes.




I'm not agreeing with either side, as I don't think you can even compare the Sampras era with today's era, but you can't say the other side doesn't have an argument when they do. Sampras' achievements were achieved in a situation that was "tougher" for him. Federer's achievements have been done in a relatively easy environment for him, as no one but Nadal has stepped it up.

 

[Baikalic]

How do you measure mental strength? And why should we believe that players from the past were mentally stronger than, say, Serena or Sharapova?

have you been watching or following the WTA?

 

[NamRanger]

How do you measure mental strength? And why should we believe that players from the past were mentally stronger than, say, Serena or Sharapova?

Serena imploded due to a foot fault call and Sharapova got out willed by an teenager who has zero grand slam experience. Really? Those are the mentally toughest players on the tour?

 

[lambielspins]

Serena imploded due to a foot fault call and Sharapova got out willed by an teenager who has zero grand slam experience. Really? Those are the mentally toughest players on the tour?

They probably are. Hence why you see everyone meaningful flocking to return to the tour now.

 

[veroniquem]

They probably are. Hence why you see everyone meaningful flocking to return to the tour now.

Right on the mark

 

[David L]

The 90-96 period where Pete won 8 of his eventual 14 slams was very strong. Back then you had Sampras, Becker, Courier, Agassi, and from 90-93 Edberg all seriously contending and into or close to their primes. I already mentioned 97-98 was a bit softer, and it got stronger again in 99. Korda, Moya, and to a lesser degree Rafter benefited most from this. Kafelnikov got alot of luck to win 2 slams, kind of like the male Capriati in that sense. It shouldnt inflate what his real position in the game was then or detract from how overall strong a feel it really was.

Here's something I posted some months back, with a couple of new additions. I think the quotes speak for themselves and attest to the increasing depth those who have played the game at the highest level were witnessing and experiencing.

23 December 2003

Pete Sampras:

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html

February 15, 2007

SI: Would you be okay with Federer passing your Grand Slam majors record?

Sampras: Sure, you would love to have that record but it's true: Records are made to be broken. Players are better today and I believe Roger is going to break my record.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/richard_deitsch/02/15/sampras.qa/1.html

February 15, 2007

SI: I know you believe Roger will win the French Open. What would that win mean for his career?

Sampras: It would complete it, and not that it's not already complete today. But he was born and raised on clay. The closest I came to clay as a kid was Play-Doh. It was foreign to me. I think his game suits clay pretty well. So I think it is just a matter of time. It's tough because there are really a lot more good clay-court players today then there were 10 years ago.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/richard_deitsch/02/15/sampras.qa/2.html


COVER STORY: SEPTEMBER 2006

IT: Few others have seen more changes in tennis. What adjustments did you have to make since the early days of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl?

ANDRE AGASSI: The fitness level has only increased over the years. Connors was 5-foot-9. Now you've got guys routinely that are 6-foot-3 and above. It's rare that you play somebody under that. The physicality has changed dramatically. Compare Nadal at 20 to me at 20. It's a sport that has started to figure out that the stronger and more physical you are, the more capable you are as an athlete. I was onto that earlier than most, building my strength and the base that was the foundation of my game. As a result, I served bigger and was able to handle pace better so as the game got faster, I could just shorten my swing. I got smarter with my shots. I've had to get more aggressive. It used to be where I could just run people around until they fell to the ground. But guys are just too strong now. It's a different game than in the past.

http://www.insidetennis.com/0906_agassi.html


By John McEnroe Jul 2005

Depth may put Sampras record beyond Federer

"This may not be the right time to say it, with Roger Federer on the verge of claiming his third Wimbledon title, but I think as time goes by we will see what a remarkable achievement it was by Pete Sampras to win here seven times. I don't think the Swiss, maybe even a better player than Sampras when compared on all surfaces, will surpass his record.

I'm not saying it's impossible and I do believe that he will win, maybe, as many as five Wimbledon titles, I just think that there is more depth in the game today than there was in Sampras's era, guys who could step up on the grass, like Rafael Nadal and Marat Safin. The big Russian threatened to do so this time, but in the end, as usual, left the Championships prematurely. When Federer gets to five then we can start talking about his chances of overhauling Pete, but not before."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...th-may-put-Sampras-record-beyond-Federer.html


AUSTRALIAN OPEN

January 14, 2001

Q. You had a career that went for something like 23 years. You were still playing at the top level at age 38. Now we have a fellow like Pat Rafter contemplating retirement at age 28. What has changed, do you think?

ROD LAVER: Well, I think certainly competition is stiffer now......

Q. Do you see any of the younger players like Safin dominating the game like Sampras has done over the last seven or eight years?

ROD LAVER: I really don't. There is so many good players out there and I look at Lleyton Hewitt who has just come on in the last two, three years. And he came on at age 17. He is all of 19 now. So there are many young kids coming along, Safin winning the US Open. It is incredible to think that, you know, three weeks, four weeks earlier he couldn't beat anybody. He was having a terrible time. But you hit a spirt and you play some great tennis. You get confident. That is -- that can happen with probably 60 or 70 players here in this tournament that if they catch fire and you are not talking about the steadies, the Samprases and Agassis and Todd Martin. Just so many young players out there that can rise up and play their best tennis. I have always thought a lot of times that now you improve overnight, sometimes you play a match the day before and you have a struggle with it and you finally win that match and you come out the next day and all of a sudden you are a different person and you are playing great. You are confident hitting the ball in the middle of the strings. That is what I think happens with all the upsets that you see.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=913

 

[World Beater]

Wait, you're saying players like Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic, and Ana Ivanovic are stronger players than Navratilova, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Stefi Graf, etc. ?




LMAO. That's a good one. I bet you TODAY Steffi Graf could come out and give those 3 girls a run for their money on nearly every surface.

how can u compare players like safina to navratilova...that is not a fair comparison of eras!

we might as well compare moya to mcenroe or laver.

besides...my argument did not center on greatness. THAT IS NOT DEBATABLE. but pound for pound, navratilova's game is not gonna matchup against the harder hitting women of this era.

graf is a greater player BY FAR...but unless u get our of your couch and have watched the players live, you wont realize how much the pace of the game, and the stroke production has changed even on the women's side.

the raquet head speed and overall baseline technique has improved quite a bit even on the women's side.

 

[navratilovafan]

how can u compare players like safina to navratilova...that is not a fair comparison of eras!

LOL Safina is ranked #1 in the World right now. It is no fluke either as she has been ranked there for almost the whole year. So if you are comparing the current field to eras past it makes sense to compare her to people like Navratilova, which of course is a joke and reflects on the current womens field.

As for your pushing of how past greats couldnt compete with the power today, Jelena Jankovic was last years year end World #1. Nuff said.

 

[David L]

LOL Safina is ranked #1 in the World right now. It is no fluke either as she has been ranked there for almost the whole year. So if you are comparing the current field to eras past it makes sense to compare her to people like Navratilova, which of course is a joke and reflects on the current womens field.

You are confusing level with achievement. Would Navratilova's game win her as much today as it did in the 80s? I think not. Everyone who played in the 80s would be winning a lot fewer titles if they were transported to the current era.

 

[World Beater]

LOL Safina is ranked #1 in the World right now. It is no fluke either as she has been ranked there for almost the whole year. So if you are comparing the current field to eras past it makes sense to compare her to people like Navratilova, which of course is a joke and reflects on the current womens field.

As for your pushing of how past greats couldnt compete with the power today, Jelena Jankovic was last years year end World #1. Nuff said.

jankovic hits with more power than your martina. her baseline game is also much better, her movement is better.

like i said..players are better today...not greater. have u seen these players play live? from martina to safina?

if martina grew up in this era, she would almost certainly have been a greater player if she chose to play tennis. but transplanting her game and saying it would be competetive...sorry.

 

[Talker]

It's the same in most sports I can think of, today's athletes have refined the training built on the generations before, nutrition and many other factors.
Just the way it is and it doesn't take anything away from previous generations as they are the ones that laid the groundwork of testing out what works and what doesn't.

The comparisons though may be true don't mean much.
You have to check the records, slams, winning %, etc.

 

[grafselesfan]

jankovic hits with more power than martina. her baseline game is also much better, her movement is better.

And you are clueless beyond belief. I think I am going to make this my new sig.

 

[World Beater]

And you are clueless beyond belief. I think I am going to make this my new sig.

not really hard to believe. the game has changed. jankovic isnt a greater player for the nth time, but people will read what they want to read.

thanks for taking my comments out of context btw.

you are a troll of epic proportions.

 

[World Beater]

It's the same in most sports I can think of, today's athletes have refined the training built on the generations before, nutrition and many other factors.
Just the way it is and it doesn't take anything away from previous generations as they are the ones that laid the groundwork of testing out what works and what doesn't.

The comparisons though may be true don't mean much.
You have to check the records, slams, winning %, etc.

someone actually gets it.

 

[David L]

And you are clueless beyond belief. I think I am going to make this my new sig.

What World Beater stated is true. That doesn't mean Jankovic would have been a better player than Navratilova if they had grown up in the same era, just that Jankovic is a better mover and better from the baseline today, than Navratilova was in her time.

 

[grafselesfan]

not really hard to believe. the game has changed. jankovic isnt a greater player for the nth time, but people will read what they want to read.

thanks for taking my comments out of context btw.

you are a troll of epic proportions.

I dont give a damn what context your comments were meant to be in, they are still ridiculous and completely wrong. Jankovic cannot hit a half decent forehand so already Navratilova has the better baseline game despite that she isnt a baseliner and Jankovic is. Martina in her prime would crush Jankovic in a sprint despite that speed is Jankovics own best asset so scratch that one. Jankovic hitting the ball harder than Martina is ridiculous as well.

 

[David L]

I dont give a damn what context your comments were meant to be in, they are still ridiculous and completely wrong. Jankovic cannot hit a half decent forehand so already Navratilova has the better baseline game despite that she isnt a baseliner and Jankovic is. Martina in her prime would crush Jankovic in a sprint despite that speed is Jankovics own best asset so scratch that one. Jankovic hitting the ball harder than Martina is ridiculous as well.

It's not a fair comparison because Jankovic obviously has the advantage of hindsight in being born into a later era, but it is clear that Jankovic is a better mover and ball striker from the baseline than Navratilova was. The game is simply quicker today.

Jankovic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jghSOBvG9U

Navratilova

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuLtQQ_wKt4

 

[Steve132]

you have reading and comprehension problems. i know that. it's the reason why you are on my ignore list. read it back and use your lonely brain cell!

Once again you are substituting insults for reasoned argument. This is the hallmark of analytical weakness, as well as the surest sign that you know that your original claim is indefensible.