If players in the 80s and 90s were so good then why Chang could be #2?

[oberyn]

Murray is a better version of Hewitt who is a better version of Chang and Murray is barely top 10. No offense to Chang but I don't think a 17 yr old Chang could be top 10 let alone winning the FO today.

Time has a way to make things in the past look better then it really was, it is just human nature.

No offense to you, but:

1. 17-year-old Chang wasn't top 10 when he won the French Open in 1989. He was the #15 seed, and if you thought he was going to win the French Open heading into the tournament, well, let's just say you'd have gotten pretty good odds.

2. 24-year-old Michael Chang was #2 in the world in 1996, the year he made the finals at the Australian Open and the U.S. Open, losing to a couple of guys named Becker and Sampras. 1996 was also the year he won on hardcourts in Indian Wells, Los Angeles, and D.C. Michael Chang was an extremely solid player, but it's not as if he dominated the 90s. He made one serious challenge for the #1 ranking. Let's face it, he was the 4th best player from the U.S. during that time period!

3. Murray's now top 6 and climbing with wins in 2008 over Federer and Djokovic. Hewitt finished #1 in 2001 and 2002, and made it to Slam finals in 2004 and 2005, so you're not exactly comparing Chang to j"modern day" journeymen. How exactly does this translate to Chang's game not being competitive in today's era?

It seems you're building Chang in 1989 up and tearing Hewitt and Murray down in an effort to prove your point.

 

[Andres]

GR was finally banned. It was about time. He asked the most stupid questions ever and started the dullest threads ever.

 

[The balls in your court.]

ooops.

....

 

[CyBorg]

Chang was an incredible player. Forget the one grand slam title and look at the rest of his accomplishments. Multiple masters series shields and in total over 30 singles titles. Sounds like a guy worthy of being #2 to me.

 

[BallzofSkill]

Is he a better tennis player than Murray? Of course not, but we'll never know for sure.

Of course not, but we'll never know?

 

[Cenc]

you know people... i doubt this murray would win more than 2 games per set against chang

 

[Eviscerator]

GR was finally banned. It was about time. He asked the most stupid questions ever and started the dullest threads ever.

They have been around since 2004 and have a lot of posts. I suspect they were banned for reasons other than starting dull threads or asking dumb questions. Personally I do not believe posters should be banned for any reasons except clear and willful violations of forum rules.

 

[The balls in your court.]

They have been around since 2004 and have a lot of posts. I suspect they were banned for reasons other than starting dull threads or asking dumb questions. Personally I do not believe posters should be banned for any reasons except clear and willful violations of forum rules.

careful you could get banned for saying that.

 

[35ft6]

I agree with Hewitt being a better Chang, but Murray is very different from those two. He sort of reminds me of a more explosive Wilander. Very intelligent, crafty all courter.

But your point still stands. Not to mention a mental case like Goran who was number 2 for a while.

 

[35ft6]

Top 10 from 10 years ago:


1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Rios, Marcelo (CHI)
3 Korda, Petr (CZE)
4 Moya, Carlos (ESP)
5 Rafter, Patrick (AUS)
6 Rusedski, Greg (GBR)
7 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE)
8 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)
9 Krajicek, Richard (NED)
10 Corretja, Alex (ESP)

From 20 years ago:

1 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE)
4 Agassi, Andre (USA)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
7 Noah, Yannick (FRA)
8 Cash, Pat (AUS)
9 Mecir (Sr.), Miloslav (SVK)
10 Leconte, Henri (FRA)

 

[slice bh compliment]

...Murray ...sort of reminds me of a more explosive Wilander. Very intelligent, crafty all courter.....

..good call..

 

[anointedone]

Top 10 from 10 years ago:


1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Rios, Marcelo (CHI)
3 Korda, Petr (CZE)
4 Moya, Carlos (ESP)
5 Rafter, Patrick (AUS)
6 Rusedski, Greg (GBR)
7 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE)
8 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)
9 Krajicek, Richard (NED)
10 Corretja, Alex (ESP)

From 20 years ago:

1 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE)
4 Agassi, Andre (USA)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
7 Noah, Yannick (FRA)
8 Cash, Pat (AUS)
9 Mecir (Sr.), Miloslav (SVK)
10 Leconte, Henri (FRA)

That is exactly what I meant by the fact the 80s had incredible depth and competition. The 90s did not. The two should not be mixed with one another.

 

[Eviscerator]

That is exactly what I meant by the fact the 80s had incredible depth and competition. The 90s did not. The two should not be mixed with one another.

That was an interesting chart.

 

[Andres]

They have been around since 2004 and have a lot of posts. I suspect they were banned for reasons other than starting dull threads or asking dumb questions. Personally I do not believe posters should be banned for any reasons except clear and willful violations of forum rules.

I don't believe it either, but GR annoyed the heck outta me! I was just ranting

 

[!Tym]

Top 10 from 10 years ago:


1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Rios, Marcelo (CHI)
3 Korda, Petr (CZE)
4 Moya, Carlos (ESP)
5 Rafter, Patrick (AUS)
6 Rusedski, Greg (GBR)
7 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE)
8 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)
9 Krajicek, Richard (NED)
10 Corretja, Alex (ESP)

One thing to note, Rusedski and Bjorkman being up there is kind of a fluke to me, just like Haas reaching #2 was. To me, Haas was never truly an elite caliber guy, but rather a guy who just scratched the surface of elite and tantalized but wasn't really and everyone knew it. Bjorkman played out of his mind for one year and then came back to earth. Rusedski was always dangerous at his best, but I think everyone would have been surprised if he actually ever won a slam much like they would Henman.

My point about the era of part-time champions thing I think is born out from this list, however. Krajicek - in terms of pure talent and game, legend potential on fast stuff...without the injuries or headcase stuff. Kafelnikov - when on his game and motivated, a force to be reckoned with. Rios, Korda - two guys whose pure talent and wizardry took a backseat to nobody at their best. And so on and so forth. To me, a guy like Corretja, however, is more like a David Ferrer type. Exceptionally good, but always something's missing that'll put them over the top. When Cliff Drysdale called the Sampras-Bruguera Lipton semis, he was saying how this is two big boys going at it and it's beautiful to watch. In other words, it felt like a "big name" type match like you get in certain fighting bouts, like say the "headline appeal" of Rampage vs. Henderson vs. Silva vs. Travis Lutter, it's just not the same feel to it. No matter how well Lutter performs and surprises, you just get the feeling that this is a sham of a matchup and Lutter's not really a headliner talent, and he's kind of a ****** bag. To me, guys like Krajicek, Bruguera, Korda, Stich, and Rios maybe (maybe often) weren't always right there in the thick of things for whatever reason, but if they were at their best, you got the sense that they could hang and go toe to toe with the titans of the sport like Becker, Sampras, Agassi, et. These days, I really don't get that sense so much. I feel like their are a lot of great players these days, but they all have that "something's missing" feeling to them...i.e. kind of like a Paul Henri-Mathieu type as the poster child, or better yet, a Tommy Robredo.

 

[35ft6]

By the way, those top 10 lists were chosen because they were from the week closest to August 4th. Maybe a few months later in 1998 or 1988 and half the list would be different and some of our points would be moot.

 

[35ft6]

Sampras, Agassi, et. These days, I really don't get that sense so much. I feel like their are a lot of great players these days, but they all have that "something's missing" feeling to them...i.e. kind of like a Paul Henri-Mathieu type as the poster child, or better yet, a Tommy Robredo.

I wonder if awarding bonus ranking points (again) for beating top 10 players would bring encourage some of the more mentally fragile talents to "go for it" and be more courageous?

 

[tom_asdelonge182]

Chang is actually quite a great player. Consistency is also a talent and choosing the right shots is as well

 

[Cenc]

chang was a legend. and he was not only a defender like people say. he had all the shots very solid

and the one who said that nadal has every shot better than chang is insane

1) serve?! chang had very very good 1st serve
2) backhand? dont think so lol
3) speed could be about the same
4) chang had volley unlike nadal
5) nadal has better forehand
6) both are mentally very strong

 

[35ft6]

^ Nadal's backhand is better than Chang's. Just as consistent and he can rifle it. Chang's backhand was very good but Nadal's is everything Chang's backhand was and much more. His slice is better as well.

They can both hit well on the move but the difference is Nadal can just murder the ball on the move.

And I think Nadal is better at the net. Chang did have a pretty potent serve for such a little guy. And they're both mentally strong. I really can't think of one thing, honestly, that Chang does better than Nadal.

 

[anointedone]

^ Nadal's backhand is better than Chang's. Just as consistent and he can rifle it. Chang's backhand was very good but Nadal's is everything Chang's backhand was and much more. His slice is better as well.

They can both hit well on the move but the difference is Nadal can just murder the ball on the move.

And I think Nadal is better at the net. Chang did have a pretty potent serve for such a little guy. And they're both mentally strong. I really can't think of one thing, honestly, that Chang does better than Nadal.

Chang tried to hit a big first serve and often served below 50%. I will take Nadal having such a high first serve % all the time, and hitting good enough serves that they set up some points and are hard to attack, then Chang overreaching for a big first serve, missing a ton of them, and giving the bigger hitters a crack at so many 2nd serves.

The one thing I think Chang might do superior to Nadal at this point is the return of serve. Chang was one of the best returners of his time. Nadal definitely has both the superior forehand and backhand, overall serve IMO as I explained, is definitely even faster, is definitely mentally even tougher. Volleys were not a big part of either guys game, but Nadal is taller so has more reach at the net.

 

[35ft6]

The one thing I think Chang might do superior to Nadal at this point is the return of serve. Chang was one of the best returners of his time.

You're probably right. Didn't think of that. Chang did have a pretty sick return.

 

[anointedone]

You're probably right. Didn't think of that. Chang did have a pretty sick return.

Yeah he was a great returner. Probably only Agassi was better in the mid 90s.

 

[Cenc]

only thing nadal really has and chang didnt have are big bicepses

 

[falcon12]

only thing nadal really has and chang didnt have are big bicepses

It's very funny how you think that all the players for the 90s are so much better than nowadays.I've seen in some on your posts that Sampras and Agassi are better than Federer or Nadal which is arguably,but to compare Nadal with Chang is hilarious.It is like comparing Henman with Sampras,same style but so much difference in level...

 

[DavaiMarat]

Moot point

A decade from now you'll argue the same about the generation now. Rafa will look slow and weak and Federer will have old 'classic' strokes. You're arguing apples and oranges.

BEcause the bar is constantly being raised doesn't mean the previous generation was weak.

You are measured by your peers. New training methods and technique will always push the envelope.

I'll chalk up your comment to inexperience.

 

[kungfusmkim]

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV!;-)
I was just going on some stuff by you from a past thread....and reading into your underestimation of Michael Chang's tennis, that's all.

are you will from will and grace?

 

[slice bh compliment]

^What's up kungfusmkim? I've never seen that show, but from the previews/ads I have seen, that was really not a compliment for slice bh.

No, I got that line from some old Marcus Welby commercial about not being a doctor, but having played on on tv.

Anyway, anyone know what the deal was with Golden Retriever? The dude really had it out for our Asian brothers. I figured he was Asian himself, kind of a self-loather. Like my friend, the anti-semitic Jew.

 

[fastdunn]

only thing nadal really has and chang didnt have are big bicepses

but he was "walking quadriceps".

 

[fastdunn]

Yeah he was a great returner. Probably only Agassi was better in the mid 90s.

I remember Chang tried to return Sampras' 1st serve 1 - 2 feet inside the baseline, on super fast indoor carpet of 90's !!

In fact, that strategy paid off and caught Sampras by a surprise at a year-end TMC.

1995 Singles Championship Germany Carpet Chang vs Sampras 6-4 6-4.



Actually, you needed a great service return to be top players in 90's. Many brilliant returners (and of course brilliant servers).

 

[The balls in your court.]

Chang had one French open. Nadal has 4 and 2 Wimbledon finals and one win all against the greatest player in the history of tennis.
There is no comparison here guys.

 

[superman1]

Chang peaked very early and owned a green Sampras and got owned by a green Agassi. He never did very well against those guys later on, except Agassi in '96, the year that Agassi started poking holes in the deck of his own boat, the same year that Chang hit #2.

He was a bit lucky but so what? Chang was a hell of a player and a hell of an athlete: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idyrH9-O78k

 

[flyer]

OP excellent point,

Thats whats ridiculous about this old timers and their baseless arguments, Nadal is faster, fitter, stronger, serves better, mentally stronger, better though at net, much more dangerous off both wings, there is nothing Chang did better than Nadal does now, and Chang like you said was the number 2 player in the world....todays player would easily beat the players of 10/15 years ago, the game advances, the former players (even the greats) were not nearly as fit, not nearly as fast, and had one dimensional games, something that is impossible at the top today.

Its not to say that the players of yesteryears could not have been great now, but they would have been forced to be better, they would have had to work harder to be in better shape and make their games more well rounded, just as Federer has forced the rest of the tour chasing him to do

Its simple and its a pattern, in every highly competitive sport in the world, the game advances