Nadal is lucky to be No.1 in the weakest era of tennis history.
- Thread starter deme08
- Start date
zagor
Bionic Poster
Well I know one elder poster fits this description perfectly.In general I think you're right,older guys will always talk how things were better when they were growing up,it's natural.
superman1
Legend
Or maybe they're just logical and acknowledge that there have been some amazing physical specimens in tennis history who had to play with a pea-sized woodie, and their shots shouldn't be compared to these guys with 100 sq inch graphite frames. You really think Becker in his prime wasn't as strong as guys today? The older players are just being humble, trying to be good role models for the new guys who think they're the ****.
akv89
Hall of Fame
I think 35ft6's theory is more likely. After all, a lot of tennis fans who grew up with Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl etc didn't take too kindly to the up and coming Agassi who thought he was the ****
It only proves how uncompetitive this era really is that someone with his one dimensional topspin monkey style of play could win French and Wimbledon back to back. Yeah right a historic achievement indeed that is to be lucky enough to play in such a weak era.
35ft6
Legend
Why not? In some cases the guys today are playing with the same rackets as they did. Fed's racket is very similar and there are still guys out there playing with POGS.
I've said this a few times, it's not JUST technology, it's also mindsets that change. The example I use all the time is the 4 minute mile, once thought impossible, but once one guy did it, all of the sudden other people started doing the impossible.
I think it really started with Agassi, when he came on the tour, he was hitting bigger than anybody thought was advisable. Off both sides on almost every ball. He changed people's perception of what was possible at the pro level in terms of baseline aggression.
Youngsters who look up to Agassi copied his approach even though I'm sure in most cases they were discouraged by their coaches, and the best of these kids grew up to be pros who took it even a step further. It's just a matter of conventional thinking being redefined by players who come along every 5 or 10 years and shatters what people thought is possible.
Far as mechanics go, when it really matters IMO, is when it comes to players who started off playing wood (started playing in 70's) opposed to players who NEVER used wood even when they were 4 or 5. The lighter rackets allowed them to grow up developing intricate extra elements in their swing, mostly in the wrist, that just wouldn't be possible for a young person to do with a 14 ounce racket. Look at Novak's forehand and how many times the racket face changes angles on the forehand takeback compared to more locked in place take back of guys who grew up with wood.
That's why Ferrerro's strokes probably look so much different from Michael Chang's even though they were both POG guys. Ferrerro probably always played with light graphite, whereas Change grew up with wood.
So they're lying? That's cool if you feel that way, but a lot of people here, if a pro or coach or commentator shares their opinion they're being truthful, but when they disagree, they have all sorts of hidden motives and are lying. Personally, I don't think the old guys would lie just to be humble.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
It started with the OP creating a thread sure to incite others. Their name should have been listed first, not lumped in as others.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Right. Every few years there is a shift in the tennis landscape. Greats have benefitted from this as they rose to prominence, but over time things change and soon others rise up to challenge the greats. There is an allotted time for everyone to shine, then they'll be replaced by the next greatest thing, and so on, and so on. This trend will always repeat itself.
rightytopspin79
Rookie
No offense but you have no clue what you're talking about. This weak field that you're talking about is only due to the top 3 players winning every major tournament. There were some great players back in the pete and andre era but if you were to put them into this era who's to say they wouldn't fair the same as the current field. Speculation is a dangerous thing, I'm sure the matches would be competitive and compelling but to say that a player who's won 5 grand slams during the Federer era is lucky to be number 1 is pretty stupid, other than his first grand slam he(nadal) had to beat the best player ever to play tennis to win those grand slams..
and this best player ever had to beat baghdatis and gonzalez to win 2 of his 3 australian opens :shock::shock:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Nadal has to contend with Federer, Djokovic and in the future maybe Murray for #1 spot. Are those players weaker than Roddick and Hewitt? It's all very subjective of course but this era seems strong enough to me.
rightytopspin79
Rookie
you just named two slams of the 12 he's won..he also beat roddick, hewitt, safin, agassi, nadal, The scud (mark Phillappousis), Djokovic..
Oh and by the way the AO is the Slam that produces obscure finalist and champs-Baghdatis, Gonzo, Tsonga (that's just the last 3 yrs) Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler,Petr Korda, Thomas Johansson...the list could go on..
3 wins against roddick were also impressive
especially because roddick lost to agassi in 2004 and because roddick lost to sampras on his very last tournament
rightytopspin79
Rookie
hmm, he won the title so anyone who played him lost against him, what's your point? The Roddick wins weren't all one sided.. anyways I guess I want to know what champion you're drawning on that has had to play only great players to win his slams.
The-Champ
Legend
Baghdatis will school Pioline (wimbledon finalist). Sampras was lucky he had to play Pioline twice in a grand slam final, oh and chang, who didn't have a serve, no forehand, no backhand NOTHIIIIIIIIIING!
Roddick and Sampras played 3 times in 2001-2002 when neither player were in their prime and Roddick surprisingly won 2 of 3 matches. Roddick lost to Sampras when he won a grand slam, and Agassi when he won a Masters title. That is typical of Roddick, playing well enough to get late in tournaments and losing to whomever is playing well enough to win it, usually Federer.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
if you quote Phillipousis to anything, you take the severe risk of making a fool of yourself. Phillipousis? omg...
if you quote Phillipousis to anything, you take the severe risk of making a fool of yourself. Phillipousis? omg...
ah philippoussis is ok compared to roddick baghdatis and gonzo
i just cant believe what people here compare
sampras in his last season and roddick full of power at age of 20
btw one of roddicks wins was on clay
and match that should count most since it was played on a grand slam tournament roddick got fully outplayed by far from best sampras' performance so all talk about this is funny
@ the-champ
ur age? 12?
the way how u write seems funny man
1st of all have you EVER watched chang?
pioline was just about good enough to be in top 5 right now same with philippoussis
baghdatis was really big challenge, man lost to agassi on his last tournament
gonzo also... omg man who has solid forehand and all other shots are worse than average for top 100 player
roddick? tell me which shot other than serve roddick really has. ok some average forehand, no backhand, no volley, no brain. amazing player
also nadal on grass
please people get real once
The-Champ
Legend
@ the-champ
ur age? 12?
the way how u write seems funny man
1st of all have you EVER watched chang?pioline was just about good enough to be in top 5 right now same with philippoussisbaghdatis was really big challenge, man lost to agassi on his last tournament
gonzo also... omg man who has solid forehand and all other shots are worse than average for top 100 player
roddick? tell me which shot other than serve roddick really has. ok some average forehand, no backhand, no volley, no brain. amazing player
also nadal on grass
please people get real once
Yes, I've seen tons of Chang's matches and I know that won't even be a top 50 player today. He had no weapons? Tell me what exactly can he do today? How would Chang play, Federer, Rafa or Djokovic? And Pioline? are you serious? If I'm 12, then your probably 3 years old.
HollerOne5
Semi-Pro
At this rate Federer will be lucky to be Number 2 at the end of the year
The balls in your court.
Banned
YET ANOTHER BITTER SORE LOSER ******* THREAD.....ITS GOING TO BE A PAINFUL YEAR FOR THE ******* NATION
superman1
Legend
This is the match where Sampras was crying because his coach was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. And this is how you're judging his career?
Watch the 2001 US Open quarterfinal with Agassi. That was spectacular tennis. Roddick hits NOTHING better than Sampras. NOTHING. Roddick was damn good in his prime, but get out of here with that.
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
It is interesting that the most impressive player Fed has beaten in a slam final, other than Agassi, is Nadal. Out of this group, only those three are likely to be considered great players in hindsight. The jury is still out on Djokovic, but from what I've seen he doesn't have the X factor (the champion mentality) that guys like Federer, Sampras, Agassi and Nadal have.
anointedone
Banned
Definitely true. Their proportions of relative strengths to weaknesses within their own games are basically the same (except for volleying being much higher within Sampras's then Roddick's within his) which means the stronger player will be better all over.
The balls in your court.
Banned
Rafa has beaten fed during his "prime " and even has a winning record against roger. Therefore following your logic , Federer was also very lucky to be number 1 in the weakest era of tennis......no?
oh...people will find any reason to say sampras and agassi were far from todays players what is a bsim wondering how would federer play if one of his friends diedalso all talk about chang, muster,... omg... take a look at this please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7mlzJrQG2E&feature=related
about match sampras vs agassi 2001 uso that was the best match EVER and this will never be repeated. im sad i havent seen that match since 2001
also beautiful. anyone saw these matches other than gorecki, superman and break point? i dont think so
veritech
Hall of Fame
federer's coach past away in 2003, and many believed that it inspired him to play even harder, leading to the beginning of his dominance.
as much as there are people saying sampras and agassi would get owned by todays players, you are being hypocritical by stating the exact same thing, saying sampras and agassi would own these players and make them look like amateurs. you accuse others of being extreme, while you act the exact same way.
i saw it. and it was a great match. so what? agassi and sampras were great players.
and learn how to use the " . "
it looks like you need it in your first paragraph.
u understood my post perfectly even without enough full stops and comas so its faster to type like this because when i come here i usually try to write as fast as possible - i wanna have time to post everything i want and i dont always have enough time for that so i try to write faster
about my way of posting: yes i know its too much what i write but its the only way to get rid of nadalfans' opinions who are totally unrealistic
and yes agassi and sampras (from 90s) would beat any player on 2008 tour
veritech
Hall of Fame
it would just be easier for everyone to read your writing if you had periods. just a suggestion.
The truth is,Nadal as number 2 in the world has more ATP points that sampras in his 6 year end of Nº1.
For me that says a lot about Nadal,and offcourse how much he deserve to be Nº1 in the world.
Anyway we could argue for ages who would beat who,without any of us making a point.It's very difficult to compare players that haven't ever played between each other .
For me that says a lot about Nadal,and offcourse how much he deserve to be Nº1 in the world.
Anyway we could argue for ages who would beat who,without any of us making a point.It's very difficult to compare players that haven't ever played between each other .
what you just said just goes in favour of weak era man
sampras had big concurence of about 20 players and couldnt collect that many points while nadal is one of 3 good players who are playing tour in 2008
The balls in your court.
Banned
yah weak era......
Roddick has the fastest serve ever and in any other era he would have been in the hall of fame. If not for Federer Roddick would have at least two wimbys and a US open. Federer has destroyed Roddicks career.
Leyton hewit played in the previous genratin and beat guys like Sampras. Hewit has no chance against Nadal or Fed.
Safin also destroyed Sampras at the USO. At the AO Marat played the best tennis of his life and barely beat Fed. He has done nothing since because he is just not good enough. Safin also had no chance against Nadal.
Agassi was owned by Federer ....it was not even close. Andre had no chance against Nadal.
Borg would have been killed by Nadal. They both have the same game except Nadal is bigger, stronger, faster, and a lefty.
Mcenroe himself has said that Nadal would have beaten him.
Laver has said that Nadal & Federer is the best tennis he has ever seen.
congratulations! world record in bs's in one post
this is for guinness
1) laver never said that
2) mcenroes game was on the same level as sampras'? yea, definitely
3) safins match of his life against federer? if you are 12, then maybe its best match u have ever seen. try to download 2000 us open finals
4) borg played tennis with wooden rackets. end of discussion about him
5) roddick??? in 90s people who had 1 shot were not very well ranked. wayne ferreira was better player (overall) than roddick
6) remind me how did fed and hewitt play before hewitt got injured and stopped playing tennis seriously
7) do you have enough intelligence to understand that sampras from 2001 was not same player as sampras from 1997?
oh yes
this is the strongest era with guys like:
roddick
davidenko
ferrer
karlović
moya at age of 32
few years ago agassi at age of 36
bjorkman and santoro who made their best slam results in last few years
robredo
baghdatis
gonzalez
i just dont understand what do nadal freaks see in these players???
this is the strongest era with guys like:
roddick
davidenko
ferrer
karlović
moya at age of 32
few years ago agassi at age of 36
bjorkman and santoro who made their best slam results in last few years
robredo
baghdatis
gonzalez
i just dont understand what do nadal freaks see in these players???
The current top 3 are the strongest top 3 in a long time. The top 3 this year are definitely stronger than the top 3 from 2004-2006.
The balls in your court.
Banned
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
cenc is the biggest fanboy of the 90's. just let him live there and don't bother him. just focus on living in 2008.
The balls in your court.
Banned
This is the only fact that has been brought up. Laver did actually say that.....but if I go through the trouble of finding the quote where will it get me?
So lets make a deal....I print the quote....and you admit that you were wrong. Do we have a deal?
All those wins are on clay!!!
I love how Federer has one bad year and all of you guys are saying, "he's washed up" "He's way past his prime".
WTF get off nadals balls because he can only when the FO and once won wimby because of how slow there making it.
The balls in your court.
Banned
My friend...I believe Nadal has beaten Federer on hard courts as well in his "prime". In fact Their record on hard courts are tied or very close to it.
Grass accounts for some of Feds wins my friend.
In any event following your "logic" then Nadal would have done well in any era at least on clay....no?
grow up....give credit where credit is due. Stop being a sore loser.
i have a quote where he said that sampras was the best of all times
if you show me quote where laver says that in his opinion fed is better than sampras, then ok i will take away the 1st part of my post about laver
The balls in your court.
Banned
He doesnt say that....he says the Fed nadal match is the greatest tennis that he has ever seen in his life. and taking away only one part is not enough.....take it all back and just admit that you are wrong. I don't work for free!
Similar threads
- Poll
