Sampras believes his competition was better!

[Nickognito]

Just to point that Bjorn Borg in his career had poor opponents.

The best 10 players in last 50years are maybe:

Borg, Rosewall, Nadal, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, Laver, Santana on clay

Sampras, Federer, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Edberg on grass

Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Laver, Connors, Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Federer, Agassi on hardcourts

With these players, Borg won only 2 matches and played only seven matches, losing five of them. He won two of them, with two 21 years old players, and both in five tight sets. One with a good but not the best McEnroe, the other with a too young Lendl.

I suppose you don't think that Sampras and Federer would have beaten a lot of times by Connors in Wimbledon. So, who are the great players beaten by Borg?

c.

 

[Wuornos]

The DOT Ratings show very little difference between the other players in the top 10 when each player were at their respective peak.

Federer faces slightly stronger competition from those players immediately behind him but Sampras faced slightly more strength in depth. Both faced top 10 players with an average strength of 2620 DOT. Given that they both faced roughly the same level of competition, Federer achieved the higher DOT given his greater dominance.

However, if we look at the peak ratings achieved by the players faced, then Sampras, is correct. The average peak rating of the players faced by Sampras were 43 points per player higher than that faced by Federer. Having said that they weren't playing that standard when Sampras faced them and Federer's opposition may still improve their peak rating.

See following lists showing current ratings for players faced by both Sampras and Federer when Sampras and Federer were at their peak playing standard.

1 Pete Sampras 2762
2 Andre Agassi 2694
3 Jim Courier 2646
4 Boris Becker 2624
5 Michael Chang 2613
6 Thomas Muster 2607
7 Goran Ivanišević 2605
8 Sergi Bruguera 2603
9 Stefan Edberg 2594
10 Todd Martin 2591


1 Roger Federer 2841
2 Rafael Nadal 2708
3 Novak Đoković 2647
4 Andy Roddick 2638
5 Nikolay Davydenko 2630
6 Fernando González 2602
7 Tommy Haas 2596
8 Marcos Baghdatis 2595
9 Lleyton Hewitt 2583
10 David Ferrer 2576

 

[Sanyi]

Sampras was at the mid-point and record-wise about the deepest 6 month period of his slump at that time. Period.

Federer himself has reflected on that match as being one of the best he has played.

Results of exhibitions mean little in these days and times, but roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great simply defies logic and precedent. Throughout the history of tennis, the past greats of the sport have competed and on occasion beaten the present day champion. Whether it be Pancho Gonzalez v. Rod Laver, Laver to Borg, Borg to Lendl and McEnroe, Lendl v Becker and Edberg the trend has repeated in every generation. The supposition that it has to end based on an etherial premise that a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation is pure fantasy and flies in the face of historical precedence.

Federer is a great would be great within any given generation as would Laver, Borg, etc. through Sampras and Agassi. This thread started as a debate of depth. Deep this generation isn't and most likely why no one has set about making a case for it. Claims yes. Cases no. More importantly no names, no list of guys successes. The reasons that hasn't happened yet is because you can't write in the names of the generation between the Sampras period and the Federer period and can't replace the other best players of the Fed generation itself.

The best of that tweener generation, the Rios, Kuertens, Normans, et al, for whatever reason could not carry on. They should have represented what the Edbergs and Beckers were to the front end of Sampras era and did impact the end of the Sampras era but never had an era of their own let alone present themselves as seasoned veterans in the front end of the Fed generation. They went MIA before Federer reached the top of the pyramid but should only now have been closing out their careers. Moya was outside the top 20 more than inside of it and Henman had a game which flourished mostly on fast grass but may have been the fourth or fifth best such grass courter under those conditions.

Safin, Ferrero, Flipper have all gone missing for long and longer periods. Hewitt is a Fed contemporary who peaked in the vacuum created by the absence of that tweener generation but has apparently used himself.

Who took these player's places? Were they pushed out by better players or did they merely leave due to injury and/or personality issues. Their absences in large numbers created voids which guys like, Robredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Blake et al filled by default. Davydenko has been a fixture inside the top six players in the world with a losing record v. the top ten and a 57.7 career match winning percentage after 8 years on the pro tour.

Just how many potential Greats do you think a given generation produces?

Historically how many identified Greats have each generation produced?

Fed is great. Nadal is one of the great clay courters ever. But how do you replace the other top talents that went missing from both Feds and the prior generation? Everybody gets bumped up the ranks due to those gaps but do they get more talented? Is that depth?

No sir, I don't think it is.

 

[Steve132]

Sampras was at the mid-point and record-wise about the deepest 6 month period of his slump at that time. Period.

Federer himself has reflected on that match as being one of the best he has played.

Results of exhibitions mean little in these days and times, but roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great simply defies logic and precedent. Throughout the history of tennis, the past greats of the sport have competed and on occasion beaten the present day champion. Whether it be Pancho Gonzalez v. Rod Laver, Laver to Borg, Borg to Lendl and McEnroe, Lendl v Becker and Edberg the trend has repeated in every generation. The supposition that it has to end based on an etherial premise that a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation is pure fantasy and flies in the face of historical precedence.

I don't know what you mean "by roundly dismissing a prior all-time great vs. a present all-time great." My point is that Federer and Sampras played in three EXHIBITION matches, and exhibitions should not be used to assess the relative merits of their participants. Gonzalez and Laver, Laver and Borg, Borg and Lendl, etc. all met in competitive tournaments, and the results of those matches do count.

Sampras can obtain a wild card to any tournament he wants. If he did so, and then defeated Federer in the tournament, that result would be significant. Exhibitions are not.

On the other hand, you appear to want to dismiss the result of a competitive Wimbledon fourth round match on the grounds that Sampras was in a slump and that Federer played one of his best matches. As I pointed out in my last post, Sampras was, by any plausible criterion, closer to his peak in 2001 than Federer was to his. You can't simply ignore this result, however inconvenient and disappointing it may have been to you.

In addition, I did not argue that "a given generation is inherently superior simply because it is the latest generation." My contention in this and the previous thread has been that Federer and Sampras face roughly the same level of competition. You are the person who keeps insisting that the players of the 90's were superior to today's generation.

Federer is a great would be great within any given generation as would Laver, Borg, etc. through Sampras and Agassi. This thread started as a debate of depth. Deep this generation isn't and most likely why no one has set about making a case for it. Claims yes. Cases no. More importantly no names, no list of guys successes. The reasons that hasn't happened yet is because you can't write in the names of the generation between the Sampras period and the Federer period and can't replace the other best players of the Fed generation itself.

The best of that tweener generation, the Rios, Kuertens, Normans, et al, for whatever reason could not carry on. They should have represented what the Edbergs and Beckers were to the front end of Sampras era and did impact the end of the Sampras era but never had an era of their own let alone present themselves as seasoned veterans in the front end of the Fed generation. They went MIA before Federer reached the top of the pyramid but should only now have been closing out their careers. Moya was outside the top 20 more than inside of it and Henman had a game which flourished mostly on fast grass but may have been the fourth or fifth best such grass courter under those conditions.

Safin, Ferrero, Flipper have all gone missing for long and longer periods. Hewitt is a Fed contemporary who peaked in the vacuum created by the absence of that tweener generation but has apparently used himself.

The success or otherwise of the tweener generation is not obviously relevant to this comparison of the relative merits of Sampras' and Federer's peers. The comparison should be between, say, the top 10 of 1997 and that of 2007. Taking Wuornos' ratings above as an example, Federer and Sampras at their peaks faced top 10 players with the same average ratings. The peak ratings of Sampras' contemporaries were higher, because virtually all of them have finished their careers. Many of Federer's contemporaries (Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Gasquet, etc.) can be expected to increase their ratings over the next few years.

Who took these player's places? Were they pushed out by better players or did they merely leave due to injury and/or personality issues. Their absences in large numbers created voids which guys like, Robredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Blake et al filled by default. Davydenko has been a fixture inside the top six players in the world with a losing record v. the top ten and a 57.7 career match winning percentage after 8 years on the pro tour.

Just how many potential Greats do you think a given generation produces?

Historically how many identified Greats have each generation produced?

Fed is great. Nadal is one of the great clay courters ever. But how do you replace the other top talents that went missing from both Feds and the prior generation? Everybody gets bumped up the ranks due to those gaps but do they get more talented? Is that depth?

Just how many great players were there in the Sampras era? In the previous thread I pointed out that many of the players claimed for this period (Lendl. Wilander, Edberg, Becker, etc.) were approaching the end of their careers by the time Sampras became the world No. 1. Lambielspins also discussed the limitations of some of the other players who were hailed as greats. I don't want to repeat those arguments here.

It is, of course, true that Sampras' contemporaries won more Slams than Federer's have to date. One reason for this is that today's generation of players have not completed their resumes as yet. For example, Agassi's and Ivanisevic's records looked far less impressive in December 1997 than they do today.

The other reason for the relative lack of success of Federer's peers is that Federer has been a far, far more dominant No. 1 than Sampras ever was. In 2002 and 2003 the 8 Slams were won by 8 separate players. Since 2004 Federer has won 11 of the 12 Slams played on surfaces other than clay, and Nadal has won the last three French Opens. If Federer had not been around Hewitt and Roddick would have 4-5 Slams each and Nadal would have duplicated Borg's FO-Wimbledon double.

You may see this as evidence of weak competition today. The substantial majority of analysts think otherwise.

 

[FiveO]

deleted til complete

 

[Nickognito]

So, if Djokovic become the next Agassi you can say that In 2007 Djokovic can match Agassi in 95? Nope. It doesnn't matter which player Djokovic become, and in dots ranking too. Wuornos' words are very intersting about this question


I think that Sampras is lucky he doesn't have Federer's opponents and Federer is even luckier he doesn't have Sampras opponents (on clay I dont' know the actual value fo Federer, so i can't tell). I explain.

There are Roddick-kind of players and Safin-kind of players. Who is the best? They had similar careers. Roddick always wins vs. normal players and always loses with champions. Safin sometimes wins and loses with both.
Roddick is always a player rated 800. Safin is sometimes rated 500 and sometimes 1000.

Federer is always rated 950-1000 so he cannot lose with Roddick but can lose with Safin. Usually not, but sometimes he can. Safin, Nalbandian, etc.

So Federer prefers Roddick than Safin, even if maybe Roddick is better than Safin, or near even.

Sampras maybe too, but i'm not so sure. Maybe sampras prefers Safin than Hewitt. Safin is not always a 950-1000 players, but sometimes is a little weaker. Only Wimbledon was different. With Federer's oppononets, I think that Sampras would have won 10 consecutive Wimbledons.

But in other tournaments Sampras could have be beaten occasionally by Haas, Gasquet, Hewitt, Djokovic, Berdych and so on.

But, in any case, only 'peaks' are relavant in judging champions opponents, when they feel well. So a Krajicek, a Mecir, a Safin, a Nalbandian, even a Kucera are more dangerous players than (till today) Roddick or Davydenko or

Let's see who has more vs-top10-wins per year between players of today, in grand slam tournaments:

Federer 3.9 per year
Nadal 2
Baghdatis 1.7
Safin 1.1
Ferrero, Davydenko Djokovic 1
Hewitt 0.9
Nalbandian Youzhny and Hrbaty 0.8
Tursunov 0.7
Gonzalez Grosjean Malisse and Clement 0.6
Moya Murray Andreev and Rochus 0.5
Roddick Ancic and Robredo 0.4
Blake Gasquet 0.3
Ljubicic and Berdych 0

This ranking is more accurate in determining who are the more dangerous for a player like Sampras or Federer.

c.

 

[Steve132]

So, if Djokovic become the next Agassi you can say that In 2007 Djokovic can match Agassi in 95? Nope. It doesnn't matter which player Djokovic become, and in dots ranking too. Wuornos' words are very intersting about this question


I think that Sampras is lucky he doesn't have Federer's opponents and Federer is even luckier he doesn't have Sampras opponents (on clay I dont' know the actual value fo Federer, so i can't tell). I explain.

There are Roddick-kind of players and Safin-kind of players. Who is the best? They had similar careers. Roddick always wins vs. normal players and always loses with champions. Safin sometimes wins and loses with both.
Roddick is always a player rated 800. Safin is sometimes rated 500 and sometimes 1000.

Federer is always rated 950-1000 so he cannot lose with Roddick but can lose with Safin. Usually not, but sometimes he can. Safin, Nalbandian, etc.

So Federer prefers Roddick than Safin, even if maybe Roddick is better than Safin, or near even.

Sampras maybe too, but i'm not so sure. Maybe sampras prefers Safin than Hewitt. Safin is not always a 950-1000 players, but sometimes is a little weaker. Only Wimbledon was different. With Federer's oppononets, I think that Sampras would have won 10 consecutive Wimbledons.

But in other tournaments Sampras could have be beaten occasionally by Haas, Gasquet, Hewitt, Djokovic, Berdych and so on.

But, in any case, only 'peaks' are relavant in judging champions opponents, when they feel well. So a Krajicek, a Mecir, a Safin, a Nalbandian, even a Kucera are more dangerous players than (till today) Roddick or Davydenko or

Let's see who has more vs-top10-wins per year between players of today, in grand slam tournaments:

Federer 3.9 per year
Nadal 2
Baghdatis 1.7
Safin 1.1
Ferrero, Davydenko Djokovic 1
Hewitt 0.9
Nalbandian Youzhny and Hrbaty 0.8
Tursunov 0.7
Gonzalez Grosjean Malisse and Clement 0.6
Moya Murray Andreev and Rochus 0.5
Roddick Ancic and Robredo 0.4
Blake Gasquet 0.3
Ljubicic and Berdych 0

This ranking is more accurate in determining who are the more dangerous for a player like Sampras or Federer.

c.

Um.... do you really believe that Kucera at his peak was a more dangerous player than Roddick?

Let's see.

Kucera:

Highest ranking No. 6
6 tournament titles
0 Masters titles
1 Slam semi final
0 Slam finals

Roddick

Highest ranking No. 1
23 tournament titles
4 Masters titles
1 Slam (U.S. Open)
3 Slam finals (all lost to Federer)

Roddick rarely gets the recognition he deserves, mainly because his game does not match up very well with Federer's. I would agree that Safin has more talent than he does (although he is far less consistent), but Roddick has had a far more successful career than any of the other players to whom you compared him unfavorably. This applies not just to his average performance but also to his peaks.

Put it this way. If you remove both Sampras and Federer from tennis history, Mecir, Krajicek, Kucera and Nalbandian would not have won very much more. Roddick, like Lleyton Hewitt, would have 4 or 5 Slams.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Nickognito]

No doubt that Roddick is a better player that Kucera was and that in a h2h match between them Roddick would be the winner most times.

But let's see how performed both with top players.

in 1996: Kucera is 2-2 with to10 players. W with Chang and Ferreira, L (67 in the 4th at Wimbledon) with Sampras

in 1997 he's 5-3: L with Ivanisevic, Corretja and Bjorman, W with Muster (hard), Ivanisevic and Kafelnikov (Carpet) Rios and Bruguera (clay)

in 1998 he's 5-8: but anyway he won with Korda and Krajicek on hardcourts, Rios on clay, Sampras in the Australian Open and Agassi in the Us Open (!)

In 1999 he's 4-5 beating Agassi, between others, and Kafelnikov on Davis russian clay in straight sets.

In 2000 he's 4-4 beating Kuerten in Montecarlo and Agassi in the French.

So, in 5 years he's 20-22, and he he has two 2 with Agassi, one with Sampras and four total wins in grand slam tournaments


Roddick in his five best years vs. top10 players:

2003: 6 W 5 L, beating Ferrero in the Us Open
2004: 5 W 6 L, no wins in g.s.
2005: 2W 5L , no wins in g.s.
2006: 1 w 6L, no wins in g.s
2007: 4W 7L, beating Ancic in the Australian Open

Total: 18-29 (38% vs. Kucera's 48%) and 2 gran slam wins (with Ferrero and Ancic) vs Kucera's 4 (Agassi, Agassi, Sampras, Ferreira)

So, yes, for a top-10 player Kucera was a more dangerous player than Roddick now is. No doubt about it.

Roddick is a better player, but a top10 prefer him to Kucera.

c.

edit: even if without Federer, Roddick is not better than Kucera overall and Kucera remains better in Grand Slam Tournaments. And if we keep out Federer , Roddick's opponents are sooooooo weaker than Kucera's...

I think you're missing the meaning of 'peak'. 'Peaks' do not depends on tournaments results. If you reach 4 grand slam finals in a single year, it's not necessarily a peak. You can reach 4 finals without playing with a top20 player. I don't mean it's yeasy to reach 4 grand slam finals in an year. To do that, you must play at a good level for 6 matches each time, and most people, like Kucera, are not able to do this. But it's not a peak, it's just the oppisite quality, it's 'continuity'. 'Peak' is the ability of winning a match with a top player. In doing this Kucera is better than Roddick.
On the other hand, Roddick is, between players with less than 2 grand slam tournament wins, the best player in the open era with players classified below #20 in the world. No one ever had Roddick's continuity. That's why Roddick can reach Grand Slam Finals. In the way to reach his two Wimbledon finals the best player beaten by Roddick was Coria, n.18 in the world.
And when he find on he's way just normal top10 players like Murray and Gasquet, the final become only a dream.
But I think Roddick is great, winning all the match he has the talent to win.

 

[CyBorg]

Just to point that Bjorn Borg in his career had poor opponents.

Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Nastase, Gerulaitis are poor opponents?

The best 10 players in last 50years are maybe:

Borg, Rosewall, Nadal, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, Laver, Santana on clay

Gimeno is incredibly underrated and was better than Bruguera and Santana. Muster was also better than Bruguera, despite Bruguera's two Frenches. I would think that Vilas, Borg's contemporary, would crack the top 10. But that would only make sense.

Sampras, Federer, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Edberg on grass

Connors won Wimbledon the year Borg stopped playing it. The year before Borg beat Connos in the semis of Wimbledon and the US Open. Borg robbed Connors of several Wimbledon titles, the biggest robbery coming in 1977. I don't know what Hoad did to deserve to be on this list. Edberg wasn't better on grass than Connors.

Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Laver, Connors, Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Federer, Agassi on hardcourts

Are you going on hardcourts results for Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales? What are your sources?

With these players, Borg won only 2 matches and played only seven matches, losing five of them. He won two of them, with two 21 years old players, and both in five tight sets. One with a good but not the best McEnroe, the other with a too young Lendl.

That's because you're being selective. You don't have Connors on the grass courters list and don't have Vilas on the clay court list.

I suppose you don't think that Sampras and Federer would have beaten a lot of times by Connors in Wimbledon. So, who are the great players beaten by Borg?

I think that peak Connors would have wiped the floor with this year's Federer at Wimbledon, because Roger wasn't playing great tennis there.

As for your question - Connors, McEnroe, Vilas were the great players. I'm not counting the younger Lendl or the older Nastase. That's a troika of truly great all-time guys, which is more or as much as other guys have.

 

[Nickognito]

It was just my subjective opinion.

I'm maybe underrating Connors on grass but I think he wasn't better than Agassi. For Agassi as Sampras competitor on grass watch 1999 final.

Hoad is judged by man the best grass court player ever at his peak.
And, sorry, there's Newcombe, better than Connors on grass.

Anyway, who are the first 5 players on every surface from 1974 to 2007?

clay: Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten (or Courier)
grass: Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Becker
hardcourts: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Agassi (or Connors)

It's subjective, but i think you can agree with that.

So, how many matches has Borg won with them?
Two.

I have nothing against Borg. I didn't say he lived in the tennis weakest era. But for sure he didn'nt live in the golden age of tennis. When the age started to become brighter, Borg losed the 1st position in the world and Wimbledon and retired.

John McEnroe in his 7 slams wins had to beat three times Borg and Lendl and 4 times Connors. (and Gerulaitis twice, and Curren, and Cash). In 7 slam, not in 11.

c.

 

[CyBorg]

It was just my subjective opinion.

I'm maybe underrating Connors on grass but I think he wasn't better than Agassi. For Agassi as Sampras competitor on grass watch 1999 final.

Connors made an inordinate amount of semifinal appearances at Wimbledon. You can't say this for Agassi. He won one fluky Wimbledon when Ivanisevic choked and while Becker was doing blow and screwing hookers. The only decent grass courter in Agassi's 1999 draw was the semifinalist Rafter.

Hoad is judged by man the best grass court player ever at his peak.
And, sorry, there's Newcombe, better than Connors on grass.

Hoad had a marvellous peak that never lasted more than a tournament. He won Wimbledon in '56, the tour of champions in '58 and the Victorian pro in '59. Otherwise a massive underachiever. Newcombe was pretty good in the early 70s, but took advantage of the transitional years between Laver's and Rosewall's dominance and Connors' emergence in 1974. His 1967 title was as an amateur.

Anyway, who are the first 5 players on every surface from 1974 to 2007?

clay: Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten (or Courier)
grass: Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Becker
hardcourts: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Agassi (or Connors)

It's subjective, but i think you can agree with that.

So, how many matches has Borg won with them?
Two.

Why would you care how many matches Borg won against someone like Agassi or Sampras these players were not in his generation? This is absolutely asinine logic.

I guess what really sucks for Borg is that he didn't get to meet a young Mats Wilander at the French in 1981 so he could have drubbed him in straight sets. That would have raised the count to three. Or what if Borg had met Lendl on grass at Wimbledon and had likewise drubbed him? What a luck of the draw - he could have been great. Damn you, astrology!

I have nothing against Borg. I didn't say he lived in the tennis weakest era. But for sure he didn'nt live in the golden age of tennis. When the age started to become brighter, Borg losed the 1st position in the world and Wimbledon and retired.

I don't think he lived in the golden age of tennis either, but he did play in some of the deeper years in the Open Era. If you want to make a convincing argument that he didn't I suggest pulling out the draws and drawing some conclusions from them.

John McEnroe in his 7 slams wins had to beat three times Borg and Lendl and 4 times Connors. (and Gerulaitis twice, and Curren, and Cash). In 7 slam, not in 11.

Context. McEnroe's defeats of Borg were fantastic. His victories over Lendl were less impressive because Lendl was not a great player when Mac beat him in majors due to his youth and inexperience. Sampras beat McEnroe at the 1990 US Open semifinal - seems impressive if you ignore all factors like age, but it is much less impressive when you think about it logically. Mac was old and his name alone does not make him great competition.

Borg beat Connors four times at Wimbledon and McEnroe once. That's pretty darn good. And Tanner played amazing tennis in 1979 when Borg beat him and that counts all the same. And I bet you that the '79 Roscoe was twice the player than Becker was in 1993. But, of course, without context this doesn't matter, isn't that right?

 

[RiosTheGenius]

no doubt about that, Sampras competition was far better than any of the guys Federer faces now.

 

[Steve132]

no doubt about that, Sampras competition was far better than any of the guys Federer faces now.

Do you care to explain why?

 

[Nickognito]

CyBorg if you speak about Roscoe Tanner, I don't think that he's better than Goran Ivanisevic.

But I think you're overrating Connors. For sure he had more consistency than Agassi, but I think his peaks on grass were similar.

But you 'are overrating all players from 1974 to 1979, I think.
You said that Newk took advantage for transitional year till the emergence of the two bigs in 1974. But in 1974 Newcombe beated the french open champion Borg both in Dallas on carpet and in the Masters on grass. And in the period (end 1973-start 1975) , when Connors won 3 majors, Newcombe beated him twice in two matches, in Us Open 73 and Australian75, both on grass. Newcombe was 31 and then declined for his age, not for the emergence of Connors and Borg.

c.

 

[protourOS]

But I think you're overrating Connors. For sure he had more consistency than Agassi, but I think his peaks on grass were similar.
c.

Connors at Wimbledon
Champion: 1974, 1982
Finalist: 1975, 1977, 1978, 1984

Agassi at Wimbledon
Champion: 1992
Finalist: 1999

Hardly similar peaks at Wimbledon...

 

[Nickognito]

I'm sorry, maybe i don't know well tha meaning of 'peak'. I only wanted to say that the best Connors on grass in my opinion is not so better than the best Connors.

c.

 

[protourOS]

no apology required it's only our opinions!

Connors was either winning or a finalist more often than Agassi, as such I think he achieved a higher peak (beating the best around him).

As to who was best at their best, I presume your judgement is based on believing Agassi's opponents were tougher than those faced by Connors?
While I think Agassi was an incredible player and great talent to achieve what he did on Grass - I dont neccessarily think his opponents were of a higher caliber - just a different era...

 

[Nickognito]

I think that

- Agassi had tougher opponents
- Agassi had less continuity. I think that Agassi in 1992 or 1999 is a player like Connors, not always. I think that Sampras 1994-2000 and Federer 2003-2006 could not lose a match at Wimbledon vs Connors. It's only my opinion.

c.

 

[protourOS]

you say Sampras and Federer would always (at their best) beat Connors (at his best) at Wimbledon
So then would they also always beat McEnroe & Borg?

For that matter what about say Laver, Newcome & Rosewall?

Are the recent champions simply better players than the older generations?

 

[RiosTheGenius]

Do you care to explain why?

it is very simple... the guys at the top today lack the variety guys in the 90's had...I'll give you a few examples of guys who always play the same way: Roddick, Hewitt, Gasquet, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Berdych, Baghdatis, etc.. the only exceptions to me are Nadal and Nalbandian, these two guys and Federer are constantly changing their strategies. That's why it is so easy for Federer to beat guys like Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Roddick... he knows exactly what they're gonna do, they don't, and they always get a different look at Federer's game.
When Roddick lost the first final of Wimby against Federer he thought he had learned something, and when they played again he was close in the beginning... what did Federer do?... changed his game and oops, won the title again... Roddick didn't have that ability.
Meanwhile Sampras faced an entire generation in the 90s of players with an evolving variety in their games and he had to adjust to that, added to a bigger variety of styles of play. Sampras had to deal with the serve and volley of guys like Rafter and Krajicek, the serve of guys like Ivanisevic and Korda, the unpredictable game of guys like Chang and Rios, the metamorphosis of Agassi's game, the Physical game of guys like Muester, Courier and Ferreira, etc... all those guys at the top were constantly changing their game and yet Sampras was still able to overcome ALL OF THEM, the current top players are all from the same school of hitting as hard as you can and Federer loves that stuff.

 

[lambielspins]

it is very simple... the guys at the top today lack the variety guys in the 90's had...I'll give you a few examples of guys who always play the same way: Roddick, Hewitt, Gasquet, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Berdych, Baghdatis, etc.. the only exceptions to me are Nadal and Nalbandian, these two guys and Federer are constantly changing their strategies. That's why it is so easy for Federer to beat guys like Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Roddick... he knows exactly what they're gonna do, they don't, and they always get a different look at Federer's game.
When Roddick lost the first final of Wimby against Federer he thought he had learned something, and when they played again he was close in the beginning... what did Federer do?... changed his game and oops, won the title again... Roddick didn't have that ability.
Meanwhile Sampras faced an entire generation in the 90s of players with an evolving variety in their games and he had to adjust to that, added to a bigger variety of styles of play. Sampras had to deal with the serve and volley of guys like Rafter and Krajicek, the serve of guys like Ivanisevic and Korda, the unpredictable game of guys like Chang and Rios, the metamorphosis of Agassi's game, the Physical game of guys like Muester, Courier and Ferreira, etc... all those guys at the top were constantly changing their game and yet Sampras was still able to overcome ALL OF THEM, the current top players are all from the same school of hitting as hard as you can and Federer loves that stuff.

ROTFL! Most of those guys you mentioned did not have unpredictable games at all. Krajicek and Ivanisevic lived and died by their serves. Muster and Chang were just baseliner grinders, and not even nearly as great at that as Nadal. Rios may have the ability to play different games but he was so braindead he didnt have a clue what he was or should be doing most of the time, and he spent most of his career injured and underachieving too. Ferreira a "physical game"?!? Korda known for his big serving? OK now I have heard everything.

Your accessment is about as accurate as your username, "Rios The Genuis", that will be the day. :roll:

 

[lambielspins]

I think that

- Agassi had tougher opponents
- Agassi had less continuity. I think that Agassi in 1992 or 1999 is a player like Connors, not always. I think that Sampras 1994-2000 and Federer 2003-2006 could not lose a match at Wimbledon vs Connors. It's only my opinion.

c.

Agassi did NOT have tougher opponents then Connors on grass.

Agassi from 92 onwards (he didnt even play Wimbledon for the first time until 1991 and lost to Wheaton there) had Sampras of course, the toughest of all perhaps. Other then that Becker and Edberg nearing the end of their primes, Ivanisevic with his monstrous serve but monstrously fragile competitive mind, Courier who was a miracle to even make a Wimbledon final since most of his career results on grass were pitiful, Rafter who didnt even get past the 4th round of Wimbledon until the 3rd last year of his career, Martin who never won a slam title anywhere and best Wimbledon was the semifinal choke vs unheralded Washington,

Connors had McEnroe and Borg in their primes. Connors also faced Nastase, Ashe, Newcombe, all still at their best early on. Later in his career when he was still contending at Wimbledon there was also Lendl, Wilander, and Cash, who all had good results on grass. Even after all of them guys like Tanner, Gerulatis, were not that far from players like Ivanisevic and Martin.

This thread seemed to be started with the aim of Sampras fanboys to brainwash all into thinking the 2000s are by far the weakest decade in mens tennis history; but the more I read peoples views the more I think the 90s are by far the most overrated decade in mens tennis history.

 

[Steve132]

it is very simple... the guys at the top today lack the variety guys in the 90's had...I'll give you a few examples of guys who always play the same way: Roddick, Hewitt, Gasquet, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Berdych, Baghdatis, etc.. the only exceptions to me are Nadal and Nalbandian, these two guys and Federer are constantly changing their strategies. That's why it is so easy for Federer to beat guys like Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Roddick... he knows exactly what they're gonna do, they don't, and they always get a different look at Federer's game.
When Roddick lost the first final of Wimby against Federer he thought he had learned something, and when they played again he was close in the beginning... what did Federer do?... changed his game and oops, won the title again... Roddick didn't have that ability.
Meanwhile Sampras faced an entire generation in the 90s of players with an evolving variety in their games and he had to adjust to that, added to a bigger variety of styles of play. Sampras had to deal with the serve and volley of guys like Rafter and Krajicek, the serve of guys like Ivanisevic and Korda, the unpredictable game of guys like Chang and Rios, the metamorphosis of Agassi's game, the Physical game of guys like Muester, Courier and Ferreira, etc... all those guys at the top were constantly changing their game and yet Sampras was still able to overcome ALL OF THEM, the current top players are all from the same school of hitting as hard as you can and Federer loves that stuff.

Thanks. I'd like to reply to several points:

1. It is true that playing styles are now more homogenized than they were in the past. That is a direct result of changes in playing conditions and racquet technology. There are now very few tournaments on grass, and Wimbledon has deliberately slowed its courts (largely in response to complaints about serving contests in the 80's and 90's) and used heavier balls to encourage more rallies. Indoor carpet has largely been replaced by medium paced hard courts, which are now the surface of choice for the overwhelming majority of tournaments. New racquet string technology has helped returners more than servers.

The net effect of all this has been to encourage one particular style of play - what you might call aggressive baseliners. Even players like Federer - who can certainly serve and volley - tend to do so only now and then rather than automatically as they might have in the past. People who lament the decline of serve and volley tennis often write as though players have simply forgotten the art. They haven't. It's just less profitable today than it would have been in the past. Tennis players are generally quite pragmatic. If they could win at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open by serving and volleying on every point in the way that McEnroe did they certainly would.

2. More importantly, however, the statement that playing styles are now more homogeneous is NOT logically equivalent to saying that competition is weaker, which was the point of your original post. These are two separate issues. You could argue that it is more difficult to be dominant in an era where playing conditions and styles are very varied, but that does not mean that the standard of play is necessarily higher.

3. You single out Nadal nor Nalbandian as players who can vary their games - mainly, it seems, because they are the players with the best records against Federer. Nadal is not a particularly good example. He is certainly the world's No. 2 player, and he is a difficult matchup for Federer. Nevertheless, he has not been particularly good at adapting his game to hard courts (e.g. by taking the ball earlier, flattening his shots, standing closer to the baseline) and this is reflected in his results on that surface. Nalbandian's game is no more flexible than those of say, Safin, Murray and Djokovic.

4. Like Lambielspins, I was astonished at your examples of players in the 90's who "were constantly changing their game." This list includes players like Ivanisevic, Courier and Muster. To quote McEnroe, you cannot be serious. Even Ivanisevic himself described his game as ace, ace, return winner, double fault, first volley winner, ace.....you get the picture. What exactly was unpredictable about Chang's game compared with that of, say, Lleyton Hewitt? What is there about the physical game of Muster, Courier and Ferreira that would cause Federer any sleepless nights? Rafter, Krajicek and Rios were all notoriously inconsistent. None of them was as talented as Safin, who is the only player to beat Federer in a Slam on a non-clay surface over the past four years.

Agassi is the only player on your list who could pose a consistent challenge to Federer. But then, he is acknowledged as one of the greats of the Open era, and he has stated on numerous occasions that Federer is the greatest player he has ever seen.

 

[CyBorg]

CyBorg if you speak about Roscoe Tanner, I don't think that he's better than Goran Ivanisevic.

Tanner was far better on hardcourts than Ivanisevic. On grass it would be a dead heat.

But I think you're overrating Connors. For sure he had more consistency than Agassi, but I think his peaks on grass were similar.

Connors beat McEnroe at Wimbledon. Agassi had one fluky win and was otherwise Sampras' bltch. I don't see how it's close.

But you 'are overrating all players from 1974 to 1979, I think.
You said that Newk took advantage for transitional year till the emergence of the two bigs in 1974. But in 1974 Newcombe beated the french open champion Borg both in Dallas on carpet and in the Masters on grass. And in the period (end 1973-start 1975) , when Connors won 3 majors, Newcombe beated him twice in two matches, in Us Open 73 and Australian75, both on grass. Newcombe was 31 and then declined for his age, not for the emergence of Connors and Borg.

Newcombe won Dallas and the Aussie in 74 and later. Everything else was minor events. He was a solid player those in 74 and 75, but was gradually regressing. Beating a 17-year old Borg in Dallas doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make him better than Connors... on any surface.

 

[Nickognito]

An old Newcombe beated Connors in Us Open and Australian Open in Connors primes. Maybe he's not better than Connors on Grass, but I think he was. Be sure? Nothing is sure on this earth.

And Connors did not have Newcombe at Wimbledon.

I think Agassi could have beaten once McEnroe at Wimbledon, beacuse of his return of serve. Just subjective opinion.

c.

 

[CyBorg]

An old Newcombe beated Connors in Us Open and Australian Open in Connors primes. Maybe he's not better than Connors on Grass, but I think he was. Be sure? Nothing is sure on this earth.

1973 was not Connors' prime. Nice work spinning that though. The Aussie win was impressive, but that was not even one of the top four events that year. It was a 64-man event. Jimmy's prime was 1982, by the way.

And Connors did not have Newcombe at Wimbledon.

Aw, shucks.

I think Agassi could have beaten once McEnroe at Wimbledon, beacuse of his return of serve. Just subjective opinion.

I'm sure Andre would have had a shot at him had they played each other in 1992.

 

[CyBorg]

Jimmy's Wimbledon history includes:

- 2 wins
- 6 final berths
- 11 SF births
- 14 QF births, including 11 in a row between 72 and 82

Yeah - just like Agassi and Newcombe, isn't that right?

Also, just for kicks...

The 1976 Wimbledon draw included:
- Ashe
- Connors
- Nastase
- Borg
- Tanner
- Vilas
- Okker
- Newcombe
- Roche
- Gottfried
- Smith
- Gerulaitis
- Metreveli
- Dent

The 1977 Wimbledon draw included:
- Connors
- Borg
- Tanner
- Gottfried
- Nastase
- Vilas
- Gerulaitis
- Stockton
- Smith
- Dent
- Mayer
- Gullickson
- Amritraj
- Okker
- Edmondson

The 1978 Wimbledon draw included:
- Borg
- Connors
- Gerulaitis
- Vilas
- Gottfried
- Tanner
- Mayer
- Ramirez
- Nastase
- Stockton
- McErnoe
- Ashe
- Newcombe
- Okker
- Kriek
- Gullikson

The 1979 Wimbleodn draw included:
- Borg
- McEnroe
- Connors
- Gerulaitis
- Tanner
- Vilas
- Ashe
- Gottfried
- Alexander
- Gullikson
- Teacher
- Amritraj
- Okker
- Kriek
- Scanlon
- Mayer
- Gullikson
- Smid

And so on... I didn't bother including clay courters like Barazzuti and Panatta.

I have all the time in the world and I am awaiting with anticipation your detailed explanation as to how these players were representative of a weaker generation. Because, you know, if you're going to make a bold statement you may as well back it up with something substantial.

I'm waiting.

 

[Nickognito]

I'm sorry, but i'm not debating about career results. Career results are what they are, and no debate is possible.

So, I think that John Newcombe on grass played better than Connors, and that he would have beaten Jimbo most times.

I don't care about career results, but I think that 3 wimbledon vs 2 do not mean that you're not a better player Newcombe won 7 slam on grass. 2-0 in h2h with Connors, 1-0 with Borg, 2-0 with Smith, 2-1 vs Ashe and he wons with Laver in 1969.

Connors is 0-2 vs Newk, 0-4 vs Borg, 2-2 with McEnroe, 2-1 vs Smith , 0-1 vs Ashe.

So, i respect your opinion, because numbers tell few things, but i have mine e , if it matters, i have numbers.

c.

 

[Nickognito]

The 1978 Wimbledon draw included:
- Borg
- Connors
- Gerulaitis
- Vilas
- Gottfried
- Tanner
- Mayer
- Ramirez
- Nastase
- Stockton
- McErnoe
- Ashe
- Newcombe
- Okker
- Kriek
- Gullikson

1970 Draw (and Newk won)

-Laver (Wimbledon champion)
-Newcombe (Wimbledon chamion)
-Ashe (Wimbledon champion)
-Roche (Wimbledon runner up)
-Rosewall (wimbledon runner up)
-Smith (Wimbledon champion)
-Nastase (Wimbledon runner up)
-Emerson (Wimbledon champion)
-Kodes (Wimbledon champion)
-Gimeno
-Okker
-Ralston
-Drysdale
-Franulovic
-Orantes

and so on

6 wimbledon champions and 3 Wimbledon finalist in their prime!
7 of these 9 players wre top ten that year, only Kodes and Emerson were weaker players.

Laver and Rosewall (Ken was very good till 72) between them, maybe the best players of all times.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I think you're missing the meaning of 'peak'. 'Peaks' do not depends on tournaments results. If you reach 4 grand slam finals in a single year, it's not necessarily a peak. You can reach 4 finals without playing with a top20 player. I don't mean it's yeasy to reach 4 grand slam finals in an year. To do that, you must play at a good level for 6 matches each time, and most people, like Kucera, are not able to do this. But it's not a peak, it's just the oppisite quality, it's 'continuity'. 'Peak' is the ability of winning a match with a top player. In doing this Kucera is better than Roddick.
On the other hand, Roddick is, between players with less than 2 grand slam tournament wins, the best player in the open era with players classified below #20 in the world. No one ever had Roddick's continuity. That's why Roddick can reach Grand Slam Finals. In the way to reach his two Wimbledon finals the best player beaten by Roddick was Coria, n.18 in the world.
And when he find on he's way just normal top10 players like Murray and Gasquet, the final become only a dream.
But I think Roddick is great, winning all the match he has the talent to win.

This is a very interesting post(& no one has addressed it yet, Steve132?)

I like to hear analysis that looks beyond the surface(just looking at results alone to judge a players peak/abilities is rather simple way of viewing things)

And I'm not pointing this out because I think Sampras' era was better or anything, but that other factors in general should be in considered in comparing whatever players you are comparing.

I'm a big fan of judging players partly on how they do in 'big matches.' And by big matches I don't just mean majors, finals, etc, but how they did against the best players. Like Rafter was able to beat Sampras & Agassi in majors while Kafelnikov did not(yeah I know about the '96 FO, its not quite the same as beating Sampras & Agassi at the USO), so in my mind he's 'better' than Kafelnikov, who beat some less than impressive names to win his majors.

Or why I think Cash's peak level was better than most other one slam winners(like Roddick), he beat a #1 player in 3 majors, while Roddick hasn't come close to one win in a major on that level.

Or why I consider Mecir much better than Rios(so many more wins over top 10 players, esp in majors)

The ATP doesn't have an easy way to see how players did vs the top 10 opponents they played in each year, so this stuff isn't brought up much in these debates, but I think it should. And head to head doesn't bring up the ranking of the players at the time of matches.

It would be interesting to compare how players ranked 1-20(or lower) did vs the top 10 in each year of the 90s compared to today, to see if much has changed in that department. I have a feeling it has.

 

[lambielspins]

Like Rafter was able to beat Sampras & Agassi in majors while Kafelnikov did not(yeah I know about the '96 FO, its not quite the same as beating Sampras & Agassi at the USO), so in my mind he's 'better' than Kafelnikov, who beat some less than impressive names to win his majors.

Yeah and Sampras was so worn out for that semifinal it might as well have been a walkover win too. Rafter>>Kafelnikov for me.

 

[CyBorg]

Connors is 0-2 vs Newk, 0-4 vs Borg, 2-2 with McEnroe, 2-1 vs Smith , 0-1 vs Ashe.

You forgot that Newcombe was 3-0 overall against Borg, which conclusively proves that he was better than Borg.

 

[CyBorg]

1970 Draw (and Newk won)

-Laver (Wimbledon champion)
-Newcombe (Wimbledon chamion)
-Ashe (Wimbledon champion)
-Roche (Wimbledon runner up)
-Rosewall (wimbledon runner up)
-Smith (Wimbledon champion)
-Nastase (Wimbledon runner up)
-Emerson (Wimbledon champion)
-Kodes (Wimbledon champion)
-Gimeno
-Okker
-Ralston
-Drysdale
-Franulovic
-Orantes

and so on

6 wimbledon champions and 3 Wimbledon finalist in their prime!
7 of these 9 players wre top ten that year, only Kodes and Emerson were weaker players.

Laver and Rosewall (Ken was very good till 72) between them, maybe the best players of all times.

Unlike you I don't disrespect a player's opposition and think that Newcombe had a heck of a career. Therefore I don't know what your point is.

You have yet to support your views in regards to Borg's opposition, so I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Nickognito]

You forgot that Newcombe was 3-0 overall against Borg, which conclusively proves that he was better than Borg.

I didn't mention the word 'prove', you did. It was my subjective opinion . It's you, who say that a 0-2 in h2h proves that the loser is the best player. It's nonsense.

 

[federerfanatic]

You forgot that Newcombe was 3-0 overall against Borg, which conclusively proves that he was better than Borg.

Not to mention some of the following head to heads:

Canas leads Federer 3-2, Canas the better player?
Haarhuis leads Sampras 3-1, Haarhuis the better player?
Krajicek leads Sampras 6-4, Krajicek the better player?
Blake leads Nadal 3-0, Blake the better player?

:twisted:

 

[CyBorg]

I didn't mention the word 'prove', you did. It was my subjective opinion . It's you, who say that a 0-2 in h2h proves that the loser is the best player. It's nonsense.

To have an opinion means to have the wherewithal to make a reasoned argument. What you have is a strawman that you're sticking to despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Nickognito]

You have yet to support your views in regards to Borg's opposition, so I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

If this thread becomes a fight, i don't care, and i will not answer again, i think we're all polite persons who know what we're talking about and just have different views.

I think that Borg didn't have great opponents on his favourite surfaces, with the exception of two years of John McEnroe in Wimbledon.

If we look at Borgìs opponents' results in Paris, no one was a great player. EvenVilas losed in Paris twice with a Solomon, for instance. Panatta was a very good player, but only every once in a while. Lendl was tto young. Rosewall , Laver, Gimeno, too old. There were not peopole like Nadal, Courier, Kuerten Wilander and aonly Vilas can be compared with Brugura, Muster, Ferrero or Federer.

In Wimbledon he had tougher opponents. Connors was a very good player, but definitely Grass wasn't his favourite surface. Nastase was like Panatta on clay, good for an year. Gerulaitis Tanner were good, but not enough. Borg didn't play vs. the recent great grass court player: Laver, Rosewall, and even Newcombe, Ashe and Smith. He did'nt play with players like Edberg and Becker. And Nastase , Tanner, Gerulaitis wer three. Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Agassi, Cash, Rafter, Henman, Lendl are more.

So, I think, in my subjective humble opinion, Borg 's opponents on grass and clay were a little weaker than Sampras ones, and very weaker than Newcombe or Lendl 's. On the other hand, Borg was not lucky in the uS. Open. In his 4 best years there he had to play with two oh the best plaer ever in that tournament, McEnroe and Connors.

I don't hate Borg. I 'm simply saying that he was lucky in a tournament, a little lucky in another one, and not lucky in a third one. And maybe , the record of 6-5-0 slam , you know, is a little strange: yeah, on clay and grass he was a better player for sure, but maybe not so better. 11 slam vs 0.

Anyway, it's my point of view. You have yours. That's fine.

c.

 

[Nickognito]

cyborg, tell me the evidence, with numbers, that Borg opponents on grass weren't weaker than Newcombe's.

 

[CyBorg]

cyborg, tell me the evidence, with numbers, that Borg opponents on grass weren't weaker than Newcombe's.

You made the statement. The onus is on you to back it up. I don't think that Newcombe faced weak opponents.

 

[Nickognito]

Moose Malloy, what you're saying is very interesting.

I would like to have such a ranking.

Richard Krajicek, for instance, has a great overall career record of 37 W and 35 L vs. top10 players.

 

[Nickognito]

You made the statement. The onus is on you to back it up. I don't think that Newcombe faced weak opponents.

Ok , i said weaker , not weak. It's a comparative.

1)Newcombe had tougher opponents
2)Borg had tougher opponents
3)Same opponents

In my opinion, newcombe opponents (and lendl opponents) were better. which is your opinion? Do you have some numbers to show them?

c.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

ace, ace, return winner, double fault, first volley winner, ace...

is it just me or this sums up pretty much what tennis is...

 

[Moose Malloy]

Richard Krajicek, for instance, has a great overall career record of 37 W and 35 L vs. top10 players.

did you just research that yourself, or is it available somewhere?

When you say 'top 10 players' you mean, their ranking at the time of the match, correct?

 

[CyBorg]

Ok , i said weaker , not weak. It's a comparative.

Just to point that Bjorn Borg in his career had poor opponents.

You're a terrible poster. I'm done with this.

 

[Nickognito]

(sorry double posting)

 

[Nickognito]

did you just research that yourself, or is it available somewhere?

When you say 'top 10 players' you mean, their ranking at the time of the match, correct?

Correct, I researched by myself.

He's 37-35 considering his years as a top100.

In their career,

Krajicek 49.3%
Ferrer 38.6%
Davydenko 28.6%
Ferreira 27.5%

Just 4 random players.

c.

edit: Cyborg, I'm sorry for my english, the comparitive was implicite in my words. No player has ever had poor opponents, it's obvious. Borg's ones were poorer, on grass and clay, not on hardcourts, than others. Just check grass-court win percentage:

Borg's opponents(1976-1981)

McEnroe 91%
Connors 86%
Nastase 76%
Gerulaitis 76%
Tanner 75%


Newcombe opponents (1968-1974)

Connors 91%
Laver 86%
Rosewall 84%
Smith 83%
Ashe 81%
Nastase 79%
Roche 76%

Lendl 's opponents (1983-1990)

Becker 89%
McEnroe 85%
Edberg 81%
Wilander 81%
Connors 79%
Cash 76%

Career wimbledon championships for opponents with more than 75% win percentage on grass in these years.

Borg's opponents: 5
Newcombe's: 8
Lendl's: 11

Regards,

c.