I agree with Moose Malloy entirely. Players often times get the feeling that they're playing better now than before if they're like Agassi and Sampras and relatively able to continue with their careers too abruptly halted by injuries. Then, you have guys like Rios, Kuerten, and Bruguera who will point to matches way long ago as being, wow, wish I could play that well again. It's just a natural human psychology in my opinion to think that way, which is why guys like Agassi and Sampras will always believe that they're continuing to be such superior players as they continue. Yet, what did Rusedski say about him during his decline? He said that he had clearly lost a step. What did Stich say about Edberg when he declined? He said the guy's lost his speed, he's too slow, and he needs to retire. Guys, Edberg played at his peak in that Open final vs. Courier. Stich was in the zone that day against Becker at Wimbledon, etc. It happens. I honestly believe it is NOT the highest level of play that improves, it's players decline and they either do or don't realize it. I mean if you were to believe Agassi, you'd think he hit cream puffs or something in his earlier days. I remember bringing a former decently ranked junior who had quit the game cold turkey for five years because of burn out and just plain hating the game. He didn't even touch a racket during that time and couldn't even find his old ones anymore. I had been hitting with open players during that time, and got him to try it again. First 15 minutes he was whiffing at balls, literally swinging and missing, and very nervous and tentative. Then, I just started bashing balls at him, forcing him to just react again, and use his natural ability, within five minutes, he was banging balls back with me. After twenty minutes more, you would NOT have been able to tell that he wasn't an open player. He was going toe to toe with me, and hardly missing a beat. That summer, he ended up training one of the elite juniors on the east coast, and again did not miss a beat. That told me VOLUMES.
It truly showed me how much of this "perceived improvement" and oh my God, I'd never be able to keep up now, improvement is in our HEADS and PERCEPTION. That's why Gene Mayer did what he did as a forty something year old on vacation, when asked to fill in at the last second as a favor at a challenger. He smoked the guy who months later took Sampras to the brink of defeat at the French, and had he not got tired and basically thrown in the towel, was routining Mike Bryan (back then the Bryan's actually tried to play some singles as well). He had NOT been training seriously AT ALL. Now what does that tell you? We're not even talking about some legend of the game here.
I'm telling you Agassi can say what he wants, but a lot of this IS in our heads. If you're playing a lot and not overly taken out of the game by injury (which Agassi wasn't until the tail end...and there you saw suddenly how he too suddenly "looked his age" when he too couldn't fight off the injury bug anymore), then it's human nature to be thinking yeah, wow, I'm improving each and every day. But the fact is, these guys hit soooo much, in my opinion, there really isn't that much more they can do better than their best days from before. As I said, you're best days just become less likely as you get older and/or more injured or burnt out. This does not mean that a grown old man like Agassi who later in life stopped taking as wild cuts at the ball, suddenly hits harder than he did before. It's about racket head speed, and the young Agassi was far from gun shy. I mean look Olivier Rochus is a small guy, but he generates a lot of racket head speed, he can still paste the ball pretty good. Things do not change that much in my opinion.
I mean if I'm playing everyday and start getting in a groove, I start to think wow, I've never hit better. Why? Because by human nature you remember the SENSATION of being in the zone of a more RECENT zone experience. It by nature will "feel" more alive and vivid in your head, and like you're just so much better than before. Yet, what does that mean, Agassi's old best tennis was chump change by comparison? NO. That was world class tennis and ability still, and we only remember the latest though.
And furthermore, the broadcast quality does make a HUGE difference as Moose points out. He points to the the final game of the Bruguera-Courier final where Courier was swinging from his pantyhose with absolutely ZERO fear...cough-cough, now compare that to the so-called "modern" Coria vs. Gaudio "epic" final game...cough-cough.
Moose has a copy of the Bruguera-Leconte French match from that same 93 tourny. The broadcast quality on that match was just soooo bad though, the sound and colors soooo washed out and muted, that it was like NOT ONE single shot "felt" alive or hard or smoked...NOT ONE for an entire match; you would think they were in the nerf ball age vs. the modern age they played at it in the finals...just, gasp, a few matches later. Then, I have the tape of the 96 US Open between Stich and Bruguera, and again the same washed out/muted broadcast feed from Eurosport, and again NOT ONE single ball struck that entire match felt "live" or hard hit or "modern." You're telling me two guys that tall, and NOT ONE single ball or point "felt" or "seemed" modern? I don't think so, when fast forward just gasp...a few months, and you have the 97 Lipton finals between between Muster and Bruguera and the 97 Wimbledon semis between Stich and Pioline. In these matches, the sound quality was very good and MODERN. In that they had that "gun shot," you're right there on the court, "live" sound quality and feel to them. That makes/made ALL the difference in terms of perception. Watch and hear those BROADCAST FEEDS right now, and I have no doubt that many would say wow, that actually surprisingly does APPEAR to be fairly "modern" play. IF, however, you point to the horrible broadcast feeds, you'll hear oh my God, a 4.5 could take them, my uncle Harry could take them, Conchita Martinez' modern newphew could take them, etc. Those guys are hitting less harder than moi!
YET, I GUARANTEE you take your local great hack, and let's see them do what Gene Mayer did. It would not happen in a MILLION years. The Gene Mayer story is reality and it does not even surprise me because what I saw with my old friend. That experience proved to me right there how much of it is in our head, heck in my friend's head. He was like oh no, I can't hit anymore...the game has passed me by for sure. Then, wouldn't you know.... Once he stopped being tentative and second guessing himself and relying on his PERCEPTION and "logic" of how well he should be playing, in other words, when I just said, this isn't working, and on a hunch started stuffing the ball down his throat thinking that would "help" him find his form much quicker and more naturally because it'd make him just start REACTING out there and using his own natural ability and HAND-EYE coordination to guide him. And it worked, and it worked almost INSTANTLY. You wouldn't believe it unless you were there to see the AMAZING transformation in a matter of minutes that just went on, from a guy who hadn't touched a racket in five years or so.
Someone just posted a Muster Bruguera from the 97 Lipton finals, and it is a good example of just how "modern" these old guys could hit WHEN they were given the benefit of not modern technology and strings so much as modern SOUND and a modern feeling broadcast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3xovDYu8Wk&mode=related&search=
This is the 5th clip out of eight which takes you through the first set. The tie break (clips 7 and 8) go out of sink, unfortunately, by several seconds half way a quarter of the way through. It was so hot that day, that Bruguera basically threw in the towel at the end of the tiebreak, because Muster's fitness was so crazy. However, you'll not amazing topspin, athleticism, speed, and explosiveness right up there with today's best in my opinion, and *without* any Babolats or Luxilon either. I think clips 5, 6, 7, and 8...i.e. NOT just an isolated highlight...go a long way to proving Moose's "theory." The game was STILL modern back then too, the difference, however, is that PERCEPTIONS are much more likely to change than reality in my opinion. The technique is PLENTY modern in these clips and so too is the at times gasp...racket head speed. Yes, people back then too could gaps at racket head speed, they did NOT swing THAT slowly, the techniques have NOT been revolutionized since.
