Tier 1 players from Sampras' Era

[lendledbergfan]

I think the reason this is called a golden era is NOT because of the top players winning consistently and racking up majors after majors (and I strongly feel that). It is more because these guys CONSISTENTLY give us matches worthy of being all-time great matches.

For example, Sampragassi met 34 times, yet they have played only one five set match (which was a one-sided fifth set), and one really memorable match (USO '01). Sampras - Becker had one really memorable match (WTF '96 which was not in a major).

Today's generation?

FeDal have had Rome '06, Wimbledon '07, '08, AO '09.
FedOle: USO '10, '11, RG '11.
Rafovic: AO '12, RG '13 (and not even talking about Montreal '13, Miami '11, Madrid '09).
Andovic: AO '12 (and their Rome '11 was no slouch, neither was USO '12).


And their other non-all-time-great matches have been no slouch, either. USO '11 Rafovic, AO '12 SF FeDal, Federer/Murray AO '13 etc. etc.

These are TEN matches which I can easily remember 10 yrs down the line. And this is despite the fact that the masters finals are now best of three which means we have already been robbed of more epic matches (Miami '11 for instance). THIS is why this is a golden era in my opinion.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I love number three.

I never thought about it like that, but you're right. That insistence upon setting that record added new dimensions to the game.

You've pretty much covered everything.

1. I liked that everyone competed to the death and didn't appear to be intimidated, regardless of rank. I don't remember ever watching a match back then where someone who was beaten acted like it was OK to lose.

2. I don't think it was as pageant-y as it is now. Now the commentators act like cheerleaders, talking through matches, so much innuendo, and repeating false stories when informed fans know the real deal. Now, I wish there was a way to mute the commentators without muting the sound of the ball.

3. And, I did like the way the tennis season highlighted different stars depending on the surface.

4. I don't remember all of this comparing Pete and Agassi's era to Laver and Emerson era's. Nor do I remember all of this stat checking. People just played the game and that's what it was about.

5. More than anything I think the commentators are the ones ruining the game. If I was just coming into tennis, I would have left a long time ago, because the stuff they talk about is just noise and it interferes with the game, imo.

If you enjoy discussing this topic, I'll refer you to the thread I created on Former Pro Player Talk which is pretty much about this (I basically copy-pasted the post you were kind enough to quote).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=478913

I agree with all your additional points. Commentators seem less and less knowledgeable - even the ones who seemed more insightful a few years ago - and have become tools to convey common sense about tennis through the eyes of capital. I'm not saying it's a new thing: the tendency started in the 90's (when it was still bearable) and hasn't ceased to increase. The on-court interviews are cringeworthy and are designed to obtain mundane, politically correct answers and to praise the status quo. "How excited are you to be in the semifinals against...?" Painful.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think the reason this is called a golden era is NOT because of the top players winning consistently and racking up majors after majors (and I strongly feel that). It is more because these guys CONSISTENTLY give us matches worthy of being all-time great matches.

For example, Sampragassi met 34 times, yet they have played only one five set match (which was a one-sided fifth set), and one really memorable match (USO '01). Sampras - Becker had one really memorable match (WTF '96 which was not in a major).

Today's generation?

FeDal have had Rome '06, Wimbledon '07, '08, AO '09.
FedOle: USO '10, '11, RG '11.
Rafovic: AO '12, RG '13 (and not even talking about Montreal '13, Miami '11, Madrid '09).
Andovic: AO '12 (and their Rome '11 was no slouch, neither was USO '12).


And their other non-all-time-great matches have been no slouch, either. USO '11 Rafovic, AO '12 SF FeDal, Federer/Murray AO '13 etc. etc.

These are TEN matches which I can easily remember 10 yrs down the line. And this is despite the fact that the masters finals are now best of three which means we have already been robbed of more epic matches (Miami '11 for instance). THIS is why this is a golden era in my opinion.

Fair observation. I could agree with that. It's true that the "epic" matches of this generation are more concentrated at the top of the men's game. Hence, you get more exciting matches between Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray than between the top players in the 90's, for instance. And people love watching epic matches between the best players: the stage is pretty much set for them to be epic without any additional elements. Epic matches in the 90's were more often matches between top 10 players and challengers, or between top 10 players and lesser ranked players. It happened quite a lot (you'll forgive me if I focus on Sampras, I followed his career more closely than other players'): I remember Sampras-Yzaga at the US Open, Sampras-Corretja at the US Open, Sampras-Chesnokov in Davis Cup, Ivanisevic-Rafter at Wimbledon (ok, it was 2001, I'm a bit off, but they could still be considered players of the 90's), Rafter-Arazi at the Us Open, and many others. The storyline of these epic matches was different from the "clash of the titans" storyline that we've been getting used to over the past decade. The theme of the 90's was the idea that at any time, any place, giants could fall - except for Sampras at Wimbledon, and even there he was easily dismissed by Krajicek - and they could fall at the peak of their strengths (not when they were tired or older). Epic matches such as these don't capture the public's imagination in the same way epic matches between the best players of a given generation do: Borg-McEnroe and Federer-Nadal are the proof of that. But every "era" has its own characteristics: I just happen to enjoy the 90's a lot.

 

[lendledbergfan]

Fair observation. I could agree with that. It's true that the "epic" matches of this generation are more concentrated at the top of the men's game. Hence, you get more exciting matches between Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray than between the top players in the 90's, for instance. And people love watching epic matches between the best players: the stage is pretty much set for them to be epic without any additional elements. Epic matches in the 90's were more often matches between top 10 players and challengers, or between top 10 players and lesser ranked players. It happened quite a lot (you'll forgive me if I focus on Sampras, I followed his career more closely than other players'): I remember Sampras-Yzaga at the US Open, Sampras-Corretja at the US Open, Sampras-Chesnokov in Davis Cup, Ivanisevic-Rafter at Wimbledon (ok, it was 2001, I'm a bit off, but they could still be considered players of the 90's), Rafter-Arazi at the Us Open, and many others. The storyline of these epic matches was different from the "clash of the titans" storyline that we've been getting used to over the past decade. The theme of the 90's was the idea that at any time, any place, giants could fall - except for Sampras at Wimbledon, and even there he was easily dismissed by Krajicek - and they could fall at the peak of their strengths (not when they were tired or older). Epic matches such as these don't capture the public's imagination in the same way epic matches between the best players of a given generation do: Borg-McEnroe and Federer-Nadal are the proof of that. But every "era" has its own characteristics: I just happen to enjoy the 90's a lot.

Yeah. The problem with epic matches between great and nobody is that it doesn't feature up among the non die-hards as readily as those between greats do. Nadal/Rosol was a great match (loved watching it even though my favorite lost. Loved how Rosol showed no fear and compelled Nadal to give him a "shoulder bump" etc. but then again, it will not remembered). Similarly, Sampras-Corretja even though was an epic would not have been watched by as many people as Sampras-Agassi. On the same note, Federer-Delpo USO '09 or Djokovic-Delpo Wimbledon '13 would not be as widely/fondly remembered as the matches between the top pros even though in terms of pure tennis/competition they were no less than the ones I mentioned above. You nailed it with the "clash of the titans" phrase. Casual fans love them. Media loves them.

One other reason why late seventies, early eighties was another "golden" era. The trivalry of Borg-Connors-Mac consistently produced thrilling matches.

 

[tennis_pro]

No, Becker couldn't win Wimbledon in the 90s because Sampras was clearly better than him, not because his level of play dropped. He was still going deep in the tournament, but lost to Sampras too many times.

Becker won 5 out of his 6 Slams before February 1991, 2 years before Sampras meant anything and the 6th at the AO in 1996 with both Sampras and Agassi out early. Boris most definitely WASN'T at his peak after 1992 and the stats prove this.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Yeah. The problem with epic matches between great and nobody is that it doesn't feature up among the non die-hards as readily as those between greats do. Nadal/Rosol was a great match (loved watching it even though my favorite lost. Loved how Rosol showed no fear and compelled Nadal to give him a "shoulder bump" etc. but then again, it will not remembered). Similarly, Sampras-Corretja even though was an epic would not have been watched by as many people as Sampras-Agassi. On the same note, Federer-Delpo USO '09 or Djokovic-Delpo Wimbledon '13 would not be as widely/fondly remembered as the matches between the top pros even though in terms of pure tennis/competition they were no less than the ones I mentioned above. You nailed it with the "clash of the titans" phrase. Casual fans love them. Media loves them.

One other reason why late seventies, early eighties was another "golden" era. The trivalry of Borg-Connors-Mac consistently produced thrilling matches.

Yeah, it all comes to down to three factors, I believe: 1) how closely you follow tennis, 2) which generation you "grew up with" or admire the most, 3) what kind of storyline/context you like in your matches. I confess having a strong emotional link with 90's tennis (that's when I started watching tennis and you know how kids are when they discover something new: they memorize everything and want to watch everything obsessively) and I have a soft spot for a) underdogs and b) players who dig deep and are able to fight adversity. All of that combined made me love Sampras' career (because of the way he handled pressure while not being as dominant as Federer) and enjoy comeback stories such as Agassi's and Ivanisevic's. These storylines are what I feel is missing nowadays, but I can't complain because they had their time and now there are other narratives developing. I like Nadal's fighting spirit for the same reason I liked the 90's comeback stories and Pete Sampras' clutch service holds.

 

[Mustard]

Who were Sampras' rivals?

There was Courier, Agassi, Martin, Chang, Becker and Rafter. The one that riled Sampras the most was Rafter in the summer of 1998.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Who were Sampras' rivals?

There was Courier, Agassi, Martin, Chang, Becker and Rafter. The one that riled Sampras the most was Rafter in the summer of 1998.

True. Rafter was playing some really good tennis then. Sampras was really up against it. He finally got his sweet revenge in 2000.

 

[Tenez101]

No, Becker couldn't win Wimbledon in the 90s because Sampras was clearly better than him, not because his level of play dropped. He was still going deep in the tournament, but lost to Sampras too many times.

Would love to see 80's Becker vs peak Sampras at Wimbledon. Sampras would still win, but it'd be a great match.

 

[BrooklynNY]

I agree commentators are ruining the game. Anyone catch Jmac's comment to Pmac this USO2013.

PMAC was saying how he's never seen 2handed players with the ability to hit a '1 handed slice' in the past and guys like Murray are unreal.

Jmac was quick to retort "As opposed to the 2 handed slice" very tongue in cheek.


It really is just a big push to promote tennis. It's hard to promote a current day event if people are 100% convinced the best thing they'll ever see in regards to this sport happened in 1969, or 1974...and here we are in 2013...

 

[90's Clay]

These sheep are paid to promote the current game. Take what clowns like JMAC say with a grain salt. Hes got a new GOAT every month. He can't even make his mind up

 

[Crose]

So what you mean is a player "posess" within himself a certain amount of talent that he can focus in different direction. Djokovic choose to focus his talent in one, but he could have focused it in another? Could he have become a great soccer player?

Everything I said pertains to tennis. Those players have a natural affinity for tennis. Sometimes players are also just natural athletes, in which they could've been successful in a variety of sports..but this is not the case for all the players we've been talking about. It may be the case for some of them, but I'm talking strictly tennis. All of them are tremendously talented at tennis. So yes, if they focused their attention elsewhere (in tennis) they could've still been great. Why else do you think Nadal is just as great or even better after he altered his game from using defensive heavy topspin, to aggressive, much flatter (but still heavy) shots this HC season? It's because great players can succeed at whatever they want to if they work hard enough at it. Had Djokovic wanted to become a S&V player from the start of his tennis career as a child, there's no doubt in my mind that he would've been a tremendous serve and volleyer. He may not have been as effective in this era, but the quality in his game would be there.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Another thing to note when saying this generation has too many double digit champions is that until the late 80's the AO wasn't played often by the top players. How many slams would Borg, Connors and Mac won if they played the AO every year? Connors also missed tons of FO's.

Great point.

These sheep are paid to promote the current game. Take what clowns like JMAC say with a grain salt. Hes got a new GOAT every month. He can't even make his mind up

Another great point. I agree.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Sampras had many worst number one players of all time - Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Moya. There was a poll came out and these players ranked at the top of the list.

No question Rios and Rafter were two of the biggest mugs to ever grace the number 1 podium, but to be fair to Sampras, these flukesters only managed to taint the crown at the tail end of Sampras' career, no way in hell would they have even got a sniff during Sampras' prime years.

 

[helloworld]

No question Rios and Rafter were two of the biggest mugs to ever grace the number 1 podium, but to be fair to Sampras, these flukesters only managed to taint the crown at the tail end of Sampras' career, no way in hell would they have even got a sniff during Sampras' prime years.

Rafter isn't exactly a mug. He won 2 slams beating Sampras on the way as well. I agree that Rios is quite a mug though.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Rafter isn't exactly a mug. He won 2 slams beating Sampras on the way as well. I agree that Rios is quite a mug though.

Rafter have always irked me, so i'm biased.

 

[helloworld]

Sampras didn't allow Agassi to become tier 1 great. Federer on the other hand, couldn't fend off Nadal and allow him to become another tier 1 great in his own era.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras didn't allow Agassi to become tier 1 great. Federer on the other hand, couldn't fend off Nadal and allow him to become another tier 1 great in his own era.

That is true. Sampras held Agassi to 8 slams. Agassi was good for the slam record if not for Sampras CRUSHING his spirit. Many cite Agassi's MIA sessions, but Sampras very could have had a hand in that. Sampras crushed Agassi's spirit at the USO in '95 after Agassi playing some of the best tennis of his career

Meanwhile, Federer is on the brink of losing that #1 spot to Nadal

 

[tennisaddict]

We have to go back to the early 80's to get the same top 4 quality that we are seeing for the last 5 years.

Surface polarization or otherwise, the top 4 were not consistent during the other years. Therefore the top player just had to fend off someone who had a good first week as opposed to now where even after being 2 sets up , you cannot be sure you are winning the semi against the consistent top 4.

 

[90's Clay]

We have to go back to the early 80's to get the same top 4 quality that we are seeing for the last 5 years.

Surface polarization or otherwise, the top 4 were not consistent during the other years. Therefore the top player just had to fend off someone who had a good first week as opposed to now where even after being 2 sets up , you cannot be sure you are winning the semi against the consistent top 4.

The top 4 weren't as consistent precisely because of surface polarization. Do you seriously think the top 4 today would be as consistent in the 90s year round as they are today? Hell Nole, Nadal, maybe even Murray wouldn't even be in the top 4 perhaps in the 90s. Maybe for a brief time.

 

[tennisaddict]

The top 4 weren't as consistent precisely because of surface polarization. Do you seriously think the top 4 today would be as consistent in the 90s year round as they are today? Hell Nole, Nadal, maybe even Murray wouldn't even be in the top 4 if that was the case

I agree, i dont see anyone except Fed being consistent on those surfaces and i am not demeaning the 90's players for that.

But, bottomline, whoever survived the first week had it easy, unlike now, where your first week is easy, but the last 2, sometimes 3 matches KILL you literally every major.

 

[marc45]

The equation "being a favourite at a Slam/being hopeless at another Slam" simply doesn't exist nowadays. If you're a favourite to win one Slam, you're automatically a favourite to win every Slam. This fundamental difference between eras changes everything. In matches where a top ranked player (let's say top 10) faced a lower ranked surface specialist on his favourite surface, I remember commentators (and myself) thinking that the lower ranked player was actually the favourite to win the match (eg. Sampras vs Kafelnikov on clay; Bruguera vs Siemerink on carpet). This doesn't happen nowadays, where the top ranked player is always the overwhelming favourite to win the match, independently of the surface.

I think you're on target mostly, except, and it's a big exception, Murray is not a favorite to win RG.....and by favorite, I mean he's not even a favorite to hold his seed...we don't need to get into the actual favorite

 

[90's Clay]

I agree, i dont see anyone except Fed being consistent on those surfaces and i am not demeaning the 90's players for that.

But, bottomline, whoever survived the first week had it easy, unlike now, where your first week is easy, but the last 2, sometimes 3 matches KILL you literally every major.

I think the seeding systems in the 90s were a bit different then though so you actually had to contend with some heavy hitting top players in the first week of slams.

I agree it gets more difficult now as the slam draw goes on in the 2nd week but we could also look at that as more of a benefit to the top players today.

Conditions are so slow it prevents a lot of upsets from happening.

I always said if they sped 2 of the 4 slams up you would get a few more slam winners today. Faster surfaces can promote upsets.

 

[TheTruth]

Fair observation. I could agree with that. It's true that the "epic" matches of this generation are more concentrated at the top of the men's game. Hence, you get more exciting matches between Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray than between the top players in the 90's, for instance. And people love watching epic matches between the best players: the stage is pretty much set for them to be epic without any additional elements. Epic matches in the 90's were more often matches between top 10 players and challengers, or between top 10 players and lesser ranked players. It happened quite a lot (you'll forgive me if I focus on Sampras, I followed his career more closely than other players'): I remember Sampras-Yzaga at the US Open, Sampras-Corretja at the US Open, Sampras-Chesnokov in Davis Cup, Ivanisevic-Rafter at Wimbledon (ok, it was 2001, I'm a bit off, but they could still be considered players of the 90's), Rafter-Arazi at the Us Open, and many others. The storyline of these epic matches was different from the "clash of the titans" storyline that we've been getting used to over the past decade. The theme of the 90's was the idea that at any time, any place, giants could fall - except for Sampras at Wimbledon, and even there he was easily dismissed by Krajicek - and they could fall at the peak of their strengths (not when they were tired or older). Epic matches such as these don't capture the public's imagination in the same way epic matches between the best players of a given generation do: Borg-McEnroe and Federer-Nadal are the proof of that. But every "era" has its own characteristics: I just happen to enjoy the 90's a lot.

OMG. You have got to stop. I cannot stop shaking my head vigorously. I feel like I have died and gone to heaven.

Back then, when two players walked on court, regardless of ranking, you had no idea who would win. You could guess on some matches, because there have always been, and always will be perennial chokers, but like you said, Rafter-Arazi (I loved watching him play) and any other matches had the potential to be epic.

As dominant as Pete was, there was still no absolute guarantee about the eventual outcome. Which is what made Pete so great. In this respect he reminds me of Nadal. No matter what the score was, I expected him to be able to adjust, and over 90% of the time, he did.

Still, it made for great tennis watching and suspense, because the lower ranked players, all of them played like they had the right to be there. Even if they thought they had little to no chance against Pete and Andre, they fought to the best of their ability and the higher ranked person still had to be on their toes. There were no on court walkovers.

This was the most difficult part of trying to hang in there and keep watching tennis in the early 2000's. In my opinion, the new breed of players seemed to be as affected by the top players as the fans were. They were listening to the drivel put forth by the commentators, and their own speech reflected that, and it showed up in their play, resulting in lopsided matches against the top players.

Even today, many people use the exact same words and reasonings that emanate from the commentators booth. I find this odd that so many people, spout the same vernacular that the commentators use. Of all the words in a culture, how people can be limited to the same trite adjectives to describe situations and players, blows my mind.

I was just about to give up on tennis at that time, until Nadal burst onto the scene. He brought that same intensity and competitiveness that I was accustomed to seeing. He didn't have to be the best, in his mind, but as he said, I can fight, no?

And it's funny, because so many people don't understand why many Sampras fans like Nadal. It's not about "styles" of play, it's about their mentality. I never felt like Pete was out of a match. I could hold until the last point, because there was always the chance that he would turn it around.

 

[TheTruth]

Yeah, it all comes to down to three factors, I believe: 1) how closely you follow tennis, 2) which generation you "grew up with" or admire the most, 3) what kind of storyline/context you like in your matches. I confess having a strong emotional link with 90's tennis (that's when I started watching tennis and you know how kids are when they discover something new: they memorize everything and want to watch everything obsessively) and I have a soft spot for a) underdogs and b) players who dig deep and are able to fight adversity. All of that combined made me love Sampras' career (because of the way he handled pressure while not being as dominant as Federer) and enjoy comeback stories such as Agassi's and Ivanisevic's. These storylines are what I feel is missing nowadays, but I can't complain because they had their time and now there are other narratives developing. I like Nadal's fighting spirit for the same reason I liked the 90's comeback stories and Pete Sampras' clutch service holds.

You are so right. Our enjoyment of the game is rooted in the way it was first introduced to us and there are certain contexts within that setting.

The pressure was what thrilled me. Even today, I don't watch matches where I don't think any tension will exist. I fast forward and if I see that the score is fluctuating like deuce, ad, deuce, ad, I'll stop and watch the "fight." Lopsided matches, 0,0, 3 don't interest me, even if Nadal is administering it. The whole point of competition to me, is to fight. Without that important element, it is a waste of my time.

 

[TheTruth]

Who were Sampras' rivals?

There was Courier, Agassi, Martin, Chang, Becker and Rafter. The one that riled Sampras the most was Rafter in the summer of 1998.

Yes he did. But I still liked Rafter, even if it meant that Pete might lose.

 

[TheTruth]

I agree commentators are ruining the game. Anyone catch Jmac's comment to Pmac this USO2013.

PMAC was saying how he's never seen 2handed players with the ability to hit a '1 handed slice' in the past and guys like Murray are unreal.

Jmac was quick to retort "As opposed to the 2 handed slice" very tongue in cheek.


It really is just a big push to promote tennis. It's hard to promote a current day event if people are 100% convinced the best thing they'll ever see in regards to this sport happened in 1969, or 1974...and here we are in 2013...

So true. Their comments are so ridiculous, and if their co-commentators disagree with them, you can tell that they're irritated.

 

[TheTruth]

Everything I said pertains to tennis. Those players have a natural affinity for tennis. Sometimes players are also just natural athletes, in which they could've been successful in a variety of sports..but this is not the case for all the players we've been talking about. It may be the case for some of them, but I'm talking strictly tennis. All of them are tremendously talented at tennis. So yes, if they focused their attention elsewhere (in tennis) they could've still been great. Why else do you think Nadal is just as great or even better after he altered his game from using defensive heavy topspin, to aggressive, much flatter (but still heavy) shots this HC season? It's because great players can succeed at whatever they want to if they work hard enough at it. Had Djokovic wanted to become a S&V player from the start of his tennis career as a child, there's no doubt in my mind that he would've been a tremendous serve and volleyer. He may not have been as effective in this era, but the quality in his game would be there.

So true. Greatness is innate along with the will to win.

 

[TheTruth]

Rafter have always irked me, so i'm biased.

I've never heard anyone say that. That's funny.

 

[TheTruth]

Sampras didn't allow Agassi to become tier 1 great. Federer on the other hand, couldn't fend off Nadal and allow him to become another tier 1 great in his own era.

I agree. Pete wasn't having it.

 

[TheTruth]

That is true. Sampras held Agassi to 8 slams. Agassi was good for the slam record if not for Sampras CRUSHING his spirit. Many cite Agassi's MIA sessions, but Sampras very could have had a hand in that. Sampras crushed Agassi's spirit at the USO in '95 after Agassi playing some of the best tennis of his career

Meanwhile, Federer is on the brink of losing that #1 spot to Nadal

I think this is obvious and is demonstrated by Agassi's constant digs, even after their careers are over. Pete took his heart, and Agassi, at one point said, that even if he was playing his best against Pete, he still knew he could lose. That was high praise coming from someone who enjoyed his stature in the game.

It is very telling that Agassi's wounds have not healed with time.

 

[helloworld]

I think this is obvious and is demonstrated by Agassi's constant digs, even after their careers are over. Pete took his heart, and Agassi, at one point said, that even if he was playing his best against Pete, he still knew he could lose. That was high praise coming from someone who enjoyed his stature in the game.

It is very telling that Agassi's wounds have not healed with time.

Agassi could easily have 14-16 slams if Pete failed to fend off Agassi like Federer did against Nadal. Saying that there is no other tier 1 great in Pete's era is not entirely wrong, but it is mainly because Pete didn't allow ANYONE to be his equal.

 

[90's Clay]

If not for Sampras chances are Agassi would not have had that 2 years MIA session and Fed/Nadal would have been chasing Agassi's records not Pete's.

So really Agassi WAS a tier 1 all time great. Just had to deal with a greater player than he that took a lot of those from him

 

[DragonBlaze]

Man do you guys even read some of the posts you read? :lol:

What's this ridiculous logic of Sampras not ALLOWING Agassi to become a tier one? If you don't have the mental strength to keep coming back even after tough losses to keep giving it another go (no matter if you lose YET again) YOU ARE NOT TIER ONE AND NEVER WOULD BE.

Especially so in the 90s where due to the conditions of the tour nobody was dominant to the point where they would be showing up to each and every final. Even if we are to take a scenario where Agassi was utterly demoralised by Pete, Agassi knew damn well at that time that Sampras wont be making every single final so if he was a "Tier One talent" he would have kept going regardless. But he didn't and instead went MIA because he didn't have the motivation/talent/mental strength to keep going. And that is never going to change no matter what era you put him in. IE NOT a tier one player.

After a demoralizing 2008, Federer came back in 2009. After a crappy 2010-11, he came back yet again in 2012. Those last few years have been absolutely necessary to firmly cement Federer's status as a Tier one (note I am NOT saying GOAT, but instead part of the absolute elites of the games. Without those years he is stuck at 13 slams with people doubting if he was ever Tier one to begin with. That can't be debated anymore. The GOAT stuff obviously can). He did that cause he had talent/motivation etc.

Nadal could very well have also slipped off the block after 2011. But now he is well on his/already up to Tier 1.

These two became such legends on their own accord regardless of the adversity they faced. They certainly didn't get demoralised to a point where they just disappeared (Nadal's injury obviously doesn't count as the same).

Sampras was ofcourse the same. But nobody else in his era was. Agassi most definitely wasn't. So no Sampras never did face any Tier 1 players in his era.

 

[lendledbergfan]

Sampras didn't allow Agassi to become tier 1 great. Federer on the other hand, couldn't fend off Nadal and allow him to become another tier 1 great in his own era.

Not true.

1) Agassi lost 2 clay court finals in the early 90s without giving any competition. He should have won at least one of those (especially against Gomez).

2) Agassi wasn't consistent enough. In his book, he said he purposely lost to Chang in '96 AO as he feared playing Becker. He should won against Chang and beaten Becker too (on his favorite surface).

3) He missed AO '02 due to injury. He was favorite to win that tournament (won Miami later the year).

4) Wasted three years '96-'98. Could have won at least a couple in that period.

5) Didn't play AO before '95. Dunno how many titles he could have managed during that period.

So, no. While Sampras did beat him in many major finals, but there were many other reasons due to which he couldn't enter the absolute elite.

 

[helloworld]

Not true.

1) Agassi lost 2 clay court finals in the early 90s without giving any competition. He should have won at least one of those (especially against Gomez).

2) Agassi wasn't consistent enough. In his book, he said he purposely lost to Chang in '96 AO as he feared playing Becker. He should won against Chang and beaten Becker too (on his favorite surface).

3) He missed AO '02 due to injury. He was favorite to win that tournament (won Miami later the year).

4) Wasted three years '96-'98. Could have won at least a couple in that period.

5) Didn't play AO before '95. Dunno how many titles he could have managed during that period.

So, no. While Sampras did beat him in many major finals, but there were many other reasons due to which he couldn't enter the absolute elite.

Pete beat Agassi 4 times at US Open alone! With Pete out of the picture, Agassi would have already racked up double digit slam count easily. Federer also had many many opportunities to limit Nadal to single digit slam, but he lost 8 freaking times to Nadal in slams! So, yes, Pete did fend off Agassi and limit him to single digit slams, while Fed failed to do so against Nadal!

 

[lendledbergfan]

That is true. Sampras held Agassi to 8 slams. Agassi was good for the slam record if not for Sampras CRUSHING his spirit. Many cite Agassi's MIA sessions, but Sampras very could have had a hand in that. Sampras crushed Agassi's spirit at the USO in '95 after Agassi playing some of the best tennis of his career

Meanwhile, Federer is on the brink of losing that #1 spot to Nadal

This. One reason why I think FeDal should REALLY be appreciated. The way Federer recovered at USO '08 after Wimby and at FO/W '09 after the AO loss. Sure, he didn't face Nadal in any of those Slam victories, but it was his perseverance (that he is not known for) that earned him those victories. He was down -- very down -- but not out (like Andre was after '95).

Similarly, none of the losses can be as CRUSHING as Nadal losing six straight times to Djokovic and then once more in a brutal six hour match where he was up a break in the fifth. That is the absolute pinnacle of the definition of CRUSHING but instead of being crushed, he only took positives out of it .... and how!

 

[lendledbergfan]

Pete beat Agassi 4 times at US Open alone! With Pete out of the picture, Agassi would have already racked up double digit slam count easily. Federer also had many many opportunities to limit Nadal to single digit slam, but he lost 8 freaking times to Nadal in slams! So, yes, Pete did fend off Agassi and limit him to single digit slams, while Fed failed to do so against Nadal!

Like I explained earlier, opportunities are PLENTY. There are FORTY slams in a decade and Pete stopped Andre in only four of them, leaving aside 36 more. Similarly, Federer has lost to Nadal EIGHT times in majors (three more than Andre lost to Pete) but did it hamper him in achieving double digit slams? Heck, he has more majors than anybody. Similarly, Djokovic beat Nadal three straight times... does it stop Nadal on his way to equal (or perhaps better) Sampras' record? No.

Sampras was definitely one of the reasons why Agassi didn't achieve double digit Slams. But only to site him as Agassi's failure to reach double digit record is not right.

 

[helloworld]

Like I explained earlier, opportunities are PLENTY. There are FORTY slams in a decade and Pete stopped Andre in only four of them, leaving aside 36 more. Similarly, Federer has lost to Nadal EIGHT times in majors (three more than Andre lost to Pete) but did it hamper him in achieving double digit slams? Heck, he has more majors than anybody. Similarly, Djokovic beat Nadal three straight times... does it stop Nadal on his way to equal (or perhaps better) Sampras' record? No.

Sampras was definitely one of the reasons why Agassi didn't achieve double digit Slams. But only to site him as Agassi's failure to reach double digit record is not right.

Agassi did have many more issues other than Pete. Heck, he could have won 20+ slam with his given talent, but we can't deny the fact that Pete was the main reason why he didn't win more slams in the 90s.

 

[DragonBlaze]

Pete beat Agassi 4 times at US Open alone! With Pete out of the picture, Agassi would have already racked up double digit slam count easily. Federer also had many many opportunities to limit Nadal to single digit slam, but he lost 8 freaking times to Nadal in slams! So, yes, Pete did fend off Agassi and limit him to single digit slams, while Fed failed to do so against Nadal!

Five out eight were at Roland Garros. Yea Fed had many opportunities to beat the clay GOAT/single surface GOAT at his own backyard. What a failure that he was unable to do so :lol:.

Nevermind the fact that Sampras conveniently met Agassi 6 times in HIS backyard, Wimbledon/US Open and only 3 times in Andre's favored places, all of which Sampras lost. Federer on the other hand faced Nadal 3 times in his backyard, 5 times in Nadal's and 2 were neutral (AO is NOT Federer's backyard, he has struggled there against many players in the past, especially more so with plexicushion).

But let's just say Federer should have beaten Nadal all the times not in RG. So take away 2 slams from Nadal. Guess what?!

Nadal STILL has 11 slams! Double digits anyway! Now you realise how much of a fail of an argument that is?

This. One reason why I think FeDal should REALLY be appreciated. The way Federer recovered at USO '08 after Wimby and at FO/W '09 after the AO loss. Sure, he didn't face Nadal in any of those Slam victories, but it was his perseverance (that he is not known for) that earned him those victories. He was down -- very down -- but not out (like Andre was after '95).

Similarly, none of the losses can be as CRUSHING as Nadal losing six straight times to Djokovic and then once more in a brutal six hour match where he was up a break in the fifth. That is the absolute pinnacle of the definition of CRUSHING but instead of being crushed, he only took positives out of it .... and how!

Absolutely spot on. Both of them were down, but they kept fighting. Something Agassi wasn't capable of for whatever reason or he would have done it anyway!

 

[TheTruth]

This. One reason why I think FeDal should REALLY be appreciated. The way Federer recovered at USO '08 after Wimby and at FO/W '09 after the AO loss. Sure, he didn't face Nadal in any of those Slam victories, but it was his perseverance (that he is not known for) that earned him those victories. He was down -- very down -- but not out (like Andre was after '95).

Similarly, none of the losses can be as CRUSHING as Nadal losing six straight times to Djokovic and then once more in a brutal six hour match where he was up a break in the fifth. That is the absolute pinnacle of the definition of CRUSHING but instead of being crushed, he only took positives out of it .... and how!

After Wimbledon 2008 I gained a greater appreciation for Federer. He and Nadal fought to the death for that match, and unfortunately one of them had to lose.

But, for Federer, who was already crowned as the tour Golden Boy to have to deal with such a ferocious foe and maintain his composure is quite spectacular.

You make some excellent points, and they are verifiable, because we all saw what he had to deal with mentally, emotionally, and physically, but he kept himself in a winning position at all times, ready for all of the opportunities available to him.

Thinking about it, how many times has this happened where an all-time great had to deal with an emerging all time great while still adding to his numbers? Not to mention another possible all time great Nole has also entered the mix. (Hopefully Murray can also be added).

And one or the other didn't buckle.

Fascinating. There will be lots to write about this particular era.

 

[RoddickAce]

Man do you guys even read some of the posts you read? :lol:

What's this ridiculous logic of Sampras not ALLOWING Agassi to become a tier one? If you don't have the mental strength to keep coming back even after tough losses to keep giving it another go (no matter if you lose YET again) YOU ARE NOT TIER ONE AND NEVER WOULD BE.

Especially so in the 90s where due to the conditions of the tour nobody was dominant to the point where they would be showing up to each and every final. Even if we are to take a scenario where Agassi was utterly demoralised by Pete, Agassi knew damn well at that time that Sampras wont be making every single final so if he was a "Tier One talent" he would have kept going regardless. But he didn't and instead went MIA because he didn't have the motivation/talent/mental strength to keep going. And that is never going to change no matter what era you put him in. IE NOT a tier one player.

After a demoralizing 2008, Federer came back in 2009. After a crappy 2010-11, he came back yet again in 2012. Those last few years have been absolutely necessary to firmly cement Federer's status as a Tier one (note I am NOT saying GOAT, but instead part of the absolute elites of the games. Without those years he is stuck at 13 slams with people doubting if he was ever Tier one to begin with. That can't be debated anymore. The GOAT stuff obviously can). He did that cause he had talent/motivation etc.

Nadal could very well have also slipped off the block after 2011. But now he is well on his/already up to Tier 1.

These two became such legends on their own accord regardless of the adversity they faced. They certainly didn't get demoralised to a point where they just disappeared (Nadal's injury obviously doesn't count as the same).

Sampras was ofcourse the same. But nobody else in his era was. Agassi most definitely wasn't. So no Sampras never did face any Tier 1 players in his era.

Funny thing is, when it comes to Sampras's era, it is okay to use that logic and say oh, Andre didn't win as much because Pete didn't allow him to.

But somehow this logic can't be applied when we talk about how players like Safin, Roddick and Hewitt could have been considered greater players as they could have won a lot more slams without Federer lol....

 

[TMF]

Funny thing is, when it comes to Sampras's era, it is okay to use that logic and say oh, Andre didn't win as much because Pete didn't allow him to.

But somehow this logic can't be applied when we talk about how players like Safin, Roddick and Hewitt could have been considered greater players as they could have won a lot more slams without Federer lol....

If Agassi and Roddick's position were reverse, I believe Roddick could have a better career than Agassi. Consider Agassi had so many chances to achieved in the 90s but came up little, he would have a real tough time in this generation dealing with Roger and Nadal. OTOH, Roddick could sneak in a few slams in the 90s because there's opportunities.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Five out eight were at Roland Garros. Yea Fed had many opportunities to beat the clay GOAT/single surface GOAT at his own backyard. What a failure that he was unable to do so :lol:.

Nevermind the fact that Sampras conveniently met Agassi 6 times in HIS backyard, Wimbledon/US Open and only 3 times in Andre's favored places, all of which Sampras lost. Federer on the other hand faced Nadal 3 times in his backyard, 5 times in Nadal's and 2 were neutral (AO is NOT Federer's backyard, he has struggled there against many players in the past, especially more so with plexicushion).

But let's just say Federer should have beaten Nadal all the times not in RG. So take away 2 slams from Nadal. Guess what?!

Nadal STILL has 11 slams! Double digits anyway! Now you realise how much of a fail of an argument that is?



Absolutely spot on. Both of them were down, but they kept fighting. Something Agassi wasn't capable of for whatever reason or he would have done it anyway!

I was waiting for someone to bring this little thing up.

 

[The_Order]

I was waiting for someone to bring this little thing up.

Welcome back from your absence.

Speaking of bringing things up, where was that post from that woman friend of yours that predicted Nadal would follow some sort of pattern with the way he wins/loses his slams?

I would like to see that to reflect on that prediction of hers...

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Welcome back from your absence.

Speaking of bringing things up, where was that post from that woman friend of yours that predicted Nadal would follow some sort of pattern with the way he wins/loses his slams?

I would like to see that to reflect on that prediction of hers...

Thanks. Just finished my doing my last body building and physique show for 2013, entering my off season now. Five months of brutal prep, intense dieting and training that would make normal people throw up.

You remember that post? haha! She's in the UK, and I've been in the US for the past few weeks, with my focus solely on the Mr Olympia in Las Vegas, and Muscle and Fitness competitions in California. This is my first day to catch up on tennis...I am sure I will see my friend when I get back to London. I will ask her what she thinks now.

By the way, how did Nadal play this summer? I heard he won a bit. I haven't seen anything with the exception of Serena V Sloane, Djokovic V Wawrinka and highlights of a Gasquet match.

 

[The_Order]

Thanks. Just finished my doing my last body building and physique show for 2013, entering my off season now. Five months of brutal prep, intense dieting and training that would make normal people throw up.

You remember that post? haha! She's in the UK, and I've been in the US for the past few weeks, with my focus solely on the Mr Olympia in Las Vegas, and Muscle and Fitness competitions in California. This is my first day to catch up on tennis...I am sure I will see my friend when I get back to London. I will ask her what she thinks now.

By the way, how did Nadal play this summer? I heard he won a bit. I haven't seen anything with the exception of Serena V Sloane, Djokovic V Wawrinka and highlights of a Gasquet match.

LOL that's crazy stuff good luck with it!

I've answered your question about Nadal in another thread (post#149):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7794662#post7794662

And yeah, I remember that thread but I can't quite remember what her prediction was.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

LOL that's crazy stuff good luck with it!

I've answered your question about Nadal in another thread (post#149):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7794662#post7794662

And yeah, I remember that thread but I can't quite remember what her prediction was.

I've been doing competitive bodybuilding and male physique shows for five years now. I love doing them, getting on stage with some of the best in the world, and being back stage with legends of bodybuilding and fitness modeling. Don't know what you know about the bodybuilding and fitness world, but I've been fortunate enough to pump iron side by side with guys like Flex Lewis and Troy Alves at this years Las Vegas Olympia Expo. Meet Phil Heath at the Olympia press conference, and talk to some of best sport nutrition experts out there. Honored and blessed to be hanging out with the best in the world.

Thanks for the answer, I will take a look.

Her prediction was that he was done winning slams, which I stated I did not agree with. She also said Federer was done too, again I did not agree with it.

Do you want me to get the pattern and post it here?

 

[helloworld]

If Agassi and Roddick's position were reverse, I believe Roddick could have a better career than Agassi. Consider Agassi had so many chances to achieved in the 90s but came up little, he would have a real tough time in this generation dealing with Roger and Nadal. OTOH, Roddick could sneak in a few slams in the 90s because there's opportunities.

Roddick was 1-5 against old man Agassi and you think he could do better than Andre? :lol:

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Roddick was 1-5 against old man Agassi and you think he could do better than Andre? :lol:

What was Roddick's H2H with Sampras? I don't remember.