Weak era: A look at the same differently

[chandu612]

2003 Australian Open United States Andre Agassi (2) Germany Rainer Schüttler (31) 6–2 6–2 6–1
French Open Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero (3) Netherlands Martin Verkerk 6–1 6–3 6–2
Wimbledon Switzerland Roger Federer (4) Australia Mark Philippoussis 7–67–5 6–2 7–67–3
US Open United States Andy Roddick (4) Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero (3) 6–3 7–67–2 6–3
2004 Australian Open Switzerland Roger Federer (2) Russia Marat Safin 7–67–3 6–4 6–2
French Open Argentina Gastón Gaudio Argentina Guillermo Coria (3) 0–6 3–6 6–4 6–1 8–6
Wimbledon Switzerland Roger Federer (1) United States Andy Roddick (2) 4–6 7–5 7–67–3 6–3
US Open Switzerland Roger Federer (1) Australia Lleyton Hewitt (4) 6–0 7–67–3 6–0
2005 Australian Open Russia Marat Safin (4) Australia Lleyton Hewitt (3) 1–6 6–3 6–4 6–4
French Open Spain Rafael Nadal (4) Argentina Mariano Puerta 6–76–8 6–3 6–1 7–5
Wimbledon Switzerland Roger Federer (1) United States Andy Roddick (2) 6–2 7–67–2 6–4
US Open Switzerland Roger Federer (1) United States Andre Agassi (7) 6–3 2–6 7–67–1 6–1
2006 Australian Open Switzerland Roger Federer (1) Cyprus Marcos Baghdatis 5–7 7–5 6–0 6–2
French Open Spain Rafael Nadal (2) Switzerland Roger Federer (1) 1–6 6–1 6–4 7–67–4
Wimbledon Switzerland Roger Federer (1) Spain Rafael Nadal (2) 6–0 7–67–5 6–77–9 6–3
US Open Switzerland Roger Federer (1) United States Andy Roddick (9) 6–2 4–6 7–5 6–1
2007 Australian Open Switzerland Roger Federer (1) Chile Fernando González (10) 7–67–2 6–4 6–4
French Open Spain Rafael Nadal (2) Switzerland Roger Federer (1) 6–3 4–6 6–3 6–4
Wimbledon Switzerland Roger Federer (1) Spain Rafael Nadal (2) 7–69–7 4–6 7–67–3 2–6 6–2
US Open Switzerland Roger Federer (1) Serbia Novak Djokovic (3) 7–67–4 7–67–2 6–4

 

[chandu612]

Look at the consistency of the finalists except Nadal in FO.
Also where do all the finalists rank in the all time top 100 list? if they figure in it.

Yes Yes..Federer didnt let them win any slams...by not letting them win in finals and also not letting them reaching SF's and QF's consistently?

 

[doobiedoodoo]

Nadal has won 8 of the last 9 FO. Must be a weak era on clay, right?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Extend this 'logic' to the whole of the '90's, and see how 'strong' the Sampras era was...

 

[fastgrass]

if anyone wins 8/9 majors it is weak era obviously!"!

 

[chandu612]

Above guys...did you guys read the post?
Where do Nadal's and Sampras's opponents rank in all time top 100?

Thats the difference.

I agree a title is a title. But there is all sorts of talks about cake draws here in TW...Then why cant a cake era exist?
Fed's achievements make him one of the greatest. But not the GOAT.

 

[Sky Fire]

Above guys...did you guys read the post?
Where do Nadal's and Sampras's opponents rank in all time top 100?

Thats the difference.

I agree a title is a title. But there is all sorts of talks about cake draws here in TW...Then why cant a cake era exist?
Fed's achievements make him one of the greatest. But not the GOAT.

What a bunch of bs.

Nadal beats Djokovic in semis but hey he beat a slam virgin Ferrer in final, what a clownish era since we are only considering finalists.

Now consider this:

Nadal beats Ferrer in semis but beats Djokovic in 5 sets in finals, some spartan clay era that is right?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds :lol:

 

[chandu612]

What a bunch of bs.

Nadal beats Djokovic in semis but hey he beat a slam virgin Ferrer in final, what a clownish era since we are only considering finalists.

Now consider this:

Nadal beats Ferrer in semis but beats Djokovic in 5 sets in finals, some spartan clay era that is right?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds :lol:

Thanks for agreeing beating Ferrer is less of an achievemnt than beating Djokovic. So if Nadal has to beat players of Ferre's calibre in both semis and finals and rakes up 20 slams...do you call him goat?

 

[NatF]

Thanks for agreeing beating Ferrer is less of an achievemnt than beating Djokovic. So if Nadal has to beat players of Ferre's calibre in both semis and finals and rakes up 20 slams...do you call him goat?

Difference being Federer beat much better players than Ferrer in his slam runs. Guys like Hewitt and Roddick were going deep in 04/05 in the grass/hardcourt slams. Same with Agassi on the hardcourts. It's not just about who you face in the final.

You argument is shallow.

 

[-RF-]

I'm a Federer fan and it is hard to say the 3-7 era was as strong as 8-13. But what has to be said is that since Nadal won his first slam (2005), Federer has won 12 Grand Slams!

 

[merlinpinpin]

Above guys...did you guys read the post?
Where do Nadal's and Sampras's opponents rank in all time top 100?

Thats the difference.

This is a joke, right? Here are the opponents Sampras beat in a GS final (ranked according to the 100 greatest of all time series, which everyone is free to dispute--I'm not a big fan of some of their rankings either):

Agassi (12)
Becker (21)
Courier (42)
Rafter (70)
Chang (100)
Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Moya -- not ranked

Here are the opponents Federer beat in GS finals (again according to this series, which was in March 2012, ie do the same today and not only do Nadal and Djokovic have a better ranking, but Murray is clearly ranked as well--he was still slamless at the time):

Nadal (6)
Agassi (12)
Djokovic (40)
Hewitt (63)
Safin (80)
Roddick (94)
Philippousis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Sôderling, Murray -- not ranked

Now tell us again how Sampras' opponents were 'stronger'?

 

[Russeljones]

Look at the consistency of the finalists except Nadal in FO.
Also where do all the finalists rank in the all time top 100 list? if they figure in it.

Yes Yes..Federer didnt let them win any slams...by not letting them win in finals and also not letting them reaching SF's and QF's consistently?

Lol I love this line of thought. As if your pick of hypothetical time travelling pusher saviours could stop him from winning 17 Slams?

 

[KillerServe]

Nadal would probably win 1 or 2 FO's in Borg's era. Nadal is probably really a Courier level on clay, with inflated stats because of an extremely weak clay era.

 

[chandu612]

This is a joke, right? Here are the opponents Sampras beat in a GS final (ranked according to the 100 greatest of all time series, which everyone is free to dispute--I'm not a big fan of some of their rankings either):

Agassi (12)
Becker (21)
Courier (42)
Rafter (70)
Chang (100)
Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Moya -- not ranked

Here are the opponents Federer beat in GS finals (again according to this series, which was in March 2012, ie do the same today and not only do Nadal and Djokovic have a better ranking, but Murray is clearly ranked as well--he was still slamless at the time):

Nadal (6)
Agassi (12)
Djokovic (40)
Hewitt (63)
Safin (80)
Roddick (94)
Philippousis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Sôderling, Murray -- not ranked

Now tell us again how Sampras' opponents were 'stronger'?

There... we are almost there...Only difference is Sampras beat them in their primes..All of Federer's wins against Nadal, Djoker and Agassi are when they were yet to peak or twilight of their career (except one win against djoker)..
Thats the difference..Looks like we are talking about the same thing and agreeing for the most part. Just that you happen to be a fan of Federer, is stopping you from admitting to it.

 

[Indio]

Nadal would probably win 1 or 2 FO's in Borg's era. Nadal is probably really a Courier level on clay, with inflated stats because of an extremely weak clay era.

This is complete bull@#$%. I don't have the time to attack it right now, but I'll do so later today (probably) unless someone else does it first.

 

[underground]

Ok then let's look at Nadal's wins against the GS Finalist:

Puerta
Federer x6
Djokovic x2
Soderling
Berdych
Ferrer

Nadal won against:

- a doper
- the guy who wins slams in the weak era, so he's not great at all no? Then surely beating this weak era guy is not worthy at all no?
- Berdych who chokes and surely can't be ranked higher than the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Roddick.
- his spanish army leader who is his pigeon

We're only looking at finalists, no?

According to Nadfan logic, Nadal only has 3 legit slam wins, no?

 

[mike danny]

There... we are almost there...Only difference is Sampras beat them in their primes..All of Federer's wins against Nadal, Djoker and Agassi are when they were yet to peak or twilight of their career (except one win against djoker)..
Thats the difference..Looks like we are talking about the same thing and agreeing for the most part. Just that you happen to be a fan of Federer, is stopping you from admitting to it.

when federer beat djokovic in 2007 he was playing much better than in 2009-2010. age does not matter. level of play does. when the level of play drops then you can bring up age.(if the player is old). for ex federer beat agassi at the USO in 2004. he was having an excellent day. he was playing almost like his prime self. but obviously despite his level of play people are discounting this b/c agassi was old. but his level of play was above his old age.

look boris becker won wimbledon at 18. so age does not matter level of play does

 

[chandu612]

Ok then let's look at Nadal's wins against the GS Finalist:

Puerta
Federer x6
Djokovic x2
Soderling
Berdych
Ferrer

Nadal won against:

- a doper
- the guy who wins slams in the weak era, so he's not great at all no? Then surely beating this weak era guy is not worthy at all no?
- Berdych who chokes and surely can't be ranked higher than the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Roddick.
- his spanish army leader who is his pigeon

We're only looking at finalists, no?

According to Nadfan logic, Nadal only has 3 legit slam wins, no?

FAIL..on multiple levels..First I never made a case of Nadal being a GOAT.
Second: Regd Federer and bringing up that famous "Circular Logic"...I said in my orginal post too..Fed is a great coz it takes some greatness to rake up slams even in a weak era. So Nadal is even greater because he beat a great player..
Also I didnt say look only at the finals...didnt I mention Fed's win against Djok in semis? Fail.

 

[underground]

FAIL..on multiple levels..First I never made a case of Nadal being a GOAT.
Second: Regd Federer and bringing up that famous "Circular Logic"...I said in my orginal post too..Fed is a great coz it takes some greatness to rake up slams even in a weak era. So Nadal is even greater because he beat a great player..
Also I didnt say look only at the finals...didnt I mention Fed's win against Djok in semis? Fail.

I never said that you claimed Nadal being a GOAT.

Yes Nadal is great because of his achievement on clay, no one is arguing about that on clay. He's seen as one of the best players primarily because that his career was first built on his impressive record on clay. But off clay slam count is only 3-2.

It's not like Fed play nobodies for all 7 matches to win the slams. And the level of play displayed by the finalists makes it legit enough. They may not be even close to anywhere in the all time top 100, but how many slam finalists are in history? They aren't consistent enough but they managed to produce a high level of play to reach a slam final and Fed managed to overcome that level of play, simple as that. I mean if anyone beat Rosol with his 5th set Wimbly level in the final of a slam I'm sure everybody will see it a legit win regardless of his ranking of 100.

And Federer's first name is Roger.

 

[mcenroefan]

I think you can apply whatever analysis to the eras that you wish but the bottom line is that there are many folks, including me, who believe that this era (the past 10 or so years) is not the strongest in history. I can certainly say that I have never seen such a dearth in emerging talent. It’s the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez era in tennis….a lot of youth who the authorities tell us will be supremely talented but ultimately go right down the crapper. Outside of the top three guys from this era, there isn’t one guy who has shown even a hint of consistent backbone in the big time matches. Add in the fact that the surfaces are almost all the same at this point, the complete absence of emerging talent and, voila, you have just a handful of guys who have won everything.

 

[mcenroefan]

I think you can apply whatever analysis to the eras that you wish but the bottom line is that there are many folks, including me, who believe that this era (the past 10 or so years) is not the strongest in history. I can certainly say that I have never seen such a dearth in emerging talent. It’s the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez era in tennis….a lot of youth who the authorities tell us will be supremely talented but ultimately go right down the crapper. Outside of the top three guys from this era, there isn’t one guy who has shown even a hint of consistent backbone in the big time matches. Add in the fact that the surfaces are almost all the same at this point, the complete absence of emerging talent and, voila, you have just a handful of guys who have won everything.

I mean...just look at a few of the names from this era.....those who would purport to be the strength and depth of the tour....Ferrer, Berdych, Soderling, Verdasco....these guys are largely pigeon fodder. I like them but, seriously, this is depth!

Several eras ago, the surfaces actually were significantly different in speed and clay court and grass court specialists were legitimate dangers to the top guys. Does anyone seriously think Nadal would sweep Borg and Vilas at the FO? Does anyone seriously think Federer would mow down Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, etc. on fast grass? This isn't even accounting for all of the specialists of those eras.

Yes, it's been a fun era and I personally still watch Federer for the same reason that I first watched him.....I love watching his style of tennis, his movement and his strokes. Nevertheless, I don't think Fed, Nadal, and Nole have greater championship hearts than some of the older legends.

Finally, to those who say that Fed, Nadal and Nole are more athletic on court than the previous generations, I would say that, of course, in some ways they are athletically superior but that is simply a sport in evolution. I'm sure than in ten years, another player will appear who will do things with the racket and with his movement that will make Fed, etc. shudder as well. Will we then crown that player as the GOAT?

 

[90's Clay]

Fed more athletic than Borg, Sampras and others? Thats a new one to me. I have yet to see ANYONE with even close to someone with the speed of Borg or Chang as well and neither or these guys had access to all the dietary, training regimes that the guys today do.


This whole "physical" evolution is a crock IMO. The only thing that has "evolved" the most since back in the day is PED's

 

[mcenroefan]

Fed more athletic than Borg, Sampras and others? Thats a new one to me. I have yet to see ANYONE with even close to someone with the speed or Borg or Chang as well and neither or these guys had to access to all the dietary, training regimes that the guys today do.


This whole "physical" evolution is a crock IMO. The only thing that has "evolved" the most since back in the day is PED's

Well, I agree but I think we are in the minority on this board.

Borg's stamina was natural.....take a bunch of the modern players off their endurance building PEDs and put them in a 4-5 hour match against Borg on clay in 80-90 degree heat and I think most of us know what would happen.

 

[chandu612]

I think you can apply whatever analysis to the eras that you wish but the bottom line is that there are many folks, including me, who believe that this era (the past 10 or so years) is not the strongest in history. I can certainly say that I have never seen such a dearth in emerging talent. It’s the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez era in tennis….a lot of youth who the authorities tell us will be supremely talented but ultimately go right down the crapper. Outside of the top three guys from this era, there isn’t one guy who has shown even a hint of consistent backbone in the big time matches. Add in the fact that the surfaces are almost all the same at this point, the complete absence of emerging talent and, voila, you have just a handful of guys who have won everything.

I mean...just look at a few of the names from this era.....those who would purport to be the strength and depth of the tour....Ferrer, Berdych, Soderling, Verdasco....these guys are largely pigeon fodder. I like them but, seriously, this is depth!

Several eras ago, the surfaces actually were significantly different in speed and clay court and grass court specialists were legitimate dangers to the top guys. Does anyone seriously think Nadal would sweep Borg and Vilas at the FO? Does anyone seriously think Federer would mow down Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, etc. on fast grass? This isn't even accounting for all of the specialists of those eras.

Yes, it's been a fun era and I personally still watch Federer for the same reason that I first watched him.....I love watching his style of tennis, his movement and his strokes. Nevertheless, I don't think Fed, Nadal, and Nole have greater championship hearts than some of the older legends.

Finally, to those who say that Fed, Nadal and Nole are more athletic on court than the previous generations, I would say that, of course, in some ways they are athletically superior but that is simply a sport in evolution. I'm sure than in ten years, another player will appear who will do things with the racket and with his movement that will make Fed, etc. shudder as well. Will we then crown that player as the GOAT?

Good points...I agree to most of the points but not all.
First of all the current era might not be the strongest but definitely one of the strongest and way lot better than 02-07.
You were right earlier the surfaces are so different the specialists have a great chance of winning a slam. Reason why Sampras never won a FO. And ivanisevic(on grass) is a greater threat than todays DelPo's and Berdychs. But you also answered why. The sport is evolving. All the surfaces play about the same compared to past eras. How many times did a player play 4 consecutive finals in the history before, and in the last 5 years Federer,Nadal and Djoker did it. You can add Murray shortly. Yes you will see the top guys deeper in the tournis more often. I wont be surprised if a future great comes along and wins 12 slams in 3 years. But the point about the current era is you have 3 top guys who would rank in the all time top-20. May be Murray might join the list. But there is none in 02-07 barring Nadal on clay.
Current era's 2nd rung guys are not really fodder. They can beat any player on a given day.Just not good enough to beat 2-3 players at a time to win a title.
But we have seen how this will turn out. They get beaten consistently and out of nowhere they will spring out to be champions. Like Djokovic ,Murray and some extent Nadal. They are also figuring out like Nadal showed the way, having a beast of a fitness is a requirement to be a top guy.
I like watching Federer play too. He has the most fluid footwork and shotmaking ever. I just feel he was never better than Sampras, Nadal or Djokovic. More or less he would rank among them but marginally lesser but was extremely lucky in a weak era.

 

[merlinpinpin]

There... we are almost there...Only difference is Sampras beat them in their primes..All of Federer's wins against Nadal, Djoker and Agassi are when they were yet to peak or twilight of their career (except one win against djoker)..
Thats the difference..Looks like we are talking about the same thing and agreeing for the most part. Just that you happen to be a fan of Federer, is stopping you from admitting to it.

This is getting funnier and funnier, so thanks for starting this thread. Okay, let's do a quick review of Sampras' opponents:
- Agassi: his 'prime' is a bit difficult to determine as he basically had two careers (and was away for three of Sampras' best years, which left Pete without a single rival in '96-'98, but that's beside the point), but I'm okay with him being 'prime' when Sampras beat him.
- Becker: prime when Sampras beat him in the Wimbledon final of '95? Like, really? Four years after his US Open title and *six* years after his last Wimbledon title? So I guess according to your definition of 'prime', Agassi was peaky-prime in the 2005 USO final.
- Courier: prime when Sampras beat him in the '93 Wimbledon final? I will agree to that, although Courier had a very short stint at the top and totally unraveled after this final. He became a non-factor in tennis (at the top of the game, I mean) straight after that, and fast grass definitely wasn't a good surface for his game. This Wimbledon was basically his 'last hurrah' (like USO 2005 was for Agassi and USO-WTF '04 were for Hewitt, before his many injuries), so should we count this as the twilight of his career?
- Rafter: was actually #21 when Sampras beat him in Wimbledon 2000, so way past his (very short) prime.
- Chang: won't even discuss him, as Murray entering the rankings automatically ejects Chang, but he was never really a contender anyway.

So you're left with Agassi (who many here consider Sampras' pigeon) and a possible Courier (on his worst surface) as players that Sampras beat in their 'prime' in GS finals. Impressive much?

 

[furryballs]

the op obviously still has the cradle marks in his bum

 

[Anti-Fedal]

I think you can apply whatever analysis to the eras that you wish but the bottom line is that there are many folks, including me, who believe that this era (the past 10 or so years) is not the strongest in history. I can certainly say that I have never seen such a dearth in emerging talent. It’s the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez era in tennis….a lot of youth who the authorities tell us will be supremely talented but ultimately go right down the crapper. Outside of the top three guys from this era, there isn’t one guy who has shown even a hint of consistent backbone in the big time matches. Add in the fact that the surfaces are almost all the same at this point, the complete absence of emerging talent and, voila, you have just a handful of guys who have won everything.

I mean...just look at a few of the names from this era.....those who would purport to be the strength and depth of the tour....Ferrer, Berdych, Soderling, Verdasco....these guys are largely pigeon fodder. I like them but, seriously, this is depth!

Several eras ago, the surfaces actually were significantly different in speed and clay court and grass court specialists were legitimate dangers to the top guys. Does anyone seriously think Nadal would sweep Borg and Vilas at the FO? Does anyone seriously think Federer would mow down Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, etc. on fast grass? This isn't even accounting for all of the specialists of those eras.

Yes, it's been a fun era and I personally still watch Federer for the same reason that I first watched him.....I love watching his style of tennis, his movement and his strokes. Nevertheless, I don't think Fed, Nadal, and Nole have greater championship hearts than some of the older legends.

Finally, to those who say that Fed, Nadal and Nole are more athletic on court than the previous generations, I would say that, of course, in some ways they are athletically superior but that is simply a sport in evolution. I'm sure than in ten years, another player will appear who will do things with the racket and with his movement that will make Fed, etc. shudder as well. Will we then crown that player as the GOAT?

Perfect post

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I think you can apply whatever analysis to the eras that you wish but the bottom line is that there are many folks, including me, who believe that this era (the past 10 or so years) is not the strongest in history. I can certainly say that I have never seen such a dearth in emerging talent. It’s the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez era in tennis….a lot of youth who the authorities tell us will be supremely talented but ultimately go right down the crapper. Outside of the top three guys from this era, there isn’t one guy who has shown even a hint of consistent backbone in the big time matches. Add in the fact that the surfaces are almost all the same at this point, the complete absence of emerging talent and, voila, you have just a handful of guys who have won everything.

I mean...just look at a few of the names from this era.....those who would purport to be the strength and depth of the tour....Ferrer, Berdych, Soderling, Verdasco....these guys are largely pigeon fodder. I like them but, seriously, this is depth!

Several eras ago, the surfaces actually were significantly different in speed and clay court and grass court specialists were legitimate dangers to the top guys. Does anyone seriously think Nadal would sweep Borg and Vilas at the FO? Does anyone seriously think Federer would mow down Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, etc. on fast grass? This isn't even accounting for all of the specialists of those eras.

Yes, it's been a fun era and I personally still watch Federer for the same reason that I first watched him.....I love watching his style of tennis, his movement and his strokes. Nevertheless, I don't think Fed, Nadal, and Nole have greater championship hearts than some of the older legends.

Finally, to those who say that Fed, Nadal and Nole are more athletic on court than the previous generations, I would say that, of course, in some ways they are athletically superior but that is simply a sport in evolution. I'm sure than in ten years, another player will appear who will do things with the racket and with his movement that will make Fed, etc. shudder as well. Will we then crown that player as the GOAT?

It will depend on whether he rakes up winning %'es in the 90's, GS's, WTF's and so on.

 

[merlinpinpin]

I think you can apply whatever analysis to the eras that you wish but the bottom line is that there are many folks, including me, who believe that this era (the past 10 or so years) is not the strongest in history. I can certainly say that I have never seen such a dearth in emerging talent. It’s the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez era in tennis….a lot of youth who the authorities tell us will be supremely talented but ultimately go right down the crapper. Outside of the top three guys from this era, there isn’t one guy who has shown even a hint of consistent backbone in the big time matches. Add in the fact that the surfaces are almost all the same at this point, the complete absence of emerging talent and, voila, you have just a handful of guys who have won everything.

I mean...just look at a few of the names from this era.....those who would purport to be the strength and depth of the tour....Ferrer, Berdych, Soderling, Verdasco....these guys are largely pigeon fodder. I like them but, seriously, this is depth!

Several eras ago, the surfaces actually were significantly different in speed and clay court and grass court specialists were legitimate dangers to the top guys. Does anyone seriously think Nadal would sweep Borg and Vilas at the FO? Does anyone seriously think Federer would mow down Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, etc. on fast grass? This isn't even accounting for all of the specialists of those eras.

Yes, it's been a fun era and I personally still watch Federer for the same reason that I first watched him.....I love watching his style of tennis, his movement and his strokes. Nevertheless, I don't think Fed, Nadal, and Nole have greater championship hearts than some of the older legends.

Finally, to those who say that Fed, Nadal and Nole are more athletic on court than the previous generations, I would say that, of course, in some ways they are athletically superior but that is simply a sport in evolution. I'm sure than in ten years, another player will appear who will do things with the racket and with his movement that will make Fed, etc. shudder as well. Will we then crown that player as the GOAT?

Basically agree with you, except on the "10 years or so" comment. It's more "5 years or so", I guess. The mid-2000's (what clueless peope here like to call 'weak era') were actually pretty good, with a decent generation in place (Fed, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc.) and another one coming up next (Nadal (although he was already there), Djokovic, Murray). Now it's true that we are left wondering "what next?", as the derth of emerging talent is quite worrisome... :-?

 

[mptennis]

Fed more athletic than Borg, Sampras and others? Thats a new one to me. I have yet to see ANYONE with even close to someone with the speed of Borg or Chang as well and neither or these guys had access to all the dietary, training regimes that the guys today do.


This whole "physical" evolution is a crock IMO. The only thing that has "evolved" the most since back in the day is PED's

You don't believe the average athlete has evolved since "back in the day?" Or just the tennis athlete hasn't evolved?

 

[mike danny]

This is getting funnier and funnier, so thanks for starting this thread. Okay, let's do a quick review of Sampras' opponents:
- Agassi: his 'prime' is a bit difficult to determine as he basically had two careers (and was away for three of Sampras' best years, which left Pete without a single rival in '96-'98, but that's beside the point), but I'm okay with him being 'prime' when Sampras beat him.
- Becker: prime when Sampras beat him in the Wimbledon final of '95? Like, really? Four years after his US Open title and *six* years after his last Wimbledon title? So I guess according to your definition of 'prime', Agassi was peaky-prime in the 2005 USO final.
- Courier: prime when Sampras beat him in the '93 Wimbledon final? I will agree to that, although Courier had a very short stint at the top and totally unraveled after this final. He became a non-factor in tennis (at the top of the game, I mean) straight after that, and fast grass definitely wasn't a good surface for his game. This Wimbledon was basically his 'last hurrah' (like USO 2005 was for Agassi and USO-WTF '04 were for Hewitt, before his many injuries), so should we count this as the twilight of his career?
- Rafter: was actually #21 when Sampras beat him in Wimbledon 2000, so way past his (very short) prime.
- Chang: won't even discuss him, as Murray entering the rankings automatically ejects Chang, but he was never really a contender anyway.

So you're left with Agassi (who many here consider Sampras' pigeon) and a possible Courier (on his worst surface) as players that Sampras beat in their 'prime' in GS finals. Impressive much?

actually hewitts last great tournament was USO 2005 when he gave federer a pretty tough match. after that it went downhill for him