WEAK ERA Conundrum SOLVED and explained

[Crazy Finn]

When a poster is so ignorant of even the basic facts you know you can safely ignore their opinion.

It really is a shame the forum is constantly polluted with this kind ignorance posing as knowledge.

Maybe there should be a kids level test of people's basic knowledge of the game (such as who was in the Wimbledon final three years ago) before they can post?

Well, the point is valid, even if the details of the example aren't correct. Sigh.

The thing with ATGs in your generation is you can beat them if you are better than them, Sampras was more talented than Agassi (at least as far those conditions were concerned) so he used to beat him anyway, Novak was also better than Nadal outside Clay so he anyway had the edge always ..... but this doesn't apply to the next gen, a young guy (ATG) will ALWAYS kick your ass if the age gap is 4-5 or more. Borg was sorted by McEnroe who was like 3-4 years younger and had to retire or else Jonny Mac would have made his life terrible when it came to winning Slams, so Borg being better than Mcenroe overall doesn't matter at all when the young ATG arrives.

I agree with your point, I'm not sure your examples are the best. I wouldn't say that Sampras is "more talented" than Agassi, but he was able to leverage his talents better and more frequently. Also, his talents were well suited to the conditions at the time. Nevertheless, those quibbles aside, that's a solid example. I've noted your characterization of the dynamic of the Borg-McEnroe rivalry and Borg's retirement isn't correct, previously. However, at the very least, McEnroe did provide a younger challenge to Borg, which is what you are pointing out. Becker, Edberg, and Wilander provided the same to McEnroe. Sampras and his generation provided the same to the Becker generation.

 

[Sunny014]

-Djokodal played each other, as well as Fed and Murray resulting in the most top-heavy tour of all time. The rest of the tour was decent to terrible at times. Everything slow and homogenized. Still a strong era because the weakest of the grass and hard slam contenders, Murray, was stronger than the strongest grass and hard slam contender of Fed's era: Roddick. Obviously going through one of or a combo of Fedalovicurray is tougher than going through one of or a combo of Roghdatis to win a slam.

Sir Andy is a great player but does his presence really matter in a GOAT debate to put a dent on the resume of Federer?

Even if Andy was born like 6 years earlier do you see him go past Federer in the 00s to win any slam ? He hasn't been able to beat Federer at any slam despite being 6 years younger except that 2013 aus open win in one of Federer's worst years and that too in 5 long sets. The very next year Fed beat him again in 4 sets, now thats the thing, when Federer is fit and wins he just wins in 3-4 sets, never needed to toil hard in 5 despite being 1 gen older. Why ?

Because he is just better ... period !

Now tell me, do you feel Andy would have been any different if he were in the 00s ?

To win the US open he would have to go past Federer at his peak which was not definetly happening. Sir Andy's level was at best of Hewitt's in the US open, so expect bagels and double bagels vs peak Federer

To win the Wimbledon would again be beyond him because Roger at his peak in the mid 00s (04-06) was a monster Andy never faced on the wimbledon grass. Sir Andy gets straight setted in 2015, lost in 2012 in his best year, you expect him to anything if he was in the place of Roddick ? For whats its worth, Andy Roddick has been closer to beating Roger on grass than Andy ever could be.

Clay is Clay .... foregone conclusion with Nadal around, it would be a bloodbath.

To win the Aus open apart from Federer Sir Andy would also have to beat Safin who had a higher level.

So this whole idea of making SIr Andy look an unlucky guy who could not win slams because of the big 3 is all hogwash, his slam count would still be the same in other generations too because to win the slams you will have to beat the resident Alpha/champion of that era which required a very high level, something which Sir Andy could not produce.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Yeah, I do agree that the gen between Pete and Fed was pretty weak; I don’t see a lot of people bringing this up.

PETE fans are the (co-)originators of the weak era meme yet this is a thing they don't want anyone to see!

 

[OldBalls]

No mention of stanimal and murray? Stan peaked as an older player and murray was top player till the end of 2016. Interesting that you leave out these two. You wouldnt be a federer fanboy by any chance?

 

[RelentlessAttack]

43-year-old Tom Brady just destroyed 25-year-old Mahomes in the Super Bowl, in case you forgot.

Mahomes has been breaking records, the NFL is a team sport. Tampa defense defeated an injured Mahomes. Almost all sports have extended longevity amongst the greats but none have the void of good young players that tennis does. In hockey, the young players are squeezing out the older ones in brutal fashion right now

 

[Sunny014]

PETE fans are the (co-)originators of the weak era meme yet this is a thing they don't want anyone to see!

Slams won per generation :

1960-1964 : Generation 0
- Lendl, Wilander, Noah, Leconte, Mercir, Gomez & Gilbert. John Mcenroe (born in 59) = 8 + 7 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 7 = 25 Slams
1965-1969 : Generation 1
- Becker, Edberg, Stitch, Cash, Muster, Korda, & Pioline = 6 + 6 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 16 Slams
1970-1974 : Generation 2
- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov = 14 + 8 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 1 +1 + 2 + 2 = 35 Slams
1975-1979 : Generation 3
- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Johansson, Costa, Philippoussis & Gaudio = 3 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 = 7 Slams
1980-1984 : Generation 4
- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrer, Nalbandian, Coria and Ferrero = 20 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 26 Slams
1985-1989 : Generation 5
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga = 20 + 18 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 46 Slams
1990-1994 : Generation 6
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta & also Nishikori (born in december 89 so thats almost 90). = 1 Slam ( Gifted by Corona)
1995-1999 : Generation 7
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni = 0
2000-2004 : Generation 8
- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz ( babies )


Sampras's immediate next generation won 7 slams and 6 of them were on Clay.
Sampras's immediate next generation reached a total of 13 finals only 7 of them were outside Clay
Sampras's immediate next generation reached a total of 20 Semi finals+ performances and just 13 of them were outside Clay.

Sampras won 6-7 slams 1996-97 onwards and Agassi won 5 Slams 1998-99 onwards till 03, isn't this weak era vulturing in the absence of youngsters ? @PETEhammer

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Sampras's immediate next generation won 7 slams and 6 of them were on Clay.
Sampras's immediate next generation reached a total of 9 finals only 3 of them were outside Clay
Sampras's immediate next generation reached a total of 16 Semi finals+ performances and just 9 of them were outside Clay.

You forgot Clement, Schüttler and Philippoussis who reached two slam finals, though two happened after PETE's retirement

 

[Sunny014]

You forgot Philippoussis who reached two slam finals, though one after PETE's retirement

Thanks ... edited.

It is quite shocking, Agassi won 3 Aus opens in 4 years from 00-03 and would have made 4 in 4 if he didn't miss that 1 which enabled Thomas Johansson of all people to win that.
Pete could not win even 1 of these and his fans say he is a complete player who could compete with the Big 3 ?

Andre has a better chance of beating/competing with the Big 3 in the modern day conditions than Pete. Pete after the AO 97 win did not win HCs for almost 6 years until his 2002 USO wn and then probably he was waiting to see what to do next year, he saw Federer win his 1st wimbledon and knew that his successor was here, so he retired after that

Sampras set to announce retirement

August 22: Pete Sampras, arguably the greatest player in tennis history, is to announce his retirement on Monday.

www.theguardian.com

 

[Tony48]

Mahomes has been breaking records, the NFL is a team sport. Tampa defense defeated an injured Mahomes. Almost all sports have extended longevity amongst the greats but none have the void of good young players that tennis does. In hockey, the young players are squeezing out the older ones in brutal fashion right now

This literally makes no sense. You brought up team sports. And then when its brought to your attention that an old man is dominating in a team sport, you dismiss it as a team sport. And then you bring up another team sport (NHL) to emphasize your point.

Which is it? Team sports count or they don't?

Also, there is no "void" of good young players in tennis. Thiem has made multiple slam finals and has beaten both Nadal and Djokovic in slams. Medvedev has made two slam finals and Tsitsipas has beaten Federer.

 

[PETEhammer]

You forgot Clement, Schüttler and Philippoussis who reached two slam finals, though two happened after PETE's retirement

How about Moya and Rios? Oh and Philippousis reached the US Open final in '98 which was very much before Pete retired lol

 

[Pandora Mikado]

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

How about Moya and Rios? Oh and Philippousis reached the US Open final in '98 which was very much before Pete retired lol

Moya and Rios were included.
1975-79 gen that reached finals outside of clay:
Moya AO 1997
Rios AO 1998
Phillippousis US Open 1998
Clement AO 2001
Johansson AO 2002
Schuttler AO 2003
Phillippousis Wimbledon 2003

 

[PETEhammer]

Slams won per generation :

1960-1964 : Generation 0
- Lendl, Wilander, Noah, Leconte, Mercir, Gomez & Gilbert. John Mcenroe (born in 59) = 8 + 7 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 7 = 25 Slams
1965-1969 : Generation 1
- Becker, Edberg, Stitch, Cash, Muster, Korda, & Pioline = 6 + 6 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 16 Slams
1970-1974 : Generation 2
- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov = 14 + 8 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 1 +1 + 2 + 2 = 35 Slams
1975-1979 : Generation 3
- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Johansson, Costa, Philippoussis & Gaudio = 3 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 = 7 Slams
1980-1984 : Generation 4
- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrer, Nalbandian, Coria and Ferrero = 20 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 26 Slams
1985-1989 : Generation 5
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga = 20 + 18 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 46 Slams
1990-1994 : Generation 6
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta & also Nishikori (born in december 89 so thats almost 90). = 1 Slam ( Gifted by Corona)
1995-1999 : Generation 7
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni = 0
2000-2004 : Generation 8
- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz ( babies )


Sampras's immediate next generation won 7 slams and 6 of them were on Clay.
Sampras's immediate next generation reached a total of 13 finals only 7 of them were outside Clay
Sampras's immediate next generation reached a total of 20 Semi finals+ performances and just 13 of them were outside Clay.

Sampras won 6-7 slams 1996-97 onwards and Agassi won 5 Slams 1998-99 onwards till 03, isn't this weak era vulturing in the absence of youngsters ? @PETEhammer

I'm surprised you want to bring up vulturing given Fed had 0 prime ATGs on his best surfaces from 04-07 who were either before or from his generation, and he failed convincingly against the nextgen of Djokodal at majors once they entered their primes
To make matters worse...

ATGs with 3 slams to their name during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Lendl
Fed: '03-'07: Agassi, Nadal

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:

Pete: '93-'97: 14
Fed: '03-'07: 8

Of Federer's 8, THREE were Against Ancient Agassi, and only TWO were against Nadal on his best surface

Now I know you'll likely squawk at Lendl, so let's take him out. Let's also take out Agassi of '05 since he was older than Lendl when Pete played him ONCE in majors:

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: 13
Fed: '03-'07: 6


Only 3 of Fed's 6 matches against ATGs w/3 slams to their names in his most prolific years were on one of his strongest surfaces
Only one on Hard, who was ten years older than him

Winning Hard and Grass slams was like picking up Snickers from the Dollar Store. Fed made it look cool though

Vulturing in perspective

 

[RelentlessAttack]

This literally makes no sense. You brought up team sports. And then when its brought to your attention that an old man is dominating in a team sport, you dismiss it as a team sport. And then you bring up another team sport (NHL) to emphasize your point.

Which is it? Team sports count or they don't?

Also, there is no "void" of good young players in tennis. Thiem has made multiple slam finals and has beaten both Nadal and Djokovic in slams. Medvedev has made two slam finals and Tsitsipas has beaten Federer.

It only makes no sense if you’re mentally deficient, the metrics to measure greatness in team sports is different than in individual ones. One player doesn’t defeat another player alone and great players sometimes don’t win the most - Ovechkin didn’t win from 2005 until 2018, but he was still clearly the best goal scorer since Gretzky. Mcdavid may never win playing for Edmonton but he is still clearly the best forward of his generation and likely better than all of the forwards of the previous generation as well.

Thiem on the other hand is a Ferrer 2012-13 tier player. As for Medvedev and Tsitsipas, talk about grasping at straws. They still have some time to progress their games but under no metric are these guys ATG level players. None of these guys are the greatest anything, and Kyrgios is the only younger player with an ATG caliber weapon - his serve.

 

[ForehandRF]

@RelentlessAttack They will talk about the career inflation era in the morning of the Wimbledon Final, once you are done with it ?

 

[mike danny]

Moya and Rios were included.
1975-79 gen that reached finals outside of clay:
Moya AO 1997
Rios AO 1998
Phillippousis US Open 1998
Clement AO 2001
Johansson AO 2002
Schuttler AO 2003
Phillippousis Wimbledon 2003

What I see here is that these guys reached more finals combined than the Lost Gen, including Thiem.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

@RelentlessAttack They will talk about the career inflation era in the morning of the Wimbledon Final, once you are done with it ?

Damn right son

 

[TMF]

LOL
Joker fans, getting all upset because @Sunny014 made an insightful thread that completely destroyed their agenda driven.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

What I see here is that these guys reached more finals combined than the Lost Gen, including Thiem.

And that's without counting clay.
6 finals

 

[mike danny]

@RelentlessAttack They will talk about the career inflation era in the morning of the Wimbledon Final, once you are done with it ?

I think @RelentlessAttack himself should go talk about the career inflation era in the morning of the Wimb final.

 

[mike danny]

And that's without counting clay.
6 finals

Yeah, the Kuerten gen being worse off clay than the Lost Gen has always been a myth.

 

[junior74]

Nadal/ Djokovic gen is obviously incredibly strong.

Yet, this is a point which OP tries to make, but many refuse to verify:

The players coming after Federer gen has 46 slams.

The players coming after Nadal/ Djokovic gen has 1 slam.

This has a huge effect on competition, whether popcorn or ELO peels your banana.

 

[Sunny014]

I'm surprised you want to bring up vulturing given Fed had 0 prime ATGs on his best surfaces from 04-07 who were either before or from his generation, and he failed convincingly against the nextgen of Djokodal at majors once they entered their primes
To make matters worse...

ATGs with 3 slams to their name during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Lendl
Fed: '03-'07: Agassi, Nadal

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:

Pete: '93-'97: 14
Fed: '03-'07: 8

Of Federer's 8, THREE were Against Ancient Agassi, and only TWO were against Nadal on his best surface

Now I know you'll likely squawk at Lendl, so let's take him out. Let's also take out Agassi of '05 since he was older than Lendl when Pete played him ONCE in majors:

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: 13
Fed: '03-'07: 6


Only 3 of Fed's 6 matches against ATGs w/3 slams to their names in his most prolific years were on one of his strongest surfaces
Only one on Hard, who was ten years older than him

Winning Hard and Grass slams was like picking up Snickers from the Dollar Store. Fed made it look cool though

Vulturing in perspective

Pete Sampras announced his retirement after Federer won his 1st Grand Slam, why so ?
Andre Agassi knew that he had the game to continue into the mid 00s but why Pete ran away ? He waited 12 months to announce his retirement after carefully watching the competition and once he saw Federer win his slam he knew his time was up.

So how can you have 3 Time Slam winners vs federer when Pete himself ran away ? I don't blame him, he was so horrible that Andre won AO 3 times in 4 years and even that year when he was absent Pete could not win it.....Federer would have obliterated Pete if he faced Pete in 04-06 period, Andre at least used to have 4-5 set matches, Pete would have been straight setted

So blame your champ for running away.

Plus Kuerten himself played till 05, he is a 3 time slam winner, injury plagued he too had to go away.

Fact is @PETEhammer that Pete and the gen after him were really weak in the 00s to capitalize on the so called vacuum (00-03), but Andre wasn't. However as soon as Federer won his 1st Slam the era became tough, Fed and Safin were fighting the Aus opens and Agassi's run at the AO was over, Federer and Hewitt were fighting at the USOs along with Andre at both slams. Federer and Roddick were fighting wimbledon, both would have beaten Pete if Pete continued. . ....Then Nadal arrived. ...... Competition was freakin tough, ask your champ, he would nod in affirmative because thats why he retired.

 

[PETEhammer]

Pete Sampras announced his retirement after Federer won his 1st Grand Slam, why so ?
Andre Agassi knew that he had the game to continue into the mid 00s but why Pete ran away ? He waited 12 months to announce his retirement after carefully watching the competition and once he saw Federer win his slam he knew his time was up.

So how can you have 3 Time Slam winners vs federer when Pete himself ran away ? I don't blame him, he was so horrible that Andre won AO 3 times in 4 years and even that year when he was absent Pete could not win it.....Federer would have obliterated Pete if he faced Pete in 04-06 period, Andre at least used to have 4-5 set matches, Pete would have been straight setted

So blame your champ for running away.

Plus Kuerten himself played till 05, he is a 3 time slam winner, injury plagued he too had to go away.

Fact is @PETEhammer that Pete and the gen after him were really weak to capitalize on the so called vacuum, but Andre wasn't. However as soon as Federer won his 1st Slam the era became tough, Fed and Safin were fighting the Aus opens, Federer and Hewitt were fighting at the USOs along with Andre at both slams. Federer and Roddick were fighting wimbledon, both would have beaten Pete if Pete continued. . ....

Kuerten had 3 slams but was not an ATG, which you know, of course. You have no answer other than to disparage Pete, hypothesize and deflect. We know this.

I'll let the facts be the last word on this conversation:

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: 13
Fed: '03-'07: 6 (1 against 10-year older Agassi, 1 against first-timer Clay specialist Nadal on Grass)

 

[Sunny014]

So you have no answer other than to disparage Pete and deflect of course. I'll let the facts be the last word on this conversation:

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: 13
Fed: '03-'07: 6 (1 against 10-year older Agassi, 1 against first-timer Clay specialist Nadal on Grass)

Use your common sense.
Sampras's next gen was ultra weak, thats why Agassi won 3 AOs in 4 years between 00-03.
Next gen (Hewitt + Safin + Roddick ) took 1 USO each and Pete vultured a USO in this period.
On Grass Goran who never won a slam before took home a slam and Hewitt took another.

So how the **** would Federer have 3 Slams winners since Pete's immediate next gen was not upto the mark and Pete ran away ( announced retirement after fed won his 1st slam ) ? Federer's generation did not allow many guys to have 3 slams

Answer this, direct answer, no beating the bush please

 

[PETEhammer]

Use your common sense.
Sampras's next gen was ultra weak, thats why Agassi won 3 AOs in 4 years between 00-03.
Next gen (Hewitt + Safin + Roddick ) took 1 USO each and Pete vultured a USO in this period.
On Grass Goran took home a slam and Hewitt took another

So how the **** would Federer have 3 Slams winners since Pete's immediate next gen was not upto the mark and Pete ran away ?

Answer this, direct answer, no beating the bush please

Nobody controls the strength of their era. Nobody is blaming Federer for taking advantage of a Weak Era, which you know of course. Still, the facts are what they are.

ATGs played with 3 slams to their name in slams during most prolific years:
Pete: '93-'97: 13
Fed: '03-'07: 6 (1 against 10-year older Agassi, 1 against first-timer Clay specialist Nadal on Grass)

 

[Sunny014]

Your main problem is you don't respect tennis more than your hero.

Federer's gen kicked out the 90s guys and Federer then kicked out his gen, but you don't respect hewitt/safin enough for winning slams before Federer did. You want some champs from the 90s with 3 slams each to compete with Federer in 04-07 period, that shows lack of respect for Safin's and Hewitt's efforts in maturing before Federer and Federer's in bypassing them later on!

 

[PETEhammer]

True. They also propagate the "non-peak" excuse. Because Federer was merely 26-27 at WB 2008 and the AO 2009 they can't use the age excuse, so instead they use the "non-peak" excuse.

Whereas Pete at 30 is expected to beat zoning Safin and Hewitt ten years younger than him. Lol

 

[Sunny014]

Whereas Pete at 30 is expected to beat zoning Safin and Hewitt ten years younger than him. Lol

Andre Agassi can win 3 AOs in 4 years despite being 1 year older while Pete cannot win outside Grass post his 26th birthday until he got that USO 2002.

Then he waits 12 months to see where Federer goes and finds Roger win his 1st slam and knows that his time is OVER and he announces retirement while Andre is not afraid, Andre wins 5 slams after his 29th birthday and makes a few grand slam semis and finals.

Why?
Was Pete a 1 trick pony?

 

[Third Serve]

Andre Agassi can win 3 AOs in 4 years despite being 1 year older while Pete cannot win outside Grass post his 26th birthday until he got that USO 2002.

Then he waits 12 months to see where Federer goes and finds Roger win his 1st slam and knows that his time is OVER and he announces retirement while Andre is not afraid, Andre wins 5 slams after his 29th birthday and makes a few grand slam semis and finals.

Why?
Was Pete a 1 trick pony?

Was a combo of Andre being better than Sampras in the longevity department (possibly owing to his hiatus in the late 90's; he had less mileage on him), Agassi having a game that translated much better to the more baseline-oriented 2000's than Pete's s&v, and Agassi getting that one super easy draw (2003 AO is a draw that's basically at career inflation era levels).

 

[PETEhammer]

Andre Agassi can win 3 AOs in 4 years despite being 1 year older while Pete cannot win outside Grass post his 26th birthday until he got that USO 2002.

Then he waits 12 months to see where Federer goes and finds Roger win his 1st slam and knows that his time is OVER and he announces retirement while Andre is not afraid, Andre wins 5 slams after his 29th birthday and makes a few grand slam semis and finals.

Why?
Was Pete a 1 trick pony?

Your continual insistence that Pete was scared of the next gen is your own bias not rooted in reality. As is your fantasy story of him waiting to watch Federer to make his next move. This is fanfic.

In reality, Pete explicitly stated he felt no further motivation because he had nothing left to prove to himself. He wasn't even motivated to return to Wimbledon. You can view the exact quote in my sig.

 

[Sunny014]

Your continual insistence that Pete was scared of the next gen is your own bias not rooted in reality. In reality, Pete explicitly stated he felt no firther motivation because he had nothing left to prove to himself. He wasn't even motivated to return to Wimbledon. You can view the exact quote in my sig.

Yes I have heard Pete say that he had nothing left to prove but that is a polished way of him running away from the fact that his successor had arrived and beaten him in 01 and the fact that he announced his retirement after his successor won his 1st slam also showed that he indeed ran away from a challenge to improvise his game and adapt to the modern era. In that Wimbledon documentary he also mentioned that he felt out of sorts by not being on center court in 02 and was beaten too, his game was nullified by the better baseliners on a grass that was perhaps slower, he was wrong when he said that he had nothing left to prove.

Pete's last HC slam win was before his 26th birthday, he won his USO 02 when he was 31 years old, that is 5+ years gap and he feels out of sorts on Grass and takes 1 year to announce his retirement, you want me to take Pete's words at face value that he had nothing left to prove because he broke emerson's record ?

Everybody wants to keep on winning, there is nothing like "I've had enough success"..... He felt he had no chance and thats why he left while Andre was not afraid of taking on Federer or Safin or Hewitt because he knew he that had the game for the modern era and could go toe to toe with the best.

Respect to Andre Agassi for not running away, a true legend who stood the test of time, both Andre and Ivan Lendl could have have been on 14 Slams instead of 8 in the modern era like conditions and Pete would have been on 8 like them if all the courts including Grass was like it is now, LOL.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Andre Agassi can win 3 AOs in 4 years despite being 1 year older while Pete cannot win outside Grass post his 26th birthday until he got that USO 2002.

Then he waits 12 months to see where Federer goes and finds Roger win his 1st slam and knows that his time is OVER and he announces retirement while Andre is not afraid, Andre wins 5 slams after his 29th birthday and makes a few grand slam semis and finals.

Why?
Was Pete a 1 trick pony?

Pete already dominated all his rivals, had the most years and weeks @ number 1 and had the slam record. He retired unmotivated and with nothing to prove.

Fed got owned first by Nadal, then Djokovic who are taking all his records. That’s why he’s playing on in his late 30s instead of relaxing and enjoying family time with mirka and the kids.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Pete already dominated all his rivals, had the most years and weeks @ number 1 and had the slam record. He retired unmotivated and with nothing to prove.

Fed got owned first by Nadal, then Djokovic who are taking all his records. That’s why he’s playing on in his late 30s instead of relaxing and enjoying family time with mirka and the kids.

So, losing to kids like Safin didn't seem like a challenge to him? He just accepted that it is "normal"?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

So, losing to kids like Safin didn't seem like a challenge to him? He just accepted that it is "normal"?

3-4 h2h vs Safin
4-5 h2h vs Hewitt

Small sample size and respectable scores vs the nextgen.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

3-4 h2h vs Safin
4-5 h2h vs Hewitt

Small sample size and respectable scores vs the nextgen.

Lost ALL his finals against Safin, Hewitt and Roddick.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Lost ALL his finals against Safin, Hewitt and Roddick.

Federer lost ALL his Wimbledon finals against Djokovic

 

[PilotPete]

What was Nadal's age in 2015?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Federer lost ALL his Wimbledon finals against Djokovic

No one ever claimed that Federer doesn't see Djokovic as a challenge, so you forgot what you are arguing: you argued that Sampras retired, because he didn't feel that he has anything more to accomplish, including he didn't see the likes of Safin as a challenge.

 

[PETEhammer]

Pete already dominated all his rivals, had the most years and weeks @ number 1 and had the slam record. He retired unmotivated and with nothing to prove.

Fed got owned first by Nadal, then Djokovic who are taking all his records. That’s why he’s playing on in his late 30s instead of relaxing and enjoying family time with mirka and the kids.

Amen. Good to see a Nolefan defend Pete
One guy played ATGs with 3 slams to their names 13 times in his era, almost all on his best surfaces. The other guy is Roger Federer, who did the same 6 times, 3 on his best surfaces, one of which was an ATG ten years older than himself and Pete's chief rival still making him fight for his life

 

[NoleIsBoat]

No one ever claimed that Federer doesn't see Djokovic as a challenge, so you forgot what you are arguing: you argued that Sampras retired, because he didn't feel that he has anything more to accomplish, including he didn't see the likes of Safin as a challenge.

Pete dominated his main rivals including Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic, Courier. The undisputed king of the 90s with most slams and number 1 weeks/years. Safin/Hewitt came at the tail end of Pete’s career and they didn’t play that many matches.

Fed OTOH right during his “peak” years was completely dominated by young Nadal, with a pitiful 2-6 slam h2h record. These defeats combined with the many defeats to djokovic left question makes over Fed’s credentials which is why he plays on aged 39 instead of relaxing with his millions.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Pete dominated his main rivals including Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic, Courier. The undisputed king of the 90s with most slams and number 1 weeks/years. Safin/Hewitt came at the tail end of Pete’s career and they didn’t play that many matches.

Fed OTOH right during his “peak” years was completely dominated by young Nadal, with a pitiful 2-6 slam h2h record. These defeats combined with the many defeats to djokovic left question makes over Fed’s credentials which is why he plays on aged 39 instead of relaxing with his millions.

So, you forgot what you were arguing about, indeed.

 

[PETEhammer]

Pete dominated his main rivals including Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic, Courier. The undisputed king of the 90s with most slams and number 1 weeks/years. Safin/Hewitt came at the tail end of Pete’s career and they didn’t play that many matches.

Fed OTOH right during his “peak” years was completely dominated by young Nadal, with a pitiful 2-6 slam h2h record. These defeats combined with the many defeats to djokovic left question makes over Fed’s credentials which is why he plays on aged 39 instead of relaxing with his millions.

It gets even worse. From 2008-2014 Fed was 4-15 against Rafa. For a reference, Pete dominated his pigeon Rafter 12-4

 

[NoleIsBoat]

So, you forgot what you were arguing about, indeed.

No, you just can’t read apparently.

Sunny claimed Pete retired due to being scared of nextgen. I put another point forward to say Pete retired because he had nothing to prove, owned all his rivals and owned the 3 major records.
You used a strawman argument (as usual) and tried to bamboozle me but failed

 

[Tennis_Hands]

No, you just can’t read apparently.

Sunny claimed Pete retired due to being scared of nextgen. I put another point forward to say Pete retired because he had nothing to prove, owned all his rivals and owned the 3 major records.
You used a strawman argument (as usual) and tried to bamboozle me but failed

The problem is that if Samp had anything in the tank, he had something to prove, unless you say that he enjoyed being beaten in all those finals.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

It gets even worse. From 2008-2014 Fed was 4-15 against Rafa. For a reference, Pete dominated his pigeon Rafter 12-4

Wow , I never realised it was that bad.

If Fed had done even a bit better than I can see the age argument ...

but he has so many poor stats and lost so many matches to the big 2.

10-21 at slams
2-9 at slams Vs Djokovic since 2011
2-6 at slams vs Nadal 05-09
4-15 vs Nadal 08-14
2-9 Vs Djokodal at HC slams since 2009
0-3 vs Djokovic in Wimbledon finals

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Federer lost ALL his Wimbledon finals against Djokovic

I love PETE but he was long retired by the time Djokovic passed Federer on grass. Federer spanked Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2012 at an age when PETE had already retired

 

[NoleIsBoat]

The problem is that if Samp had anything in the tank, he had something to prove, unless you say that he enjoyed being beaten in all those finals.

What else should an athlete do other than comprehensively dominate his era?

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Wow , I never realised it was that bad.

If Fed had done even a bit better than I can see the age argument ...

but he has so many poor stats and lost so many matches to the big 2.

10-21 at slams
2-9 at slams Vs Djokovic since 2011
2-6 at slams vs Nadal 05-09
4-15 vs Nadal 08-14
2-9 Vs Djokodal at HC slams since 2009
0-3 vs Djokovic in Wimbledon finals

Djokovic had to wait for all of his rivals to decline before racking up titles (2/3) in the inflation era. Don’t lump him in with RAFA who ended Federer’s reign singlehandedly

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What else should an athlete do other than comprehensively dominate his era?

Beat the players that beat him in finals, if he can. Sampras was a great champion, so that probably didn't sit too well with his mentality.