Gilbert: "The #80 ranked player nowadays is better than the 15th player 15 years ago" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Gilbert: "The #80 ranked player nowadays is better than the 15th player 15 years ago"

out_here_grindin
01-25-2010, 05:38 PM
He made this statement during the Davydenko?Nando match last night. Now I know there ie part of him that has to push tennis to the audience to watch but he also played on the pro tour and watches the players now. It is interesting to see him say that.

What's your opinion on this?

Snowwy
01-25-2010, 05:40 PM
Oh no, the old man isn't going to like this..

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Sorry uh............no. Doesnt work like that brad. If it did you never would have cracked the top 300. Idiot with microphone strikes again!

KolyaLegend
01-25-2010, 05:45 PM
:haha::haha::haha:

DartMarcus
01-25-2010, 05:45 PM
No. 80 right now - Thiemmo De Bakker.
No. 15 15 years ago - Andrey Medvedev.
Medvedev >>>>>>>>>>>> De Bakker.

Smoke944
01-25-2010, 05:47 PM
While I disagree with Brad you have to see where he's coming from. Brad got to 4 in the world with no particularly special talents other than a bit of court craft and hitting junkballs. Nowadays look at the players fighting for the top-5.

Xavier7
01-25-2010, 05:52 PM
He made this statement during the Davydenko?Nando match last night. Now I know there ie part of him that has to push tennis to the audience to watch but he also played on the pro tour and watches the players now. It is interesting to see him say that.

What's your opinion on this?

Todays era is stronger but Gilbert is basically talking crap massively overexaggerating.
But lets look at the facts.

From todays rankings:
77 Falla, Alejandro
78 Zverev, Michael
79 Dent, Taylor
80 de Bakker, Thiemo
81 Petzschner, Philipp
82 Gulbis, Ernests
83 Lorenzi, Paolo


From January 1995:
15 Medvedev, Andrei
16 Muster, Thomas
17 Krajicek, Richard
18 Korda, Petr
19 Larsson, Magnus
20 Rafter, Patrick

No way the the above players are better than the ones below were imo.
Thats just looks ridiculous :rolleyes:

Dougie
01-25-2010, 05:54 PM
No. 80 right now - Thiemmo De Bakker.
No. 15 15 years ago - Andrey Medvedev.
Medvedev >>>>>>>>>>>> De Bakker.

Not to mention some of the names that were behind Medvedev: Krajicek, Muster, Rafter, Corretja, Forget, Pioline...All slightly different calibre than de Bakker.

Gilbert is talking :bs: Makes me think Agassi had some company when getting high...

Smoke944
01-25-2010, 05:56 PM
Exaggeration guys :p

angry1
01-25-2010, 05:56 PM
While I disagree with Brad you have to see where he's coming from. Brad got to 4 in the world with no particularly special talents other than a bit of court craft and hitting junkballs. Nowadays look at the players fighting for the top-5.

Is that an intentional invitation to the Murrayphobes?

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:57 PM
While I disagree with Brad you have to see where he's coming from. Brad got to 4 in the world with no particularly special talents other than a bit of court craft and hitting junkballs. Nowadays look at the players fighting for the top-5.

Sounds like Murray to me! No wonder he was hired to coach him.

out_here_grindin
01-25-2010, 05:57 PM
I think he got overexcited while making what he thought was a big time observation.

angry1
01-25-2010, 06:00 PM
Sounds like Murray to me! No wonder he was hired to coach him.

Too slow and oh so predictable.

brithater
01-25-2010, 06:00 PM
Brad Gilbert in a nutshell....While many athletes fit into the stigma of the older I get the better I used to be, Brad is in the select group of top athletes that come to the realization ..."man I really sucked!"

brithater
01-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Too slow and oh so predictable.

Yup. Your quick. Very quick. Faster than Murray thats for sure. If only andy was that fast and aggresive maybe he could have got to a final least year.

thrust
01-25-2010, 06:09 PM
Not to mention some of the names that were behind Medvedev: Krajicek, Muster, Rafter, Corretja, Forget, Pioline...All slightly different calibre than de Bakker.

Gilbert is talking :bs: Makes me think Agassi had some company when getting high...

LOL!! Sometimes, Brad just gets carried away, and talks just for the sake of saying something.

JimmyV
01-25-2010, 06:17 PM
Hacks like Brad Gilbert and Andre Agassi don't know shit about tennis. The experts on this site know whats really going on.

philosophicalarf
01-25-2010, 06:36 PM
I tend to think there's some truth to what he says, although it's clearly exaggerated.

Specific dates aren't terribly helpful though, you often end up with "names" in the top15 who were past it at that time or not yet any good. If you look back in 10 years time, Gulbis may have a slam, and 80ish would suddenly look "strong".

95 was also between two eras - early 90s were very strong with the old guard 80s guys still around, Edberg and Becker, Courier at his best, Sampras and Agassi just arriving. However, the late 90s were pretty poor though (Mal Washington and Rusedski in slam finals, rofl).

Also easy to pick to make particular years look bad. For example, end of year rankings for 97 had Chang at 3, Bjorkman at 4, Rusedski at 6, none of whom would make top10 now. At the same time you had Philippousis at 18, at that stage nowhere near a top player, and Courier at 21, well past it (he would drop out of the top100 in 98).

abraxas21
01-25-2010, 06:41 PM
what he says is an exaggeration but there's definitely a lot of truth in it. we're living in an era with more people playing tennis from an eary age than ever before and from virtually all the corners of the world as well. that allows more competivity and the formation of in-depth players which are incomparably better than the mugs of previous ages.

we're definitely witneessing the best tennis era of all times and federer is dominating it, naturally. That's why everybody calls him the GOAT*

* deliberate bait to nostalgiatards and fedhaters (roughly 3/4 of the users of this site).

brithater
01-25-2010, 06:47 PM
[QUOTE=abraxas21;9553745]

we're definitely witneessing the best tennis era of all times QUOTE]

Uh No. Sorry your wrong. 94-97, 2004-2009 weakest eras in tennis history. Look at the rankings lists

nobama
01-25-2010, 08:06 PM
[QUOTE=abraxas21;9553745]

we're definitely witneessing the best tennis era of all times QUOTE]

Uh No. Sorry your wrong. 94-97, 2004-2009 weakest eras in tennis history. Look at the rankings lists
Based on what?

brithater
01-25-2010, 08:12 PM
[QUOTE=brithater;9553763]
Based on what?

Players in the game that have the belief to win a slam. The more players with that kind of confidence the more depth there is. This game is all about belief in your ability.

Xavier7
01-25-2010, 08:23 PM
[QUOTE=abraxas21;9553745]

we're definitely witneessing the best tennis era of all times QUOTE]

Uh No. Sorry your wrong. 94-97, 2004-2009 weakest eras in tennis history. Look at the rankings lists

Realistically 2000-2003 was probably the weakest era in modern times.
Johansson, Costa, Gaudio, Ivanisevic over the hill winning slams.
Tommy Haas ranked 2 in the world.
Hewitt world number 1 for 2 years.

brithater
01-25-2010, 08:31 PM
[QUOTE=brithater;9553763]

Realistically 2000-2003 was probably the weakest era in modern times.
Johansson, Costa, Gaudio, Ivanisevic over the hill winning slams.
Tommy Haas ranked 2 in the world.
Hewitt world number 1 for 2 years.

Your leaving out quite a few. Ya know...bums like Agassi, Rafter, Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Moya, Ferrero, Guga, Roddick, Safin, Rios, Korda, etc. etc. etc. There are more.

The late 80s and early 90s were even sicker.

KolyaLegend
01-25-2010, 08:33 PM
we're definitely witneessing the best tennis era of all times and federer is dominating it, naturally. That's why everybody calls him the GOAT

Only his fanboys believe he is the GOAT.

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 08:35 PM
[QUOTE=Mellow Yellow;9553994]

Players in the game that have the belief to win a slam. The more players with that kind of confidence the more depth there is. This game is all about belief in your ability.

The ability has to be there in the first place.

brithater
01-25-2010, 08:39 PM
Read, think, post. That is the order

brithater
01-25-2010, 08:42 PM
Hacks like Brad Gilbert and Andre Agassi don't know shit about tennis. The experts on this site know whats really going on.


Epic :worship:

serveandvolley80
01-25-2010, 08:47 PM
The person that listed 1995, its easy to put a year where top players and former contenders have dropped off into the 80's spot in the world and say, wow look at that era! Very weak argument, i could put up a list of players in the past decade and their low rankings to prove the opposite, its an argument that does not work. Besides there are always era's where the talent level drops off for a few years while waiting for a changing of the guard while the old guys are still winning tournaments and competing.

Brad is not bright though i am sure he meant physical ability, but as far as mental strength and intangibles i would say any older era was vastly superior, we have a bunch of frightened diva's out there that are blowing matches they should win left and right.

Also consider that the players today have better coaching, trainers, physio therapists and the whole entourage. I know that was kind of starting out in the mid to late 80's but a player has time to work on his game today. It explains the difference in talent. The technology and support a player gets today is vastly different.

The ability has to be there in the first place.

I think the ability is there in this decade for these players, its just the top 2 men for a long while have been so much better then the rest of the field, its hard to have belief when you keep getting your ass kicked.

brithater
01-25-2010, 08:56 PM
The person that listed 1995, its easy to put a year where top players and former contenders have dropped off into the 80's spot in the world and say, wow look at that era! Very weak argument, i could put up a list of players in the past decade and their low rankings to prove the opposite, its an argument that does not work. Besides there are always era's where the talent level drops off for a few years while waiting for a changing of the guard while the old guys are still winning tournaments and competing.

Brad is not bright though i am sure he meant physical ability, but as far as mental strength and intangibles i would say any older era was vastly superior, we have a bunch of frightened diva's out there that are blowing matches they should win left and right.

Also consider that the players today have better coaching, trainers, physio therapists and the whole entourage. I know that was kind of starting out in the mid to late 80's but a player has time to work on his game today. It explains the difference in talent. The technology and support a player gets today is vastly different.



I think the ability is there in this decade for these players, its just the top 2 men or a long time have been so much better then the rest of the field, its hard to have belief when you keep getting your ass kicked.

Good post. I guess I need to clarify a little more. When I say weak I am refering to the mental side of the game. Athletes are deffinitly better now. Pretty much everyone can move well and has big shots. Players are bigger, faster, stonger,bigger serves, better returns,etc et. The mental side is weak now. A lot of crybabies out there that cannot handle a bad call (gonzalez, roddick). Also had vastly different styles of play then. There were quite a few serve and volleyers.

Matt_2745
01-25-2010, 08:57 PM
I think he got overexcited while making what he thought was a big time observation.

Couldn't have put it better myself :D

serveandvolley80
01-25-2010, 09:10 PM
Good post. I guess I need to clarify a little more. When I say weak I am refering to the mental side of the game. Athletes are deffinitly better now. Pretty much everyone can move well and has big shots. Players are bigger, faster, stonger,bigger serves, better returns,etc et. The mental side is weak now. A lot of crybabies out there that cannot handle a bad call (gonzalez, roddick). Also had vastly different styles of play then. There were quite a few serve and volleyers.

Older generation tennis players were manly men, today we have dude's that wish they were in the WTA, some even play like they want it at times.

brithater
01-25-2010, 09:19 PM
Older generation tennis players were manly men, today we have dude's that wish they were in the WTA, some even play like they want it at times.

Could not agree more. Two most dominant players of the last five years...

Federer- carries a purse on court
Nadal- wears capries

Then you got guys like Feliciano Lopez....WTF is that a guy? How the hell did we go from Edberg, lendle, Conners, Rafter, Sampras to purses, capris, and photo shoots where you dress up like a woman. Thank god Hewitts still around. It looks like Cilic is old school too.

JediFed
01-25-2010, 09:21 PM
Right, only fanbois think that he's the GOAT. 15 slams, no?

serveandvolley80
01-25-2010, 09:23 PM
Could not agree more. Two most dominant players of the last five years...

Federer- carries a purse on court
Nadal- wears capries

Then you got guys like Feliciano Lopez....WTF is that a guy? How the hell did we go from Edberg, lendle, Conners, Rafter, Sampras to purses, capris, and photo shoots where you dress up like a woman. Thank god Hewitts still around. It looks like Cilic is old school too.

Its not a purse! its European!

I like Federer's game and personality, hes not trying to be a male model, he focuses on tennis. He has a lot of sponsors because he has won a lot and is popular, he was shy and quiet when he first started out and people called him boring and that he would never be a huge star around the world. He let his tennis talent do the talking and got noticed.

I think Federer has somewhat of an old school attitude but hes older and more comfortable in front of the spot light, but i would not call Fed a diva.

GugaF1
01-25-2010, 09:36 PM
This thread has some good classic hits.

Roddickominator
01-25-2010, 09:38 PM
Brad Gilbert using hyperbole....big surprise there.

szelesvigyor
01-25-2010, 09:58 PM
I tend to think there's some truth to what he says, although it's clearly exaggerated.

Specific dates aren't terribly helpful though, you often end up with "names" in the top15 who were past it at that time or not yet any good. If you look back in 10 years time, Gulbis may have a slam, and 80ish would suddenly look "strong".

95 was also between two eras - early 90s were very strong with the old guard 80s guys still around, Edberg and Becker, Courier at his best, Sampras and Agassi just arriving. However, the late 90s were pretty poor though (Mal Washington and Rusedski in slam finals, rofl).

Also easy to pick to make particular years look bad. For example, end of year rankings for 97 had Chang at 3, Bjorkman at 4, Rusedski at 6, none of whom would make top10 now. At the same time you had Philippousis at 18, at that stage nowhere near a top player, and Courier at 21, well past it (he would drop out of the top100 in 98).

Prime Chang , Rusedski ,and Bjorkman would be easily top10. 25year old Rusedski would hold his own against anyone , any today players.

serveandvolley80
01-25-2010, 10:02 PM
Prime Chang , Rusedski ,and Bjorkman would be easily top10. 25year old Rusedski would hold his own against anyone , any today players.

Prime Chang was just another Hewitt, Rudedski was a poor man's Henman.

bluefork
01-25-2010, 10:12 PM
I'm pretty sure that Brad Gilbert said yesterday that Roger Federer is the only guy with a good one-handed backhand anymore.

I think that's enough to confirm that Brad Gilbert doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

serveandvolley80
01-25-2010, 10:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that Brad Gilbert said yesterday that Roger Federer is the only guy with a good one-handed backhand anymore.

I think that's enough to confirm that Brad Gilbert doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Who else is there?

brithater
01-25-2010, 11:01 PM
Who else is there?

Gasguet, Almagro, Haas, Lubicek, Blake etc. There are more. lots of good one handeres out there. Brads an Idiot. Too much meth does that to people.

Dont forget the rock solid consistancy of one handers like Lopez. The would hang with any of the all time great one handers IE Rusedski, Daniel Vachek etc.

out_here_grindin
01-25-2010, 11:24 PM
I think he is correct in that the game is deeper. Players ranked in the hundreds still have huge game nowadays.

People are throwing names like Haas and Gilbert,Henmen being in top 5as proof that past eras were weak. But what if Murray turns out to be a flop? people will look bakc and say "Damn how on earth did a terrible player like Murray get to #2? 2009 must have been one weak year of tennis." Not a great indicator

oranges
01-25-2010, 11:37 PM
Who else is there?

The other Swiss?

bluefork
01-26-2010, 12:02 AM
Who else is there?

Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Haas all have better backhands than Federer. Kohlschreiber and Almagro also have good backhands.

Federer's backhand is not one of the best one-handed backhands by any stretch.

Xavier7
01-26-2010, 12:20 AM
I think he is correct in that the game is deeper. Players ranked in the hundreds still have huge game nowadays.

People are throwing names like Haas and Gilbert,Henmen being in top 5as proof that past eras were weak. But what if Murray turns out to be a flop? people will look bakc and say "Damn how on earth did a terrible player like Murray get to #2? 2009 must have been one weak year of tennis." Not a great indicator

To be truthful though Murray's single slam final and 4 masters titles already eclipse Henman and Haas achievements, as both only won 1 masters event and never went past a grand slam semi.

Xavier7
01-26-2010, 12:34 AM
Prime Chang was just another Hewitt, Rudedski was a poor man's Henman.

Watching Chang now he kind of reminds me more of Coria from recent players, though I suppose Chang could play well on hard as well as clay which would make him more like Hewitt.
Henman and Rusedski are not similar at all, other than being serve volleyers, but 2002 onwards Henman started playing more from the baseline.
Rusedski had a great serve and a lot of power but while Henman's serve was average or mediocre, he had more skill in his volleys and groundstrokes.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-26-2010, 12:49 AM
the irony being that the 90s group are considered the strongest of any era ever

especially the top 20

you have this absolute hack saying legends like muster and rafter wouldn't beat a player ranked 80???

oh-no no, no, you have your shit twisted good sir

agassi: for a period in the 90s wasn't even ranked in the top 100- thats a strong era

LleytonMonfils
01-26-2010, 01:07 AM
Gilbert always exaggerates things. When he said top 80 he basically meant top 30.

bjurra
01-26-2010, 03:30 AM
Brad forgot a 1.

Todays player ranked 180 is better than a guy ranked 115th 15 years ago.

BigJohn
01-26-2010, 03:43 AM
Gilbert is a pretty out there dude and he often says odd things. Just remember, he's from Cali.

SetSampras
01-26-2010, 05:02 AM
Gilbert must have found Agassi's meth stash from 98 in the backseat of his car. Put the pipe down Brad. Early to mid 90s had one of the strongest most talented top 10-15 of all time. 2nd to the 80s.


Conditioning wise sure possibly. But sports have evolved with nutrionists, top tier training and racket technology. Talent, mental toughness and Skill level its not better but worse from what Ive seen. Baseline ball bashing, no strategic play, no need for strategic play.. Homogenized conditions where one can win every slam by playing the same style and not altering play a bit..

CyBorg
01-26-2010, 06:02 AM
It's a dumb claim that cannot be proven and is difficult to disprove. It's fruitless to address it seriously.

Lopez
01-26-2010, 06:25 AM
There was a long Jonas Bjorkman interview in a Finnish sports magazine when he retired and he said something similar in that... I can't dig the exact quote but it was something like "I was a better player towards the end of my career than ever before. The level of tennis rises each year. If you want to keep your ranking, you actually have to improve your game"

This debate is fruitless though.

LaFuria
01-26-2010, 06:49 AM
Also easy to pick to make particular years look bad. For example, end of year rankings for 97 had Chang at 3, Bjorkman at 4, Rusedski at 6, none of whom would make top10 now. At the same time you had Philippousis at 18, at that stage nowhere near a top player, and Courier at 21, well past it (he would drop out of the top100 in 98).

Chang could easily be in the top 10 now; he suffered the most against hard hitters. He'd fit right in with the pushers who make up most of the current top 10.

Clydey
01-26-2010, 06:54 AM
I've said it a million times, but I hate people who exaggerate.

Clydey
01-26-2010, 06:56 AM
There was a long Jonas Bjorkman interview in a Finnish sports magazine when he retired and he said something similar in that... I can't dig the exact quote but it was something like "I was a better player towards the end of my career than ever before. The level of tennis rises each year. If you want to keep your ranking, you actually have to improve your game"

This debate is fruitless though.

Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero said exactly the same thing: the players today are much better than even those from as recently as 2002.

Of course, MTF has a group of seasoned pros who know better.

paseo
01-27-2010, 03:01 AM
Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Haas all have better backhands than Federer. Kohlschreiber and Almagro also have good backhands.

Federer's backhand is not one of the best one-handed backhands by any stretch.

They have better topspin backhand.

Audacity
01-27-2010, 05:24 AM
I would agree if he said the complete opposite...

rocketassist
04-14-2010, 02:25 PM
Gilbert thinks that complete clown I've just watched is better than Medvedev :haha:

andy neyer
04-14-2010, 02:31 PM
Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero said exactly the same thing: the players today are much better than even those from as recently as 2002.

Of course, MTF has a group of seasoned pros who know better.

That's true. Roddick also said prior to IW that he feels he could easily beat his 2001 version (or whatever was the year in which he got to number 1).

rocketassist
04-14-2010, 02:32 PM
That's true. Roddick also said prior to IW that he feels he could easily beat his 2001 version (or whatever was the year in which he got to number 1).

2003 Roddick would thrash 2009-10 Roddick.

bokehlicious
04-14-2010, 02:33 PM
:lol: rocketassist :hug: :p

andy neyer
04-14-2010, 02:40 PM
2003 Roddick would thrash 2009-10 Roddick.

The field caught up to everybody. Tennis is deeper now than ever. I can confidently say that I would beat the ‘03 version. - Andy Roddick.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/03/andy-roddick-interview-part-1/

n8
04-14-2010, 02:45 PM
Gilbert thinks that complete clown I've just watched is better than Medvedev :haha:

This is an unfair comparison. There was a time when Federer was around 80 in the world and Mantilla was 15 in the world (not at the same time, but close). Just taking one person leads to too much bias. Gilbert's comment was very general; he wasn't talking about Medvedev and de Bakker specifically.

rocketassist
04-14-2010, 03:09 PM
The field caught up to everybody. Tennis is deeper now than ever. I can confidently say that I would beat the ‘03 version. - Andy Roddick.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/03/andy-roddick-interview-part-1/

That's his opinion. But back then his serve was more reliable than Karlovic's and he could hit forehand winners.

Players now aren't better overall, they're just more solid and push, grind, retrieve and hit passing shots better. Apart from Fed, they don't play attacking, winning tennis.

stebs
04-14-2010, 05:28 PM
2003 Roddick would thrash 2009-10 Roddick.

Depends what court we're talking. Roddick has changed his game to suit the conditions, we know he is capable of playing more aggressively, if it was a superior tactic he would use it more often. The fact that you (and me too actually) prefer the more agressive style to the serve 'n' grind style he now exhibits doesn't make it better. This kind of statement is just pure emotivism.

out_here_grindin
07-17-2010, 02:40 PM
Roddick probably believes he could outsmart his younger self. Gilbert was saying how deep the game is now. He is always impressed by very good players ranked in the 100's. Another one of his favorites is "a guy like Marin Cilic is ranked 14". Although that one is losing some impact, because that's about where he should be ranked.

Snowwy
07-17-2010, 02:55 PM
I like how some of us (rocketassist) think that they know more about the sport than the players who play it.

cocrcici
07-17-2010, 03:56 PM
Truth:dance:

Federerhingis
07-17-2010, 05:57 PM
Watching Chang now he kind of reminds me more of Coria from recent players, though I suppose Chang could play well on hard as well as clay which would make him more like Hewitt.
Henman and Rusedski are not similar at all, other than being serve volleyers, but 2002 onwards Henman started playing more from the baseline.
Rusedski had a great serve and a lot of power but while Henman's serve was average or mediocre, he had more skill in his volleys and groundstrokes.


Yup comparing Henman and Rusedski is like comparing French fries with mashed potatoes. Both are potatoes but of very different quality, Greg had stone hands in comparison to Henman, he had solid stab volleys but no where near the feel and hands of Henman. Now a days that's the big difference from players of the past and today, you don't need to have great hands to be a good player, becuase the strings and rackets help the players so much more.

latso
07-18-2010, 11:08 AM
Todays era is stronger but Gilbert is basically talking crap massively overexaggerating.
But lets look at the facts.

From todays rankings:
77 Falla, Alejandro
78 Zverev, Michael
79 Dent, Taylor
80 de Bakker, Thiemo
81 Petzschner, Philipp
82 Gulbis, Ernests
83 Lorenzi, Paolo


From January 1995:
15 Medvedev, Andrei
16 Muster, Thomas
17 Krajicek, Richard
18 Korda, Petr
19 Larsson, Magnus
20 Rafter, Patrick

No way the the above players are better than the ones below were imo.
Thats just looks ridiculous :rolleyes:
agree that at first sight we are comparing journeymen to champions, though it's clear that the youngsters these days would smash those ex-champs, coz the power, speed, etc is so much different these days.

It's like saying - Dabul is better than Stefi Graf.

It's clear that he's just a tourist compared to this legend, but put them virtually on the court and Stefi won't take more than a couple of games, if..

Tutu
07-18-2010, 11:32 AM
I've said it a million times, but I hate people who exaggerate.
Do you hate yourself whenever you're trolling the forums, screaming "ZOMG Murray is S0oo0 gUd. Futur sLam ChAmp!!11!"?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-18-2010, 11:53 AM
and i still think brad gilbert is talking ot of his crack pipe

the era overall is stronger on HARD COURTS

but NO WAY are the grass specialists (there aren't any!!!) or the clay specialists (who is a real top 20er apart from rafa and roger) as good as the 90s

clay specialist in the 90s- courier, brug, muster

grass specialist in the 90s- too many to list

Snowwy
07-18-2010, 02:47 PM
How can you say there are no grass specialists when the grass section of the season is 2 weeks and Wimbledon?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-18-2010, 05:57 PM
yes, but its the biggest slam in the world

you'd think with no grass specialist apart from federer (who isn't really a specialist of one surface, just an all courter in the truest sense of the word) there would be a drive for players to concentrate on grass tennis knowing the hard courters cant really adjust to it

murray looks crap on grass, as do most of the top ten

nadal is lucky, its easier to adapt to grass when it plays slow and everyone else doesnt really like it

agassis win was the best

goldijr
07-19-2010, 01:57 AM
I believe grass is not being enough developed. And I agree Federer is an "all courter" ! he adapts easily to all kinds of courts although nowadays he's not playings at the highest level.

CyBorg
07-19-2010, 03:40 AM
While I disagree with Brad you have to see where he's coming from. Brad got to 4 in the world with no particularly special talents other than a bit of court craft and hitting junkballs. Nowadays look at the players fighting for the top-5.

Ljubicic was #3.

Orka_n
07-19-2010, 01:38 PM
Ljubicic was #3.http://i45.tinypic.com/2q03xci.gif

Tenn1sAdd1ct
07-20-2010, 10:53 AM
"The #80 ranked player nowadays is better than the 15th player 15 years ago"

Wouldn't be so sure about men but might be true when it comes to WTA.

Nole fan
07-20-2010, 10:11 PM
I think he would be absolutely right if he meant the top 5 today who are much better than 15 years ago.

Orka_n
07-20-2010, 11:20 PM
I think he would be absolutely right if he meant the top 5 today who are much better than 15 years ago.Is SetSampras still posting here? If so, BRACE FOR IMPACT! :bolt:

Sunset of Age
07-21-2010, 04:06 AM
Is SetSampras still posting here? If so, BRACE FOR IMPACT! :bolt:

:spit: :haha:

Filo V.
07-21-2010, 05:02 AM
Is Andreas Beck better than Richard Krajicek? That's the 50 million dollar question. My answer is no.

Shirogane
07-21-2010, 08:31 AM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2q03xci.gif

:worship:

Audacity
07-21-2010, 11:32 AM
This Gilbert is on crack.

laurie-1
07-21-2010, 01:06 PM
I think he would be absolutely right if he meant the top 5 today who are much better than 15 years ago.

This chart lists the year end Top 5 of 1995. You have to pay attention to all of the colours on the graph

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/1995Top10Rank.GIF

The year end top 5 was:
1. Pete Sampras
2. Andre Agassi
3. Thomas Muster
4. Boris Becker
5. Michael Chang

I will leave it to you to decide if today's Top 5 is much better than the Top 5 of December 1995.

Also, that Top 20 also lists famous names such as Michael Stich, Kafelnikov, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Courier, Todd Martin and Sergei Brugera - 4 already Grand Slam winners at that stage.

MacTheKnife
07-21-2010, 06:42 PM
This Gilbert is on crack.

He still gets his stuff from agassi..


Seriously, only a fool would make a statement like that.

Ozone
07-23-2010, 09:01 PM
Gilbert is my hero

tennisfan856
07-23-2010, 09:02 PM
Andrey Golubev (82) could take care of a lot of top 20 players this week.

Gilbert's right

Everko
09-09-2010, 03:34 PM
I don't know who Gilbert is, but he seems to know tennis pretty well based on his quotes from these threads. This is true the game is better today

straitup
09-09-2010, 03:35 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2q03xci.gif

I love that :lol:

LaFuria
09-09-2010, 03:36 PM
I don't know who Gilbert is, but he seems to know tennis pretty well based on his quotes from these threads. This is true the game is better today

Considering you probably weren't even alive before Nadal started playing, I don't think you are the best judge of this.

Everko
09-09-2010, 03:38 PM
Considering you probably weren't even alive before Nadal started playing, I don't think you are the best judge of this.

what:confused:. I am in twenties

Spain07
09-09-2010, 04:35 PM
Russell (80th) better than Medvedev :haha:

bjurra
09-09-2010, 05:22 PM
I don't know who Gilbert is, but he seems to know tennis pretty well based on his quotes from these threads. This is true the game is better today

Of course the game is better today, that doesnt mean the quote makes sense.

Bye, troll.

tennishero
09-09-2010, 05:27 PM
whoever disagrees with this, is in denial.

Haelfix
09-09-2010, 05:54 PM
I don't know about breaking the top 20, so I think he's exagerating. But i'd say the 80th ranked player nowdays is better than the 30 or 40th ranked player of the 90s.

Falla for instance strikes me as a guy who would give a lot of 90s stars all sorts of fits.

Also we're biased b/c we remember the 90s stars at their peaks. Rafter for instance, wasn't good at all in 95.

gbmkc
09-09-2010, 07:34 PM
Brad Gilbert is enjoying the sound of his own voice again. Ignore him.

Pirata.
09-09-2010, 09:38 PM
Brad Gilbert was ranked around 15th fifteen years ago :spit:

So he's basically saying that Michael Russell who is 80th right now, is a better player than he is :haha:

FormerRafaFan
09-09-2010, 09:57 PM
The commentators in the Youzhny/Wawa match commented on how high the level of tennis is today compared to just a few years ago, but I'm not so sure..

Osomec
09-09-2010, 11:09 PM
I should think that is about right. It is inherently unlikely that the larger talent pool, greater financial investment, and improved knowledge of sports science, coaching techniques etc. is not producing better players. It does in every sport where the results are statistically measurable and comparable across time, e.g. athletics and swimming, so why not in tennis? I am often taken aback by how low the standard of play is when I watch old sporting clips, whether it is 1970s international rugby featuring players with spindly legs and pot bellies, or 1930s tennis. Fred Perry would struggle in the junior girls tournament now.

People who argue that it was better in the good old days make at least three basic mistakes:

1) They confuse performance level with entertainment value.
2) They forget that the greats of the past only had to beat other players from their own era.
2) They compare the peak career achievements of big names from the past with the current performances of players who are often yet to peak. i.e. most of the players who were at or around 15 in the rankings fifteen years ago weren't at their career peak at that time, and anything they did when they were higher ranked should be discounted.

The argument that runs: "The players who were around in 19XX must have been better than the current lot because X of them won grand slams" is logically absurd. There are always four grand slams. The distribution of these grand slams is determined entirely by the relative strength of the top players of that era, not be their overall quality.

BodyServe
09-10-2010, 12:45 AM
What's next? Amateur players today are better than players ranked 200th 15 years ago?

Everko
09-10-2010, 04:31 PM
What's next? Amateur players today are better than players ranked 200th 15 years ago?

maybe

Roddickominator
09-10-2010, 07:39 PM
Everybody seems better because everybody can hit 100 mph forehands and pass off both wings due to improved string technology. If you tried that 15 years ago, only those with great technique and timing would be able to pull it off....which would level things out quite a bit. In response, a bunch of those players would have gone the serve-and-volley route(or actual skilled S&V players would have taken their place) and IMO the players overall would be looked at comparably in terms of skill level.

allpro
09-10-2010, 07:42 PM
yes bg can get caught up in hyperbole, but for the most part he provides excellent insights and adds some much needed humor to the telecasts.