I feel privelaged to be able to be a tennis fan in this day and age [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

I feel privelaged to be able to be a tennis fan in this day and age

Pages : [1] 2

federersforehand
02-06-2010, 04:48 AM
Too many times have i seen on this forum that this is a weak era, far too many times. I feel the EXACT opposite. This is an era of true legends of tennis that transcend the sport. Roger Federer has put on some of the most domineering, graceful and insane tennis ever created over the last 6 years, and Nadal, the king of clay, the man who has lost once in 5 years at RG has challenged him all the way. These 2 alone make me go :eek: 10x more than any other player that i have ever seen. Every single game Federer plays in there are some UNREAL shots that noone has ever been able to do, and Rafas insane passing shots with their incredible spin, have earned their place amongst the greatest shots in history.

These 2 have dominated tennis like no other 2 have ever done for so long, their legendary level of skill may take tennis 20-30 years to produce players of even slightly lesser quality. These are amongst the GOAT, and they have played in the same era. nadals clay dominance is unparalleled, and rogers dominance is beyond insanity, the man is a tennis god!

So i ask, why all the hate for the current state of tennis? I myself am in awe when federer is at his best, noone will probably play like this ever again, and equally nadal, when at his best is a sight to behold. I love the state of tennis as it stands, and i believe more people should too.

I think people at the moment are spoilt, and in 10 years or so, will realise this was the era of TRUE tennis giants, Roger and Rafa.

Allez! Vamos!

SetSampras
02-06-2010, 04:49 AM
Too many times have i seen on this forum that this is a weak era, far too many times. I feel the EXACT opposite. This is an era of true legends of tennis that transcend the sport. Roger Federer has put on some of the most domineering, graceful and insane tennis ever created over the last 6 years, and Nadal, the king of clay, the man who has lost once in 5 years at RG has challenged him all the way. These 2 alone make me go :eek: 10x more than any other player that i have ever seen. Every single game Federer plays in there are some UNREAL shots that noone has ever been able to do, and Rafas insane passing shots with their incredible spin, have earned their place amongst the greatest shots in history.

These 2 have dominated tennis like no other 2 have ever done for so long, their legendary level of skill may take tennis 20-30 years to produce players of even slightly lesser quality. These are amongst the GOAT, and they have played in the same era. nadals clay dominance is unparalleled, and rogers dominance is beyond insanity, the man is a tennis god!

So i ask, why all the hate for the current state of tennis? I myself am in awe when federer is at his best, noone will probably play like this ever again, and equally nadal, when at his best is a sight to behold. I love the state of tennis as it stands, and i believe more people should too. He had a run on top for only a few months

I think people at the moment are spoilt, and in 10 years or so, will realise this was the era of TRUE tennis giants, Roger and Rafa.

Allez! Vamos!



Other than Roger or Nadal.. Where are these legends you speak of? Nadal hasnt dominated anything outside of clay. BTW. He cant even maintain his health for an entire season.. hasnt in years.


And its kind of a crossroad.. Have Roger or Nadal dominated together as such that they have been too good? Or just the field haven't been able to reach that next level? Thats a tough question to answer. I think its a little of both personally

federersforehand
02-06-2010, 04:51 AM
they are so dominant, that other players cannot possibly have got more than 1 or 2 slams, its mathematics.

abraxas21
02-06-2010, 04:53 AM
It's an awesome era, imo.

But the haters and the nostalgiatards will keep hatin'...

Kolya
02-06-2010, 04:57 AM
Couldn't control when I was born...

chowdahead25
02-06-2010, 05:15 AM
I agree. Tennis has usually been just a couple 2 or 3 real dominant players. Now we have that and then a very deep field. I mean Cilic was 14 seed in the Aussie Open. A lot of people are saying he will win many majors in his career. And the man who won YEC's and took out the man with 16 majors twice be4 the AO was seeded 6th and a favorite to win it. Tsonga was even seeded 10th. Incredibly deep field but it will keep taking hits from mtfers because we are raw and greedy:fiery:

oranges
02-06-2010, 05:28 AM
Yawn, so if it's not a mug era, it must be incredible and unprecedented. There's nothing in between I suppose. If you want incredible accompanied by depth, try late 80s early 90s.

Time for lessthanjake to chip in. He loves both the discussion and the black-white picture "if it doesn't suck, it must be the best ever"

Speed of Light
02-06-2010, 06:20 AM
I wonder why the OP got a sudden hard on for tennis and decided to tell everyone about it
This is probably the worst era for tennis since it started being played on this planet
If it were not for Nadal and perhaps a couple of others who keep this sport alive it would have been a free rule for major clown-in-chief Frauderer and his choking mug companions to jump merrily over the coffin of tennis.

FairWeatherFan
02-06-2010, 06:40 AM
Too many times have i seen on this forum that this is a weak era, far too many times. I feel the EXACT opposite. This is an era of true legends of tennis that transcend the sport. Roger Federer has put on some of the most domineering, graceful and insane tennis ever created over the last 6 years, and Nadal, the king of clay, the man who has lost once in 5 years at RG has challenged him all the way. These 2 alone make me go 10x more than any other player that i have ever seen. Every single game Federer plays in there are some UNREAL shots that noone has ever been able to do, and Rafas insane passing shots with their incredible spin, have earned their place amongst the greatest shots in history.

These 2 have dominated tennis like no other 2 have ever done for so long, their legendary level of skill may take tennis 20-30 years to produce players of even slightly lesser quality. These are amongst the GOAT, and they have played in the same era. nadals clay dominance is unparalleled, and rogers dominance is beyond insanity, the man is a tennis god!

So i ask, why all the hate for the current state of tennis? I myself am in awe when federer is at his best, noone will probably play like this ever again, and equally nadal, when at his best is a sight to behold. I love the state of tennis as it stands, and i believe more people should too.

I think people at the moment are spoilt, and in 10 years or so, will realise this was the era of TRUE tennis giants, Roger and Rafa.

Allez! Vamos!

Obviously you started watching tennis yesterday...

Fact is, no variety in the sport anymore. All the surfaces are increasingly the same and there is a stylistic convergence in the way players are approaching the game. There are few true claycourters anymore and serve-volley grasscourt specialists are entirely extinct. Nowadays, it is possible for players like Fed, Djokovic and Nadal to reach the semis of all grand slams playing the same way because it's not necessary for them to adjust their styles of play. Witness how Lendl had to change his game to have a shot at Wimbledon and how Nadal did it. In the 1990s, Federer would not have won the French and Nadal would not have won Wimbledon. Their achievements in these wins are not on par with Borg in winning both and not even on par with Agassi.

If you are a fan of the hardcourt baseline style of tennis, I can understand why you like this era. But if you like other styles? There is still enjoyable tennis being played, but a much smaller window than the past.

Roamed
02-06-2010, 08:07 AM
I love the modern game :worship: People can go on about how it's a mug era but what they say doesn't stop me from enjoying it :)

Ilovetheblues_86
02-06-2010, 08:21 AM
Now we have a cosmic ATP website for the great Gods of tennis, where Federer controls the air and Nadal the sea, but some people just miss the titans.

Sometimes the fun is mixing different ants without a queen and king ruling them.

federersforehand
02-06-2010, 10:12 AM
this thread has more sour grapes than a bottle of vinegar, enjoy sucking your lemons! ill just go watch fed and nadal next tourney and be once more amazed at their skills, provided rafa is fit and ready to go :)

JediFed
02-06-2010, 10:16 AM
Their achievements in these wins are not on par with Borg in winning both and not even on par with Agassi.


Who did Agassi have to beat that was hogging all the RG titles?

He lost to Costa, for pete's sake. Nadal is the second best claycourter of all time, behind only Borg. I daresay Agassi in this era wouldn't even sniff at an RG final.

rocketassist
02-06-2010, 10:19 AM
Who did Agassi have to beat that was hogging all the RG titles?

He lost to Costa, for pete's sake. Nadal is the second best claycourter of all time, behind only Borg. I daresay Agassi in this era wouldn't even sniff at an RG final.

I think Agassi would like this clay period cause most of the top guys play hardcourt tennis like he did, it was when he came up against natural surface guys who knew what to do like Coria, Gomez, Courier, Costa, he was sent packing, and Medvedev choked when he should have done the same.

He wouldn't beat Nadal though.

JediFed
02-06-2010, 10:23 AM
He was defeated by:

Wilander, Courier, Courier, Courier, Gomez, Muster, Kafelnikov.

He finally managed to win, by defeating Moya. Only claycourter of any note.

Would he beat Federer? Nadal? Even JCF beat him.

TennisOnWood
02-06-2010, 10:33 AM
I like to watch Fed and specially Nadal but I think there is nothing to compare with legends from 80es

Orka_n
02-06-2010, 12:51 PM
Too many times have i seen on this forum that this is a weak era, far too many times. I feel the EXACT opposite. This is an era of true legends of tennis that transcend the sport. Roger Federer has put on some of the most domineering, graceful and insane tennis ever created over the last 6 years, and Nadal, the king of clay, the man who has lost once in 5 years at RG has challenged him all the way. These 2 alone make me go :eek: 10x more than any other player that i have ever seen. Every single game Federer plays in there are some UNREAL shots that noone has ever been able to do, and Rafas insane passing shots with their incredible spin, have earned their place amongst the greatest shots in history.

These 2 have dominated tennis like no other 2 have ever done for so long, their legendary level of skill may take tennis 20-30 years to produce players of even slightly lesser quality. These are amongst the GOAT, and they have played in the same era. nadals clay dominance is unparalleled, and rogers dominance is beyond insanity, the man is a tennis god!

So i ask, why all the hate for the current state of tennis? I myself am in awe when federer is at his best, noone will probably play like this ever again, and equally nadal, when at his best is a sight to behold. I love the state of tennis as it stands, and i believe more people should too.

I think people at the moment are spoilt, and in 10 years or so, will realise this was the era of TRUE tennis giants, Roger and Rafa.First off, this isn't a great era just because we have 2 good players. Secondly, as FairWeatherFan said, there's no variety anymore and that makes it boring to watch sometimes. Thirdly, Nadal may have an awesome topspin and Federer is an extremely talented all around player, but no one in todays game can volley like McEnroe or Edberg for example. There's a difference between enjoying today's tennis (which I also do) and completely disregarding the legends of old. Be honest now, how long have you really been watching tennis? "Nadal's clay dominance is unparalleled?" Yeah, Borg was a real mug compared to Rafa, no?

tennisace
02-06-2010, 01:00 PM
I saw Vilas, Lendl, Borg, Agassi in RG ,30 years ago, I can tell you it was better tennis than today, less predictable and boring

Commander Data
02-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Too many times have i seen on this forum that this is a weak era, far too many times. I feel the EXACT opposite. This is an era of true legends of tennis that transcend the sport. Roger Federer has put on some of the most domineering, graceful and insane tennis ever created over the last 6 years, and Nadal, the king of clay, the man who has lost once in 5 years at RG has challenged him all the way. These 2 alone make me go :eek: 10x more than any other player that i have ever seen. Every single game Federer plays in there are some UNREAL shots that noone has ever been able to do, and Rafas insane passing shots with their incredible spin, have earned their place amongst the greatest shots in history.

These 2 have dominated tennis like no other 2 have ever done for so long, their legendary level of skill may take tennis 20-30 years to produce players of even slightly lesser quality. These are amongst the GOAT, and they have played in the same era. nadals clay dominance is unparalleled, and rogers dominance is beyond insanity, the man is a tennis god!

So i ask, why all the hate for the current state of tennis? I myself am in awe when federer is at his best, noone will probably play like this ever again, and equally nadal, when at his best is a sight to behold. I love the state of tennis as it stands, and i believe more people should too.

I think people at the moment are spoilt, and in 10 years or so, will realise this was the era of TRUE tennis giants, Roger and Rafa.

Allez! Vamos!

True words. People are way to spoiled. Only many years later will the true awesomness of this era be acknowledged. Like Mozart or Picasso, a genius is never truely appreciated when it is still around....

oranges
02-06-2010, 04:44 PM
this thread has more sour grapes than a bottle of vinegar, enjoy sucking your lemons! ill just go watch fed and nadal next tourney and be once more amazed at their skills, provided rafa is fit and ready to go :)

I assume you're referring to your own OP, because it's as whiny as it gets. Not everyone glorifies the only era you know, what a tragedy. How dare they? :mad: There's never been anything like it, a two man era is the best anyone could ever wish for.

rocketassist
02-06-2010, 05:21 PM
Why do Fed fanboys always bag the other players for being one dimensional grinders/pushers/moonballers and then suck their cocks to defend the era?

Ilovetheblues_86
02-06-2010, 05:34 PM
this thread has more sour grapes than a bottle of vinegar, enjoy sucking your lemons! ill just go watch fed and nadal next tourney and be once more amazed at their skills, provided rafa is fit and ready to go :)

The lack of skill is more fun, as the silence inside an music.

Dougie
02-06-2010, 06:16 PM
True words. People are way to spoiled. Only many years later will the true awesomness of this era be acknowledged. Like Mozart or Picasso, a genius is never truely appreciated when it is still around....

I don´t think anyone is questioning the quality of Federer and Nadal, but there isn´t really any contrast of styles that would make it much more interesting. Imagine Edberg or Rafter playing againts Agassi or Courier. That kind of thing just doesn´t exist anymore.

thrust
02-06-2010, 06:20 PM
Why do Fed fanboys always bag the other players for being one dimensional grinders/pushers/moonballers and then suck their cocks to defend the era?

LOL! I probably would not put it quite that way, but I certainly agree with what you imply. The Fed fanatics will say just about anything to make him the GOAT. Roger is an all time great, not the GOAT. Too close to call.

Dini
02-06-2010, 06:45 PM
John Newcombe's opinion:

What is the worst thing about the game today?

There’s next to no variety because modern rackets make it possible to hit the hell out of ground strokes, which means coming to the net can be suicidal. Learning the game with wooden rackets taught you guile and improvisation. I like Justine Henin, who still has that beautiful one-handed backhand, and Andy Murray, who can come up with the unexpected.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6999639.ece

I think the beauty of sport is it's variety - every phase has it's style. Whilst I love watching serve and volley, I also like watching long rallies and tactics from the baseline. I very much look forward to seeing what the next generation can bring, I just hope and pray it won't be dominated by guys of Del Potro's height.

I don't like the way Murray plays, but in the future I might miss the tactical part of the game in the midst of 200cm + ball bashing guys dominating and hitting the cover of the ball at every opportunity. Racquet technology as Newcombe mentions in the interview has a lot to do with how the game's changed. But that shouldn't eliminate brain. :p I'll remain hopeful.

barbadosan
02-06-2010, 06:50 PM
I've watched since the mid-60's, and I wouldn't have foregone seeing this era's tennis for anything. Different but just as enjoyable. But then again, I've tried never to begin sentences with "in my day...." Those are the words on the sign at the head of the street called Stagnation.

Har-Tru
02-06-2010, 06:59 PM
Lucky you.

Har-Tru
02-06-2010, 07:00 PM
John Newcombe's opinion:



I think the beauty of sport is it's variety - every phase has it's style. Whilst I love watching serve and volley, I also like watching long rallies and tactics from the baseline. I very much look forward to seeing what the next generation can bring, I just hope and pray it won't be dominated by guys of Del Potro's height.

I don't like the way Murray plays, but in the future I might miss the tactical part of the game in the midst of 200cm + ball bashing guys dominating and hitting the cover of the ball at every opportunity. Racquet technology as Newcombe mentions in the interview has a lot to do with how the game's changed. But that shouldn't eliminate brain. :p I'll remain hopeful.

Hear, hear! Especially the bolded bit.

Miss Molly
02-06-2010, 07:01 PM
I agree with the OP, this is a great time to be a tennis fan. I've been following it since 1978 and the level I'm watching now and over the past 2-3 years has been the best, IMO.

DrJules
02-06-2010, 07:03 PM
John Newcombe's opinion:



I think the beauty of sport is it's variety - every phase has it's style. Whilst I love watching serve and volley, I also like watching long rallies and tactics from the baseline. I very much look forward to seeing what the next generation can bring, I just hope and pray it won't be dominated by guys of Del Potro's height.

I don't like the way Murray plays, but in the future I might miss the tactical part of the game in the midst of 200cm + ball bashing guys dominating and hitting the cover of the ball at every opportunity. Racquet technology as Newcombe mentions in the interview has a lot to do with how the game's changed. But that shouldn't eliminate brain. :p I'll remain hopeful.

Murray will probably be the biggest obstacle to the giants for the next 5 years.

R.Federer
02-06-2010, 07:24 PM
Murray will probably be the biggest obstacle to the giants for the next 5 years.

It's not like Murray's some midget. He is 6 foot 3. Del Potro is 6 foot 6. It's the same difference as Murray versus say Ferrero.

DrJules
02-06-2010, 07:50 PM
It's not like Murray's some midget. He is 6 foot 3. Del Potro is 6 foot 6. It's the same difference as Murray versus say Ferrero.

Cilic and Del Potro are the shorter end of the giants. Isner and Karlovic are at the taller end.

Shirogane
02-06-2010, 09:10 PM
Even JCF beat him.Clearly out of line. Until the end of 2003, he was a terrific player (on hardcourts too).

Mateya
02-06-2010, 10:12 PM
This era is good, we have two "one of a kind" players (Fedal) who are writing history (well, at least Federror does) and a lot of newcomers like always.
I just hope we don't get too many powerful onedimensional players (like DelPotro or maybe Cilic) in the future, it wouldn't be good for the game no matter how good they are. Because baseline ballbashing = WTA = horror. :unsure: We need variety, right?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-06-2010, 10:46 PM
I agree with the Federer being GOAT argument purely on his 23 SFs streak

however, i can't agree that nadal has challenged him

nadal has played to his one weakness and only then has he dominated him on his weakest and mugboar (nadal's) strongest surface

the federer BH was always a great shot, however, the modern string technology has made it possible for extreme topspin to highlight the problem of the 1 hander

michellej
02-06-2010, 11:49 PM
The best thing about watching tennis in this time frame is that we can actually watch any match or player we want LIVE on TV, the internet, by attending a tournament, recording it, buying a DVD, on youtube, etc etc.

Just think of all the great players of previous eras that no one ever got to watch. Even we got to watch only what ESPN showed us only a few years ago,

We are VERY lucky. Complaining about lack of tennis coverage is ridiculous.

bokehlicious
02-07-2010, 08:23 AM
Why do Fed fanboys always bag the other players for being one dimensional grinders/pushers/moonballers and then suck their cocks to defend the era?

Because of lack of variety in today's surfaces... But don't get it wrong, they're incredibly good in their one-dimensionalness. Fed is just that good that he can afford to vary more despite being damn hard to do on the surfaces today.

SetSampras
02-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Because of lack of variety in today's surfaces... But don't get it wrong, they're incredibly good in their one-dimensionalness. Fed is just that good that he can afford to vary more despite being damn hard to do on the surfaces today.

Its a bit hypocritical that they do it. Bottom line.. Its done because Federer's competition (especially threats at the top) have to look like the all greatest, most talented group that have ever graced the tennis courts. Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko,Safin, Nalbandian, Murray, and Djokovic all have to look like a million bucks when eras or compared. IF they arent... Fed's competition doesnt stand the test of time those they think his titles will. The mid to late 80s from what I have seen had the most legitimate threats. Followed by the early 90s. But again... You are better getting knowlesdge from people who have actually followed the game BEFORE the 00's.



If you were to interchange most of Fed's contemporaries and stick them in any other era would any of them had a hands down greater career? Would Roddick of been some machine in the 80s and 90s and grabbed a bunch of Wimbeldons or USO? Highly Highly unlikely. Would Nalbandian or Safin of been 5-10 time slam winners?

Shirogane
02-07-2010, 03:45 PM
But don't get it wrong, they're incredibly good in their one-dimensionalness.
It's true for del Potro (well since last year), though it remains to be seen if he can sustain that level.

federersforehand
02-08-2010, 07:28 AM
the fact of the matter is federer would be dominant in any era. huge serve, the greatest forehand ever hands down and an infinite array of shots. This is feds record since wimbledon 03

W 4R W 3R W W SF SF (W W W F W W W F W W) SF F F W F W W F W - INSANITY. easily a record worthy of the GOAT. the bracketed part is a streak that i feel will never be beaten while tennis is in its current structure (128 slam draws)

this allows for no one bar maybe one or two players to even get a slam. The weak era arguement is null and void when someone is so good that he dominates so much for so long like above. The simple and pure fact is Federer would absolutely dominate any era with his unsurpassable game. All the other GOAT candidates agree.

any era that federer plays in is the strongest of the open era. fact.

bokehlicious
02-08-2010, 07:32 AM
Would Roddick of been some machine in the 80s and 90s and grabbed a bunch of Wimbeldons or USO? Highly Highly unlikely. Would Nalbandian or Safin of been 5-10 time slam winners?

Roddick is basically a Sampras with a better serve :shrug: :o as for Nalbi/Safin both of them are more talented than anyone from the 90s... All of them got overshaddowed by the GOAT but would have had their fair share of success had they play in another era...

BlueSwan
02-08-2010, 08:01 AM
I've been watching tennis since around 1983-84 and I agree with the OP. I think the overall quality of tennis has never been higher than it is now and I believe that Federer is far and away the best and most talented player who has ever played the game - it's not even close.

However, I do think the criticism that players are too samey and that the difference between surfaces is too small, is very valid. I think we'd do tennis a big favour by slowing down clay and speeding up grass again. Having said that, I wouldn't want Wimbledon to return to serving contests the way it was in the 90's. Anyone praising the 90's really should try watching a few 90's Wimbledon matches again - it was barely even watchable. But they arguably went overboard in slowing it down.

I diagree with whoever said that Federer wouldn't have won RG in the 90's. I think he would have won several. There's only one reason why he has only won 1 RG and that reason is Rafael Nadal. Federer won Hamburg - the slowest of the major clay tournaments - 4 times. He has consistently dominated all traditional clay courters apart from Nadal. One dimensional 90's clay courters like Corretja, Costa, Bruguera, Muster, etc. wouldn't have anything to hurt Federer with except for their consistency.

Serenidad
02-08-2010, 08:17 AM
Federer would absolutely dominate any era with his unsurpassable game. All the other GOAT candidates agree.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Fredelusional.

FairWeatherFan
02-08-2010, 10:37 AM
I diagree with whoever said that Federer wouldn't have won RG in the 90's. I think he would have won several. There's only one reason why he has only won 1 RG and that reason is Rafael Nadal. Federer won Hamburg - the slowest of the major clay tournaments - 4 times. He has consistently dominated all traditional clay courters apart from Nadal. One dimensional 90's clay courters like Corretja, Costa, Bruguera, Muster, etc. wouldn't have anything to hurt Federer with except for their consistency.

Corretja, Costa, Bruguera, Muster et al are all far better claycourt players than anything in the game currently. They all moved better on the surface than Federer, and Federer has clear weaknesses on clay, most notably the backhand, which these guys would be able to exploit. Muster Federer could beat most times if he was inclined to rush the net, the others it's even money at best.

stebs
02-08-2010, 11:00 AM
Corretja, Costa, Bruguera, Muster et al are all far better claycourt players than anything in the game currently. They all moved better on the surface than Federer

Whilst you may have an argument and I'm not going to go into it, this is possibly the worst argument you could've suggested. If there is one thing Federer never has to be worried about it's movement. Totally natural mover on all surfaces, agile, quick, his movement was always a positive thing during his peak years and one of the elements of his game that made him impossible to hit off court on any surface (including clay). In fact, he was impossible to hit off court in a way that any of the players you mentioned were not on any given day so...

stebs
02-08-2010, 11:07 AM
My own opinion is that right now we have a disappointing lack of variety in the game. However, the quality present in the type of play we do have is very high.

I also firmly believe that over time variety is very likely to peak and trough and that we are in a trough right now doesn't imply that things will not change. IMO this is a simplified version of things:

1 - A style, X, dominates
2 - Players introduce variety and play with a new style, Y which focuses on X's weaknesses, to challenge domination
3 - A period of variety takes place
4 - A style, Y, is dominant again
5 - A new style is introduced by new players which focuses on Y's weaknesses, this is style Z
6 - A period of variety takes place
7 - A style, Z, is dominant again

etc...

Right now we have a period of domination by a certain style which is being legitimised by surface homogenisation (although this process is actually vastly over emphasised by some posters on these boards). However, this domination of style won't last even with total homogenisation because the types of players we are seeing come out on top of these ball striking battles have a distinct form. They are mostly tall, they mostly have two handed backhands etc... These player models, whilst vague, still have distinct weaknesses. Variety in many forms can trouble that player model and someone with the variety and a high skill level will at some point exemplify how these players can be beaten (right now Federer is the only one consistently capable of it). With the example set, more players follow it during development in order to adapt to the top of the game. Following on, different styles are prevelant as the forerunners of the first dominant style try to hold on to that domination. This period should be filled with more variety until, probably, after a while, one of the new styles will become quite dominant. This process is evident in many games and sports and tennis is probably no different.

FairWeatherFan
02-08-2010, 12:12 PM
Whilst you may have an argument and I'm not going to go into it, this is possibly the worst argument you could've suggested. If there is one thing Federer never has to be worried about it's movement. Totally natural mover on all surfaces, agile, quick, his movement was always a positive thing during his peak years and one of the elements of his game that made him impossible to hit off court on any surface (including clay). In fact, he was impossible to hit off court in a way that any of the players you mentioned were not on any given day so...

come now, federer is a good mover on clay but is not up there with the best. one of the reasons why nadal can bully federer around on clay is that he moves so much better on the surface than federer and is hitting constantly with an open stance...federer is always losing space on the baseline versus nadal.

rg 2004 against kuerten is a salient example of fed's weaknesses in movement on clay.

Orka_n
02-08-2010, 01:52 PM
Roddick is basically a Sampras with a better serve :shrug: :o as for Nalbi/Safin both of them are more talented than anyone from the 90s... All of them got overshaddowed by the GOAT but would have had their fair share of success had they play in another era...lol. Why do everyone on MTF who is a fan of a big player have to be delusional?

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 03:40 PM
My own opinion is that right now we have a disappointing lack of variety in the game. However, the quality present in the type of play we do have is very high.

I also firmly believe that over time variety is very likely to peak and trough and that we are in a trough right now doesn't imply that things will not change. IMO this is a simplified version of things:

1 - A style, X, dominates
2 - Players introduce variety and play with a new style, Y which focuses on X's weaknesses, to challenge domination
3 - A period of variety takes place
4 - A style, Y, is dominant again
5 - A new style is introduced by new players which focuses on Y's weaknesses, this is style Z
6 - A period of variety takes place
7 - A style, Z, is dominant again

etc...

Right now we have a period of domination by a certain style which is being legitimised by surface homogenisation (although this process is actually vastly over emphasised by some posters on these boards). However, this domination of style won't last even with total homogenisation because the types of players we are seeing come out on top of these ball striking battles have a distinct form. They are mostly tall, they mostly have two handed backhands etc... These player models, whilst vague, still have distinct weaknesses. Variety in many forms can trouble that player model and someone with the variety and a high skill level will at some point exemplify how these players can be beaten (right now Federer is the only one consistently capable of it). With the example set, more players follow it during development in order to adapt to the top of the game. Following on, different styles are prevelant as the forerunners of the first dominant style try to hold on to that domination. This period should be filled with more variety until, probably, after a while, one of the new styles will become quite dominant. This process is evident in many games and sports and tennis is probably no different.



I find the fact that there is this faulty bullcrappo myth floating around today which states that "Today's players have no weaknesses". You put a racket in most player's hands today and tell them that they can only go out and serve-volley and we will see how much "weakness" they show. Mental Toughness and closing out matches.. Another reoccurring problem which happens alot in today's game. Look no further than Davydenko at the Australian vs. Federer. Roddick at Wimbeldon. The list goes on of player's inabilities to close out sets and matches.


Oh someone like Murray has no weaknesses for instance. Not to pick on him but.. with today's racket technology why is it Murray has the 2nd serve of a Highschooler? Why does his aggressiveness lack? Why is it every time Djoker is on the court you need a resperator and a dialysis machine and he cant reach a slam final yet when he was 19-20 years old he could?


So this whole bullshit about player having NO WEAKNESSES today is just that.. Bullshit

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:20 PM
What about Sampras? he couldn't walk properly on clay

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 04:26 PM
What about Sampras? he couldn't walk properly on clay

Rome champion and RG semifinalist coming through a tough draw bar Draper but the poker man was too good.

Sampras was not shit on clay, period.

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:29 PM
Rome champion and RG semifinalist coming through a tough draw bar Draper but the poker man was too good.

Sampras was not shit on clay, period.

one time RG semifinalist and Rome winner and a career of FO misfires does not mean he was good.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:29 PM
Rome champion and RG semifinalist coming through a tough draw bar Draper but the poker man was too good.

Sampras was not shit on clay, period.

1995 Davis Cup destroying the Russians on the slowest clay imaginable as well

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:30 PM
one time RG semifinalist and Rome winner and a career of FO misfires does not mean he was good.

No it means he was shitty... I mean ANYONE could win a Rome Title, Davis Cup Singlehandidly in 95 and reaches a semis beating Bruguera, Courier en route in 96 and a few RG QF's.. Wow... get a clue.

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 04:31 PM
one time RG semifinalist and Rome winner and a career of FO misfires does not mean he was good.

It doesn't mean he was shit either. Certainly no Roddick, but also no Courier.

He's about as good as Hewitt is.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Sampras was just below Courier and Bruguera status. He DID beat Brugera and Courier in 96 back to back at the French. Putting Sampras on Hewitt level is a bit harsh. Hewitt never won Rome, had the success at RG, nor won the Davis Cup on clay that I remember.


Hell most guys today cant even accomplish what Sampras did on clay

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Sampras was nothing but talentless mug who would have won zero GS had he had to play in this era, which happens to be 100 times tougher then the muggy nineties.

Sorry for that, I needed to get it off my chest. hey, it's not like i truly believe it.

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:33 PM
No it means he was shitty... I mean ANYONE could win a Rome Title, Davis Cup Singlehandidly in 95 and reaches a semis beating Bruguera, Courier en route in 96 and a few RG QF's.. Wow... get a clue.

Compared to what? A normal tennis player? Then yes that it very good. But compared to others that are in the Greatest ever category than no it is not good.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:36 PM
Compared to what? A normal tennis player? Then yes that it very good. But compared to others that are in the Greatest ever category than no it is not good.


I cant say the same thing about other GOAT candidates not stacking up to Sampras on grass. You put a peak Sampras with any other GOAT candidate and most likely Sampras beats every one of them rather easily. He makes Borg, Laver and Roger look average as well. In fact, you put a 99 Wimbeldon final Sampras out there with any GOAT candidate and he makes every single one look stupid and helpless

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 04:37 PM
the funny thing is that 15-20 years from now on, people will be saying how the past decade was so much better then the current tennis.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:39 PM
the funny thing is that 15-20 years from now on, people will be saying how the past decade was so much better then the current tennis.

80s and early 90s were the most difficult conditions and the best talent pool IMO

Orka_n
02-08-2010, 04:39 PM
I cant say the same thing about other GOAT candidates not stacking up to Sampras on grass. You put a peak Sampras with any other GOAT candidate and most likely Sampras beats every one of them rather easily. He makes Borg, Laver and Roger look average as well.Dude, take a step back. :haha:

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 04:40 PM
Sampras was just below Courier and Bruguera status. He DID beat Brugera and Courier in 96 back to back at the French. Putting Sampras on Hewitt level is a bit harsh. Hewitt never won Rome, had the success at RG, nor won the Davis Cup on clay that I remember.


Hell most guys today cant even accomplish what Sampras did on clay

I liked Pete, but you can't put him up there with Courier and Bruguera, no chance- 2 RGs and consistent clay results all around from both.

Hewitt and Sampras were both not natural clay court players, both preferred grass, but both achieved good results despite their obvious weaknesses due to fighting spirit and commitment.

Also as you say, Pete beat the Russians away on super-slow clay, but Hewitt went to Brazil and straight-setted Guga. He also did win the Davis Cup on clay, when the Aussies won in France (albeit Scud was the man of the tie)

Hewitt never got past QF and would always lose to a naturally better clay courter just like Sampras would battle his way through and eventually lose to someone too good on the day.

That's why I'd put them on the same level. Courier and Bruguera are all time top 10 on clay, Pete is miles away from this level I'm afraid.

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 04:40 PM
You put a peak Sampras with any other GOAT candidate and most likely Sampras beats every one of them rather easily. He makes Borg, Laver and Roger look average as well.

you know, there are times in which you make yourself sound rational and i wonder whether MTF should listen to you more instead of making fun of what you say... But then I read posts like the one quoted above and I just take a deep breath...

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:41 PM
Dude, take a step back. :haha:



You want to dispute 99 Wimbeldon final Sampras.. I'll put him up against any Player in history imaginable and Sampras wins in no more than 4 sets

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:43 PM
I liked Pete, but you can't put him up there with Courier and Bruguera, no chance- 2 RGs and consistent clay results all around from both.

Hewitt and Sampras were both not natural clay court players, both preferred grass, but both achieved good results despite their obvious weaknesses due to fighting spirit and commitment.

Also as you say, Pete beat the Russians away on super-slow clay, but Hewitt went to Brazil and straight-setted Guga.

Hewitt never got past QF and would always lose to a naturally better clay courter just like Sampras would battle his way through and eventually lose to someone too good on the day.

That's why I'd put them on the same level. Courier and Bruguera are all time top 10 on clay, Pete is miles away from this level I'm afraid.




The thing is Sampras conquered both Courier and Bruguera back to back. I know neither were at their peak but Bruguera wasnt finished on clay either. He went to the finals of the French the following year. Guga was a great clay court player but he was also a headcase at times. Im not saying Sampras was at their level. But beating both back to back at the French was impressive nonethleless. Who are Hewitt's biggest conquests at the French?

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:43 PM
You want to dispute 99 Wimbeldon final Sampras.. I'll put him up against any Player in history imaginable and Sampras wins in no more than 4 sets

I know he would beat Federer

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:45 PM
The thing is Sampras conquered both Courier and Bruguera back to back. I know neither were at their peak but Bruguera wasnt finished on clay either. He went to the finals of the French the following year. Guga was a great clay court player but he was also a headcase at times. Im not saying Sampras was at their level. But beating both back to back at the French was impressive nonethleless. Who are Hewitt's biggest conquests at the French?

You mention 1996 RG, but don't write the last chapter of the story. Chapter6: Kafelnikov

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 04:45 PM
I know he would beat Federer

expected comment from everko :)

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:48 PM
You mention 1996 RG, but don't write the last chapter of the story. Chapter6: Kafelnikov



May have been a different outcome if he would have put both Bruguera and Courier away when he had the chance instead of extending it to 5 sets. He had nothing left in the tank. Thalassemia Minor was affecting him there yet he never once used it as excuse of course. But I do since its a legit medical problem which affects the stamina of a person. He did beat Yevgeny at the Davis Cup in 95 so he could get it done

king_roger
02-08-2010, 04:50 PM
You want to dispute 99 Wimbeldon final Sampras.. I'll put him up against any Player in history imaginable and Sampras wins in no more than 4 sets

How about AO 2007 Fed, or UO 2004 Fed, or W 2005 Fed???

Nah, forget it, the W 2001 Fed would be enough....

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:52 PM
How about AO 2007 Fed, or UO 2004 Fed, or W 2005 Fed???

Nah, forget it, the W 2001 Fed would be enough....



30 year old 01 Wimbledon Sampras was not 99 Wimbledon final Sampras in the zone. No 07 AO Fed could not get it done.. No Fed could get it done against sampras in the zone on grass. Sampras was zoning it that day and make Agassi look like a goof because of his authority on court. No player could get into a rhythm when Sampras was playing like that. If he blitzed you from the start you were finished

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 04:52 PM
The thing is Sampras conquered both Courier and Bruguera back to back. I know neither were at their peak but Bruguera wasnt finished on clay either. He went to the finals of the French the following year. Guga was a great clay court player but he was also a headcase at times. Im not saying Sampras was at their level. But beating both back to back at the French was impressive nonethleless. Who are Hewitt's biggest conquests at the French?

I'm not saying Hewitt is better than Sampras on clay, I'm saying they're at a similar sort of level- both were not natural on the surface, both had clear weaknesses that top dirtballers could expose, but both maximised their potential to get good results and of course both scored memorable DC victories away from home.

If you wanted to talk about beating RG champions past their peak, Hewitt beat Gaudio in 2007 when he was well past his, and also defeated the finalist of 2003 Verkerk a year later.

He was overall consistent but just not good enough on the surface to contend for the big one- just like Pete wasn't.

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:53 PM
How about AO 2007 Fed, or UO 2004 Fed, or W 2005 Fed???

Nah, forget it, the W 2001 Fed would be enough....

RG 2008 Nadal would own any of those.

Orka_n
02-08-2010, 04:54 PM
I know he would beat FedererYou also know FEDERER WILL FALL. :lol:
Seriously, if that guy actually lost the #1 spot at the terribly young age of 28... What a pathetic fall it would be. He only won 16 slams... :worship:

Also, I won't argue with SetSampras. That is a cause lost forever.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 04:56 PM
I'm not saying Hewitt is better than Sampras on clay, I'm saying they're at a similar sort of level- both were not natural on the surface, both had clear weaknesses that top dirtballers could expose, but both maximised their potential to get good results and of course both scored memorable DC victories away from home.

If you wanted to talk about beating RG champions past their peak, Hewitt beat Gaudio in 2007 when he was well past his, and also defeated the finalist of 2003 Verkerk a year later.

He was overall consistent but just not good enough on the surface to contend for the big one- just like Pete wasn't.

Had Sampras been a born a few years later and brought his 92-94 and 96 form to the early 00s when mugs were winning the French Open and all the clay court greats had all gone but extinct the French would be there for him to win.. When you guys like Gaudio and Costa winning the French? I mean come on. Tennis clay court competition was close to trash by then the exception of Guga. It still isnt that strong. The 90s was the last era left when there were legit clay court specialist threats littered in the field capable of beating anyone. Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc.

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 04:58 PM
I cant say the same thing about other GOAT candidates not stacking up to Sampras on grass. You put a peak Sampras with any other GOAT candidate and most likely Sampras beats every one of them rather easily. He makes Borg, Laver and Roger look average as well. In fact, you put a 99 Wimbeldon final Sampras out there with any GOAT candidate and he makes every single one look stupid and helpless

in clay or plexicushion/rebound ace? current Wimbledon grass?
No way Jose :lol:
Maybe in DecoTurf or fast indoor surface

Had Sampras been a born a few years later and brought his 92-94 and 96 form to the early 00s when mugs were winning the French Open and all the clay court greats had all gone but extinct the French would be there for him to win.. When you guys like Gaudio and Costa winning the French? I mean come on. Tennis clay court competition was close to trash by then the exception of Guga. It still isnt that strong. The 90s was the last era left when there were legit clay court specialist threats littered in the field capable of beating anyone. Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc.

But his illness wouldn't have allowed him to win 7 straight matches on clay :sad:
that's what stopped him there, right?

Right now Sampras is about the same category Nole is in clay: they both won Rome, got to the SF of RG...

king_roger
02-08-2010, 04:58 PM
RG 2008 Nadal would own any of those.

I had no doubt you would write something like that... I guess we'll never know, 'cause Nadal got crushed by Gonzo in AO 07.

Everko
02-08-2010, 04:59 PM
I had no doubt you would write something like that... I guess we'll never know, 'cause Nadal got crushed by Gonzo in AO 07.

we do know. 6-1 6-3 6-0 and AO 2009

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 05:00 PM
Had Sampras been a born a few years later and brought his 92-94 and 96 form to the early 00s when mugs were winning the French Open and all the clay court greats had all gone but extinct the French would be there for him to win.. When you guys like Gaudio and Costa winning the French? I mean come on. Tennis clay court competition was close to trash by then the exception of Guga. It still isnt that strong. The 90s was the last era left when there were legit clay court specialist threats littered in the field capable of beating anyone. Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc.

The clay court competition went to trash I'd say after 2005.

Agassi won RG but he definitely had the rub of the green with the draw opening up just like Federer did. Costa is a better player on clay than him.

Medvedev was good, but he's not as good as Corretja, Costa, Coria, Ferrero and the rest of the strong clay generation of 2000-04.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:00 PM
in clay or plexicushion rebound ace? current Wimbledon grass?
No way Jose :lol:
Maybe in DecoTurf or fast indoor surface



I dunno.. Sampras won Rebound Ace twice. I would put Sampras of 94 and 97 on Rebound Ace up against anyone at the Australian as well. I wouldnt put him as a sure thing to win though In terms of night match played at the USO on decoturf I would put Sampras up against anyone as well. Sampras never lost a night match at the USO

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 05:03 PM
I dunno.. Sampras won Rebound Ace twice. I would put Sampras of 94 and 97 on Rebound Ace up against anyone at the Australian as well. I wouldnt put him as a sure thing to win though In terms of night match played at the USO on decoturf I would put Sampras up against anyone as well. Sampras never lost a night match at the USO

DecoTurf yes and I said it before in the post above, after all the serve is what kept him up there and it works very very well in that surface

Rebound Ace vs the 2007 version of Roger? ;) I have my doubts about it :p

Of course it's nothing but speculation, after all the only official match they played was in Wimbledon when it was still somewhat fast :shrug:

king_roger
02-08-2010, 05:04 PM
30 year old 01 Wimbledon Sampras was not 99 Wimbledon final Sampras in the zone. No 07 AO Fed could not get it done.. No Fed could get it done against sampras in the zone on grass. Sampras was zoning it that day and make Agassi look like a goof because of his authority on court. No player could get into a rhythm when Sampras was playing like that. If he blitzed you from the start you were finished

First, Pete was 29 then. Second, it seems that you forget how good Fed is in neutralizing big servers (Roddick, Karlovic) on grass. And no way Pete could outhit him from the baseline.

But, again, this is pointless, 'cause obviously they didn't meet during their prime, and with all those surface changing you can't tell for sure.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:04 PM
Indoor carpeting, the only player Ive seen that was probably better than Sampras was Boris Becker at his peak.

Har-Tru
02-08-2010, 05:04 PM
Wow this SetSampras gives a whole new meaning to the word "biased". :lol:

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:05 PM
DecoTurf yes and I said it before in the post above, after all the serve is what kept him up there and it works very very well in that surface

Rebound Ace vs the 2007 version of Roger? ;) I have my doubts about it :p

Of course it's nothing but speculation, after all the only official match they played was in Wimbledon when it was still somewhat fast :shrug:

Roger was as close to unstoppable as he was going to get at the AO in 07.. But again who knows.. He was looking great the AO in 2005 until Safin put an end to that. He made Roddick look lousy at the AO 07.. But beating Roddick isnt the same as overcoming a peak Safin or peak Sampras or Agassi at the AO

king_roger
02-08-2010, 05:07 PM
we do know. 6-1 6-3 6-0 and AO 2009

As i recall, Fed made around 50 UE in RG 2008 final. You add 30something winners from Nadal, and you get scoreline like that. Fact is, Fed was awful, and Nadal was superb. Something like USOpen 2009 semifinal :p

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 05:08 PM
all this talk about who would win in this surface or the other is purely speculation so i'll mention a fact just for a change:

A teenage Roger Federer snapped 29 year old Sampras' 31 match winning streak on his favourite GS which was played on his favourite surface, the old fast grass of Wimby.

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 05:12 PM
Roger was as close to unstoppable as he was going to get at the AO in 07.. But again who knows.. He was looking great the AO in 2005 until Safin put an end to that. He made Roddick look lousy at the AO 07.. But beating Roddick isnt the same as overcoming a peak Safin or peak Sampras or Agassi at the AO

exactly, you can't know if Player A at his peak would beat Player B at his peak if they never faced each other like that ;)

Everko
02-08-2010, 05:14 PM
As i recall, Fed made around 50 UE in RG 2008 final. You add 30something winners from Nadal, and you get scoreline like that. Fact is, Fed was awful, and Nadal was superb. Something like USOpen 2009 semifinal :p

If Bjorn Phau hit tons of winners and Federer makes a bunch of errors in R1 of AO 2007, Phau wins

Orka_n
02-08-2010, 05:20 PM
If Bjorn Phau hit tons of winners and Federer makes a bunch of errors in R1 of AO 2007, Phau winsNow that is some splendid logic.

Might I only inquire about your point..?

king_roger
02-08-2010, 05:27 PM
If Bjorn Phau hit tons of winners and Federer makes a bunch of errors in R1 of AO 2007, Phau wins

Of course, that's tennis. But the thing is that Phau is not a player that can hit a bunch of winners at important points. And Nadal is.
For example, in RG 2007 final, Fed had 17 bp chances, and converted ONLY one! And still, it was a tight 4-setter. It just didn't happen for him that day. Nadal saved some of them with great plays, but most were missed by Fed.
And another thing. First, i agree that Nadal is better than Fed on clay. But i noticed that some of you Nadal fans just fail to see in some Fed-Nadal matches that Fed is playing poorly,and only because of their matchup. But on the other hand, when Nadal gets crushed by his bad matchups (Djoko, Delpo, Cilic, Nalby etc) he was injured/tired/unlucky etc.

DrJules
02-08-2010, 05:35 PM
Indoor carpeting, the only player Ive seen that was probably better than Sampras was Boris Becker at his peak.

Ivan Lendl.

Apemant
02-08-2010, 05:35 PM
As i recall, Fed made around 50 UE in RG 2008 final. You add 30something winners from Nadal, and you get scoreline like that. Fact is, Fed was awful, and Nadal was superb. Something like USOpen 2009 semifinal :p

Errr no. Nadal played quite good there, 2-2-2 is only the consequence of Del Potro playing awesome AND clutch.

Rogi in that 'famous' final was beyond pathetic, he didn't have even 1% self-belief, rushed the net like an amateur, and looked beaten from 15-love, first game. (And, as others noted, Nadal played unbelievably).

Ouragan
02-08-2010, 05:37 PM
Im' not sure this era is THAT great. If so, why can't anyone beat Federer? Maybe he is so dominant not because he's so good but because the field is not top notch.

It's simpy too early to tell if the current top 10 or top 5 is awesome. Let's wait 5 years and count how many slams Murray, Djoker and DP will have won.

DrJules
02-08-2010, 05:38 PM
Wow this SetSampras gives a whole new meaning to the word "biased". :lol:

It is rather funny.

When the whole issue is reviewed in many years time by tennis writers Federer will be considered greater than Sampras because he won 16 to 14 grand slams and won the French Open while Sampras was unable to win in Paris. That will be the prevalent view among "tennis experts" and journalists not the SetSampras view I believe although I could be wrong. Time will tell.

DrJules
02-08-2010, 05:45 PM
My own opinion is that right now we have a disappointing lack of variety in the game. However, the quality present in the type of play we do have is very high.

I also firmly believe that over time variety is very likely to peak and trough and that we are in a trough right now doesn't imply that things will not change. IMO this is a simplified version of things:

1 - A style, X, dominates
2 - Players introduce variety and play with a new style, Y which focuses on X's weaknesses, to challenge domination
3 - A period of variety takes place
4 - A style, Y, is dominant again
5 - A new style is introduced by new players which focuses on Y's weaknesses, this is style Z
6 - A period of variety takes place
7 - A style, Z, is dominant again

etc...

Right now we have a period of domination by a certain style which is being legitimised by surface homogenisation (although this process is actually vastly over emphasised by some posters on these boards). However, this domination of style won't last even with total homogenisation because the types of players we are seeing come out on top of these ball striking battles have a distinct form. They are mostly tall, they mostly have two handed backhands etc... These player models, whilst vague, still have distinct weaknesses. Variety in many forms can trouble that player model and someone with the variety and a high skill level will at some point exemplify how these players can be beaten (right now Federer is the only one consistently capable of it). With the example set, more players follow it during development in order to adapt to the top of the game. Following on, different styles are prevelant as the forerunners of the first dominant style try to hold on to that domination. This period should be filled with more variety until, probably, after a while, one of the new styles will become quite dominant. This process is evident in many games and sports and tennis is probably no different.

come now, federer is a good mover on clay but is not up there with the best. one of the reasons why nadal can bully federer around on clay is that he moves so much better on the surface than federer and is hitting constantly with an open stance...federer is always losing space on the baseline versus nadal.

rg 2004 against kuerten is a salient example of fed's weaknesses in movement on clay.

This point illustrates that there is still significant surface difference and how you play owing to movement on various surfaces and the bounce reliability.

Federer does not move as well on a clay court compared to a hard court and also because the bounce is less reliable on a clay court is unable to take the ball as early as he can on a hard court. It is the movement and ability to take the early ball that enables Federer to play inside the baseline on a hard court and take the time away from Djokovic and Murray among others significantly reducing their hitting options.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:45 PM
Im' not sure this era is THAT great. If so, why can't anyone beat Federer? Maybe he is so dominant not because he's so good but because the field is not top notch.

It's simpy too early to tell if the current top 10 or top 5 is awesome. Let's wait 5 years and count how many slams Murray, Djoker and DP will have won.



Federer was very difficult to beat around 04-06. He definitely a attained level that it would have taken someone special to overtake him. But these days I do find Federer beatable and obviously Nadal has proven that NO ONE including Federer is unbeatable. Nadal looked at Federer as an opponent and wanted to overtake him. He didnt look at Federer and say he should just be happy to be on the court with him. Its a mindset and an attitude that Nadal had that the rest of the field didnt. To me... I think Federer should have already have been overtaken if the field is as great as people think it is. The "new blood" so to speak like Djoker, Murray, and Del Potro should be sitting much better than they currently are. Djoker and Murray definitely moreso. Yet they are still miles behind the 8 ball and I dont really see a changing of the guard yet. Until Djoker and Murray go out there and PROVE themselves. I thought by now Djoker would already have a handful of slams to his name, many finals appearance and be the new dog on the block. Del Potro may be the next big thing and I guess I was wrong about Djoker. Del Potro can be the next dominant force, that is if he can stay healthy for longer than a month

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:47 PM
It is rather funny.

When the whole issue is reviewed in many years time by tennis writers Federer will be considered greater than Sampras because he won 16 to 14 grand slams and won the French Open while Sampras was unable to win in Paris. That will be the prevalent view among "tennis experts" and journalists not the SetSampras view I believe although I could be wrong. Time will tell.

Different era, different times. I never sampras had the greatest career.. Though I still think he was the best due to his dictation and authority on court.

king_roger
02-08-2010, 05:52 PM
Errr no. Nadal played quite good there, 2-2-2 is only the consequence of Del Potro playing awesome AND clutch.

Rogi in that 'famous' final was beyond pathetic, he didn't have even 1% self-belief, rushed the net like an amateur, and looked beaten from 15-love, first game. (And, as others noted, Nadal played unbelievably).

Yes, i know. The thing is Nadal will more often than not get spanked on the hard courts by some tall right-hander with 2H backhand, or by Davy :D . And Fed can be crushed only by Nadal in full flight, and only if he plays awful. Otherwise it will be close. The sad thing is that Fed never actually played great (both mentally and tacticly) against Nadal in RG. He started great in 2006 final, but then just fell apart in the 2nd set and couldn't get back.

marcRD
02-08-2010, 05:57 PM
I thought this new generation was something really special, but then I started to see results which indicates the players born 86-88 are not that much better than the ones born between 81-83. I mean Djokovic lost in straight sets in Wimbledon to Haas and Safin, he lost to Roddick many times including in grand slams. Murray lost to Verdasco and to the good matchup Roddick in Wimbledon, Del Potro lost in straight sets to Hewitt in Wimbledon and lost in straight sets to Davydenko in the master cup, Davydenko can still beat anyone of the new generation when his game is on and fitNalby used to really destroy them on indoor season, Roddick is prob 50/50 when he faces any of the new generation in grand slams (except Nadal).

The old generation seems to have serious mental scars of having been dominated by Federer in their prime and beeing stolen so many big tournaments and achievments, but they are certanly capable of outplaying this new generation (I would say except Nadal).

Nadal may be the only truly exceptional player of this generation. Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro may not be as afraid of Federer as the old generation but they certanly are not that much better than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko and so on.

I am also starting to see indications that Djokovic and Murray are really beeing figured out by Federer, he just seems very confident playing these 2. He has dominated Djokovic 9-1 in sets in 3 straight matches in USOPEN and Murray has been humiliated twice in grand slam finals against Federer.

rocketassist
02-08-2010, 06:01 PM
I thought this new generation was something really special, but then I started to see results which indicates the players born 86-88 are not that much better than the ones born between 81-83. I mean Djokovic lost in straight sets in Wimbledon to Haas and Safin, he lost to Roddick many times including in grand slams. Murray lost to Verdasco and to the good matchup Roddick in Wimbledon, Del Potro lost in straight sets to Hewitt in Wimbledon and lost in straight sets to Davydenko in the master cup, Davydenko can still beat anyone of the new generation when his game is on and fitNalby used to really destroy them on indoor season, Roddick is prob 50/50 when he faces any of the new generation in grand slams (except Nadal).

The old generation seems to have serious mental scars of having been dominated by Federer in their prime and beeing stolen so many big tournaments and achievments, but they are certanly capable of outplaying this new generation (I would say except Nadal).

Nadal may be the only truly exceptional player of this generation. Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro may not be as afraid of Federer as the old generation but they certanly are not that much better than Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Davydenko and so on.

Exactly, when people are knocking this era they're not doing it to slate Fed's dominance as he'd be world class at any era, but because a clay court athlete like Nadal can win Wimbledon and AO, while Del Potro, a WTA basher in a male body can win a slam too.

Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian came from Federer's generation and they all possess amazing variety like Roger although not as much of course. Out of Fed's four main rivals at the moment, only Murray has some form of variety in his game and even that hasn't won him a Slam title yet.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:02 PM
I thought this new generation was something really special, but then I started to see results which indicates the players born 86-88 are not that much better than the ones born between 81-83. I mean Djokovic lost in straight sets in Wimbledon to Haas and Safin, he lost to Roddick many times including in grand slams. Murray lost to Verdasco and to the good matchup Roddick in Wimbledon, Del Potro lost in straight sets to Hewitt in Wimbledon and lost in straight sets to Davydenko in the master cup, Davydenko can still beat anyone of the new generation when his game is on and fitNalby used to really destroy them on indoor season, Roddick is prob 50/50 when he faces any of the new generation in grand slams (except Nadal).

The old generation seems to have serious mental scars of having been dominated by Federer in their prime and beeing stolen so many big tournaments and achievments, but they are certanly capable of outplaying this new generation (I would say except Nadal).

Nadal may be the only truly exceptional player of this generation. Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro may not be as afraid of Federer as the old generation but they certanly are not that much better than Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Davydenko and so on.


I was actually on the Murray and Djoker bandwagon for a while and I always said they were superior versions and big faster stronger versions of say someone like a Hewitt and much better than Roddick etc. Then I see Djoker going out to Roddick at the AO last year. Murray going out to Roddick. Djoker going to freaking Tommy Shit Sampras era holdover Haas and Kohlcrapper and I think.. I guess I was wrong about the new kids on the block.

Some days I think the competition was better from 03-07 than it is now. We got guys with talent today but no balls and no champion type mentalities. Roddick for as lack of all around great he was has more balls than Djoker or Murray to at least give everything he has against Federer and takes him to the edge at Wimbeldon. Murray shows up in the finals twice and lays and egg and gets embarrassed off the court by Fed. Djoker hasnt done shit from shinola in 2 YEARS!!!

oranges
02-08-2010, 06:21 PM
SetSampras, is there a player who spanked Pete on occasion that you don't have rage issues about :haha:

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:26 PM
SetSampras, is there a player who spanked Pete on occasion that you don't have rage issues about :haha:

No one owns a big h2h advantage over Pete so I have no issues about anyone :devil:

oranges
02-08-2010, 06:43 PM
No one owns a big h2h advantage over Pete so I have no issues about anyone :devil:

Ah, so you it just comes naturally to disrespect players who've proved capable beating the best time and time again, thanks.

out_here_grindin
02-08-2010, 07:48 PM
I don't really care about eras and frivoulous debate about which is stronger. The fact is I enjoy watching the very best tennis players in the world RIGHT NOW compete.

Vida
02-08-2010, 08:03 PM
besides plenny of choking yes it is a nice era.

out_here_grindin
02-08-2010, 08:04 PM
besides plenny of choking yes it is a nice era.

as if this didn't exist in past eras.

marcRD
02-08-2010, 08:05 PM
No one owns a big h2h advantage over Pete so I have no issues about anyone :devil:

That is true, but I still dont think it looks good for Sampras how the matchup against Hewitt was going. I mean these guys faced each other only on grass and fast hardcourts and Hewitt was really dominating Sampras the last years until he retired (ok, Sampras was around 30 but Hewitt was just a teenager or barely above that). I know you like Sampras, but I cant see some youngster coming up in the 2011 USOPEN and defeat Federer 7-6 6-1 6-1, it is just not going to happen.

FairWeatherFan
02-09-2010, 12:08 AM
This point illustrates that there is still significant surface difference and how you play owing to movement on various surfaces and the bounce reliability.

Fair point, Roddick is still going to be a clown moving on clay and Del Potro on grass no matter how fast or slow the surfaces are. However, doesn't change the fact that the differences are far less pronounced than before.

federersforehand
02-09-2010, 12:55 AM
Sampras was a poor player compared to federer, a serve volley one dimensional player who got 14 slams over a period twice that it took fed to get 16, never got close to winning RG, was not as good as roger on grass, not as good as him on hardcourts, and posessed 1/10 of the lethal winners that roger can unleash. he was an all time player though. compared to roger at his peak he looks like an amateur , and i did watch tennis in the 90's. Three shot rallies arent my cup of tea.

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 12:59 AM
Sampras was a poor player compared to federer, a serve volley one dimensional player who got 14 slams over a period twice that it took fed to get 16, never got close to winning RG, was not as good as roger on grass, not as good as him on hardcourts, and posessed 1/10 of the lethal winners that roger can unleash. he was an all time player though. compared to roger at his peak he looks like an amateur though, and i did watch tennis in the 90's. Three shot rallies arent my cup of tea.

somebody had to say it. :worship:

Dini
02-09-2010, 01:05 AM
Sampras was a poor player compared to federer, a serve volley one dimensional player who got 14 slams over a period twice that it took fed to get 16, never got close to winning RG, was not as good as roger on grass, not as good as him on hardcourts, and posessed 1/10 of the lethal winners that roger can unleash. he was an all time player though. compared to roger at his peak he looks like an amateur , and i did watch tennis in the 90's. Three shot rallies arent my cup of tea.

From one extreme to another. :spit:

paseo
02-09-2010, 01:06 AM
Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc. Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc. Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc.Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc.

I keep hearing these names as the great claycourters of the 90's era. Okay, they were clay giants. And yes, Sampras beat a few of these clay giants in RG, and win Rome when these clay giants were around, and it's great. But now, in this era, maybe there's no clay giants anymore but we got a freaking Clay monster. And this clay GodZilla named Rafa Nadal will stomp all of the 90's giants at their primes. If it wasn't for the GOAT stealing a few MS titles and one GS, there would be a pure domination of clay court tennis that's never been heard of in tennis history!!

I bet Fed would love to compete against Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Muster etc., than against Nadal. On clay, Nadal is supreme. With his lefty super top spin forehand, lighting fast and balanced movement, unlimited stamina, and steel mentality, Nadal is a close as you get to a perfect clay court tennis player. So please, stop saying that this era's clay competition is easy. I would like Fed's chances of taking down several giants more than his chances of stopping the clay monster in RG.

Langers
02-09-2010, 01:42 AM
You're an idiot if you think this era is strong. This is a mug era.

NYMIKE
02-09-2010, 01:53 AM
You're an idiot if you think this era is strong. This is a mug era.
So what are you doing on a tennis forum?

luie
02-09-2010, 01:58 AM
You're an idiot if you think this era is strong. This is a mug era.
The king is "dead"
Long live the new king.:haha::haha::haha:

federersforehand
02-09-2010, 02:00 AM
Yeah, federer and nadal are real mugs, o wait, theyre amongst the greatest ever, federer being (by some margin now) THE greatest ever.

luie
02-09-2010, 02:03 AM
Yeah, federer and nadal are real mugs, o wait, theyre amongst the greatest ever, federer being (by some margin now) THE greatest ever.
Don't worry that poster is bitter because the only time fakervic beat the GOAT (at a GS) he had mono.:sad:

oranges
02-09-2010, 02:11 AM
Sampras was a poor player compared to federer, a serve volley one dimensional player who got 14 slams over a period twice that it took fed to get 16, never got close to winning RG, was not as good as roger on grass, not as good as him on hardcourts, and posessed 1/10 of the lethal winners that roger can unleash. he was an all time player though. compared to roger at his peak he looks like an amateur , and i did watch tennis in the 90's. Three shot rallies arent my cup of tea.

You're getting dangerously close to another legend of the boards with these insightful, knowledgeable and above all unbiased posts. Federersforehand, meet rafawonCYGS

I think because I watched Sampras and Agassi every year of their careers I've seen everything Federer has before I even saw Federer (plus several things Sampras and Agassi do that Federer can't), whereas THE RAFA is doing things Sampras and Agassi couldn't do :o

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 02:17 AM
Yeah, federer and nadal are real mugs, o wait, theyre amongst the greatest ever, federer being (by some margin now) THE greatest ever.

Don't worry that poster is bitter because the only time fakervic beat the GOAT (at a GS) he had mono.:sad:

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/attachments/burbuja-inmobiliaria/15784d1254739710-mover-dinero-facepalm2.jpg

you guys are no better than the most resilient nostalgiaTard or RafaTard or NoleTard in the board :o

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 02:22 AM
In all honesty, I agree that it's impossible to compare players of different eras with any objective parameters but to make discussions more entertaining i'll just resort to referring to the blokes of the past as mugs and then i'll conclude by saying that the likes of laver, sampras, borg, connors, lendl, mcenroe, etc, etc, would win at most 1 GS if they had to play against the mighty Federer in today's era.


It's really much more fun that way and let's be honest, this discussions are going to lead nowhere so I might as well join the flow and have a blast.

federersforehand
02-09-2010, 03:12 AM
agreed abraxas, im just gettin my own back too on the infinite amount of nostalgiatards that troll this site. retards every single one of em.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:40 AM
That is true, but I still dont think it looks good for Sampras how the matchup against Hewitt was going. I mean these guys faced each other only on grass and fast hardcourts and Hewitt was really dominating Sampras the last years until he retired (ok, Sampras was around 30 but Hewitt was just a teenager or barely above that). I know you like Sampras, but I cant see some youngster coming up in the 2011 USOPEN and defeat Federer 7-6 6-1 6-1, it is just not going to happen.

Did you forget the draw Sampras has at the 2001 USO? Fed could get bageled in 2011 final if he had to go through the draw 30 year old Pete did. Imagine playing Rafter, Agassi, and Safin all in a row and then have to deal with a prime Hewitt rolling on all cylinders in the finals. I doubt 2011 version would even get through Rafter, Agassi, Safin to be honest. He most likely would probably get haulted by 31 year old Andre who was playing ridiculous crazy good tennis at the time.

Has Fed EVER had to deal with playing 3 former USO champs all in a row at the USO? That would have been a tall order for any all time great passed prime or in prime.. Bottom line

Big difference going through Broken down crappy Wheelchair Hewitt, Davydenko, Tsonga, and slamless Murray.. Than it is to go through Agassi, Rafter, Prime Hewitt, and the defending champ Safin all in a row.. Big Big difference

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 05:17 AM
Did you forget the draw Sampras has at the 2001 USO? Fed could get bageled in 2011 final if he had to go through the draw 30 year old Pete did. Imagine playing Rafter, Agassi, and Safin all in a row and then have to deal with a prime Hewitt rolling on all cylinders in the finals. I doubt 2011 version would even get through Rafter, Agassi, Safin to be honest. He most likely would probably get haulted by 31 year old Andre who was playing ridiculous crazy good tennis at the time.

Has Fed EVER had to deal with playing 3 former USO champs all in a row at the USO? That would have been a tall order for any all time great passed prime or in prime.. Bottom line

Big difference going through Broken down crappy Wheelchair Hewitt, Davydenko, Tsonga, and slamless Murray.. Than it is to go through Agassi, Rafter, Prime Hewitt, and the defending champ Safin all in a row.. Big Big difference

Roger won five STRAIGHT US Open Championships (2004-2008)

2003 Champ - Duck = worthless according to you
2002 Champ - Sampras = retired
2001 Champ - Hewitt = not a top player nowadays
2000 Champ - Safin = retired now

What were you expecting? :scratch:

Older champions coming back to challenge him?

Roger did have a strong draw in his first USO:

QF = Agassi (who was still playing great tennis)
SF = Henman (who was not the best of match-ups for Roger)
F = Hewitt (who was still a top player)

From then on, every past champion was either retired or was past their prime

Though he had to face Hewitt/Agassi again in 2005 and Duck in 2006

Like I said before: you can't try to demean the accomplishments of a player just for the Era he was born, that is not something you can choose :shrug:

BlueSwan
02-09-2010, 06:34 AM
Regarding Sampras on clay, I think it's true to say that his weapons (serve, volley, forehand) and mental strengths were so formidable that he potentially could take anyone out on any surface, including the clay specialists of the 90s on their favourite surface. However, he needed to be at his best to do so and on his worst surface, clay, he had too many weaknesses to get more than the occasional good result (Rome, RG96, DC95). Sampras was never comfortable on clay and it is a testiment to his greatness that he got the results that he got.

Overall Federer is a far more complete player than Sampras (or anyone else) ever was and Sampras himself would be the first to admit it. Sampras has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't think that Federer would dominate him, had they played in the same era. Maybe he's right - Sampras was hard to beat on his best days and they would probably barely ever have met on clay where Roger would surely own him. However, there's little doubt that Federer would overall have done better than Sampras given his greater consistency across surfaces.

I wasn't a big fan of Sampras early on. I found him boring and have never enjoyed servefests. However, during the later stages of his career I became a fan. I enjoyed seeing him use his mental strengths to battle victories out after he playwise got past his prime. Ironically, I rooted for Sampras during his W2001 encounter with Federer, even though Federer went on to become my alltime favourite player.

marcRD
02-09-2010, 02:04 PM
Did you forget the draw Sampras has at the 2001 USO? Fed could get bageled in 2011 final if he had to go through the draw 30 year old Pete did. Imagine playing Rafter, Agassi, and Safin all in a row and then have to deal with a prime Hewitt rolling on all cylinders in the finals. I doubt 2011 version would even get through Rafter, Agassi, Safin to be honest. He most likely would probably get haulted by 31 year old Andre who was playing ridiculous crazy good tennis at the time.

Has Fed EVER had to deal with playing 3 former USO champs all in a row at the USO? That would have been a tall order for any all time great passed prime or in prime.. Bottom line

Big difference going through Broken down crappy Wheelchair Hewitt, Davydenko, Tsonga, and slamless Murray.. Than it is to go through Agassi, Rafter, Prime Hewitt, and the defending champ Safin all in a row.. Big Big difference

I cant agree with you, Rafter and Agassi was at his age and had previously been dominated by him over all their career. Safin was having a horrible hardcourt summer season, he lost in the 1st round in praticaly all matches in Cincy, Montreal, Los Angeles and so on, we know that Safin is a headcase and could at any time turn into another player. At the end of the day Sampras only lost one set going through Agassi, Rafter and Safin so there is no reason why it should weight in to the result in the GS final.

Federer would probably destroy any Hewitt today and in 3 years, I dont think there is any player on the planet that is so figured out by Federer as Hewitt is. Hewitt was still on his prime when he was double bagelled by Federer in the USOPEN final and bagelled 5 times during the year of 2004 by Roger. I dont really understand how you can think teen Hewitt would be able to produce bagels against Federer in a USOPEN final?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-09-2010, 02:27 PM
Sampras at his best was unstoppable on any fast surface

he could flatten out shots, apply topspin- his net game was excellent- his serve (particularly the second serve) the greatest weapon ever

his entire repertoire was designed to cause maximum damage and mentally destroy his opponent

he could get one break against you and you knew the set was over- that was a measure of his serve

second serve aces at 15-40 break point- bread and butter Sampras territory

on a fast surface- there is no one (federer included) who were guaranteed a win- Federer being Sampras's closest challenge on the fast hard court- i'd have to give the edge to Pistol- on his day he was not going to lose- he would only need one break against Federer (very possible with the fact that Roger sometimes zones out) and the set would be Pete's.

although the edge on a fast court would go to Pete it would not be certain as Roger is the epitome of excellence, and he excelled like no other

on anything that isn't super slick fast- Roger would destory Petros- and thats the plain faced truth, although its also just an opinion

Roger's game is perfect- literally perfect- even his "weak" backhand would be a strength to 90% of the ATP

his net game is excellent, his ability to ghost in at the right time for an easy volley put away is the greatest ghosting ability of all time- Edberg didn't ghost like Roger- Mac didn't ghost like Roger- they were superior at the net but even with their perfect net games they couldn't ghost in like Roger

his Forehand is already the stuff of legends

he generates 4500 RPM of what is essentially a flat power based shot

it defies classification- if roger's forehand was an army it would be America if the american army weren't incompetent jerks who shoot friendly fire on brits and television reporters

its not just aesthetically pleasing, (it is very aesthetically pleasing), its practical, its lethal, its a murder weapon shaped like a tennis racket

in video games there is something called a game breaking flaw- or sometimes a "broken" ability or character- it takes awat the fun from a game because the minute you acquire this game breaking feature the video game itself becomes a joke

Roger Federer's Forehand is a game breaker- it breaks tennis rules and laws because when its "hot" it is the single most potent weapon the tennis world has ever seen (or likely will see)

it has everything great about Pistols running FH, Agassi's solid FH, couriers ferocious FH- and yet it is superior to them all

a shot that trancends time itself- Nadal's poetent topspin forehand is a sign of the times and advancement of string technology

Federer's shot would be just as viable (if slightly less potent) with a wooden racquet

i could write pages and pages about every facet of Federer's beautiful game

his movement (borg like, graf like, but somehow all his own, and the greatest movement the world has ever seen)

his ability to get ahead and stay ahead (97% win record after he wins the first set)

his amazing serve which is technically perfect (as is everything else about his game) almost impossible to break down, perfect disguise, perfect.... it doesn't bite like Pete's but its probably just as destructive and probably slight more reliable... his second serve is a thing of beauty aswell

his shot selection (gorgeous, audacious shots that no one would dare try are common sight whenever Federer plays)

his amazing cross court backhand, his ability to flatten out or apply copious amounts of top spin on the backhand and have the ball land anywhere he wants at dizzying angles for fun
the slice backhand which lands deep- and when he wants- can cut like a samurai sword


the drop shot- years into his perfect game- the perfect player decided to add another shot to his arsenal- and he perfected a another shot- winning the french open because of his perfect drop shots

his first serve returns.... magnificent reactions- agassi would return with winners- but with agassi it was 50-50 (which is why Sampras could hit second serve aces past Agassi)- Federer's more conservative but his return is better for it- there is (bar Nadal) no one who can rally with Federer, so getting the ball back deep with a hint of slice is a perfect way to start a rally- his returns are probably superior to Agassi's they just dont look as flash

marcRD
02-09-2010, 02:54 PM
Another matchup that was troublesome for Sampras except Hewitt and Krajicek was Edberg who sadly couldnt stay at the top after 93, but he defeated Sampras in 2 straight hardcourt grand slams pretty easily between 92-93 (USOPEN 92, Australian open 93). It would have been fun to have Edberg around to compete some more years as Sampras went into his dominating years.

Apemant
02-09-2010, 03:16 PM
Federer's more conservative but his return is better for it- there is (bar Nadal) no one who can rally with Federer,

Nalbandian at his best can match Federer's best, so can Davy's best. (In rallies)

He beats them both by having a superior service game (serve + followup), even though he loses more than 50% of the rallies (when they all play near their best).

JediFed
02-09-2010, 03:28 PM
You're an idiot if you think this era is strong. This is a mug era.


The 'era' of Federer, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Gaudio won 23 slams. An average strength era would earn 20 slams over the course of 5 years. This is more slams than any other 'era' other than Sampras/Agassi's which won 33.

So while it's not a super strong era, it's certainly not the weak era, such as the one between Federer and Sampras.

Rafter's generation is the weakest in the open era of tennis.

marcRD
02-09-2010, 03:37 PM
Let me just put some statistics into perspective (for statistic fans only!) this whole h2h argument against Federer, since Federer turned 20 no player has dominated him in h2h on nonclay grand slams. Nadal and Nalbandian gets close with 2-2 h2h, other than that Federer is:

8-0 against Hewitt
8-0 against Roddick
4-1 against Safin
4-0 against Davydenko
3-1 against Haas
3-1 against Agassi
3-0 against Henman
4-1 against Djokovic
2-1 against Del Potro
2-0 against Murray

Just to mention a few, so when people say that Federer must turn around some h2h to really be called the greatest of his generation I dont get it, he really steps it up on the big stage and while he did get completely dominated by Nadal 2005-2008 on clay and lost 2 hardfought 5 set classics on slow grass and slow hardcourt, I really cant see how losing to Nadal in 4 straight RG finals (one semifinal) is better than Sampras 95-98 losing to Delgado, Norman, KAfelnikov and Gilbert Schaller. I mean if Sampras would get to 3 RG finals and lose them all against Guga Kuerten it would improve his career and not the opposite, right?

Sampras has some holes himself in his h2hs since 92, as I previously said he is 0-2 against Edberg on nonclay slams. I really dont hold it against him and it doesnt diminish his greatness, but it is a good reminder for those who say that Federer needs to turn his h2h against Nadal around to be called the greatest.

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 03:47 PM
^ Good work again. The whole H2H argument is beyond ridiculous. We all know Sampras had losing H2Hs against Krajicek, Stich, Enqvist, & others, but nobody imagines he is anything less than the greatest of his era, because his overall achievements were superior to theirs. People get distracted by the Fed-Nadal H2H because Nadal is clearly the 2nd greatest player of the era and has dominated a particular surface, but it's surely more forgivable to have a losing head-to-head against a bad match-up who is actually *good* & has played you more often than not on his best surface & your worst.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:20 PM
I cant agree with you, Rafter and Agassi was at his age and had previously been dominated by him over all their career. Safin was having a horrible hardcourt summer season, he lost in the 1st round in praticaly all matches in Cincy, Montreal, Los Angeles and so on, we know that Safin is a headcase and could at any time turn into another player. At the end of the day Sampras only lost one set going through Agassi, Rafter and Safin so there is no reason why it should weight in to the result in the GS final.

Federer would probably destroy any Hewitt today and in 3 years, I dont think there is any player on the planet that is so figured out by Federer as Hewitt is. Hewitt was still on his prime when he was double bagelled by Federer in the USOPEN final and bagelled 5 times during the year of 2004 by Roger. I dont really understand how you can think teen Hewitt would be able to produce bagels against Federer in a USOPEN final?

I will have to disagree.. Federer's level today I do not believe he would make it through that draw. I think someone would have gotten him. Maybe if he was at his peak he would get through. But it wouldnt be easy IMO. How much would he have left in the tank to deal with Hewitt? Safin even though he didnt have a great summer in 01, he was better than he was the last few seasons of his career. Rafter very could be problematic for Federer and Rafter was no joke at the USO. He does have two titles there. IT was his best surface even though he wasnt in his prime by that point. Agassi was playing EXTREMELY well that tournament. He had just straight setted Roger before he got to Sampras that year.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:25 PM
^ Good work again. The whole H2H argument is beyond ridiculous. We all know Sampras had losing H2Hs against Krajicek, Stich, Enqvist, & others, but nobody imagines he is anything less than the greatest of his era, because his overall achievements were superior to theirs. People get distracted by the Fed-Nadal H2H because Nadal is clearly the 2nd greatest player of the era and has dominated a particular surface, but it's surely more forgivable to have a losing head-to-head against a bad match-up who is actually *good* & has played you more often than not on his best surface & your worst.

Federer has losing records as well. Canas, Rafter, Corretja, Simon etc.. But again really who cares about these insignifcant h2hs. Sampras doesnt lose any credibility as a great for being 4-5 against Krajciek or 1-2 against Bruguera etc nor should Fed for being 0-2 against Simon etc. The one that matters and can present some blemishes to a GOAT resume is their h2h against their main rival. Sampras was 20-14 against Agassi and had the advantage over him at the USO and Wimbledon while Agassi presents the problem at the AO and RG. Federer is 2-5 or something in slam finals against Rafa and has lost at 3 of the 4 slam finals on 3 different surfaces to Rafa. Thats not good when you are classifying GOAT resumes. Its a blemish without a doubt. As is Sampras not winning the French. Nadal owning Federer in slam finals and a having a 13-7 advantage over him is a blemish as well

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:37 PM
Federer has losing records as well. Canas, Rafter, Corretja, Simon etc.. But again really who cares about these insignifcant h2hs. Sampras doesnt lose any credibility as a great for being 4-5 against Krajciek or 1-2 against Bruguera etc nor should Fed for being 0-2 against Simon etc. The one that matters and can present some blemishes to a GOAT resume is their h2h against their main rival. Sampras was 20-14 against Agassi and had the advantage over him at the USO and Wimbledon while Agassi presents the problem at the AO and RG. Federer is 2-5 or something in slam finals against Rafa and has lost at 3 of the 4 slam finals on 3 different surfaces to Rafa. Thats not good when you are classifying GOAT resumes. Its a blemish without a doubt. As is Sampras not winning the French. Nadal owning Federer in slam finals and a having a 13-7 advantage over him is a blemish as well

Yes, it's a minor blemish, but as has repeatedly been said, off clay Federer is 5-4 against Nadal & 2-2 in slams, despite the fact Nadal is a bad match-up for him. If Sampras had played Agassi every year at Melbourne & Roland Garros he might have had an overall losing record against him too. It's not Federer's fault he's consistent enough on his worst surface to contest multiple finals against one of the finest clay-court players of all time. Against that minor blemish, we have 16 slams & counting, 268 weeks at No. 1 & counting, career grand slam, ridiculous match-winning percentages, & numerous different streaks.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:38 PM
Yes, it's a minor blemish, but as has repeatedly been said, off clay Federer is 5-4 against Nadal & 2-2 in slams, despite the fact Nadal is a bad match-up for him. If Sampras had played Agassi every year at Melbourne & Roland Garros he might have had an overall losing record against him too. It's not Federer's fault he's consistent enough on his worst surface to contest multiple finals against one of the finest clay-court players of all time. Against that minor blemish, we have 16 slams & counting, 268 weeks at No. 1 & counting, career grand slam, ridiculous match-winning percentages, & numerous different streaks.

But we dont know how it would have played off from them had Nadal stayed healthy. The h2h possibly would have continued to look even more and more lopsided thus giving Nadal the advantage outside of clay as well. Federer never did solve the Nadal problem. Fate just happened to intervene to stop the bloodshed IMO

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:42 PM
Had Nadal of stayed healthy I dont believe Fed would be Number 1 currently. And still probably chasing Pete's record very likely. When Nadal went down during mid 2009, that gave Fed all the freedom and chances in the world to continue what he was doing. Nadal was owning the tennis world and at the peak of his powers

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:45 PM
But we dont know how it would have played off from them had Nadal stayed healthy. The h2h possibly would have continued to look even more and more lopsided thus giving Nadal the advantage outside of clay as well. Federer never did solve the Nadal problem. Fate just happened to intervene to stop the bloodshed IMO

Unfortunately a necessary condition of achieving greatness in sport is staying healthy enough to compete. Nadal began to gain a clear advantage over Federer only in 2008, when Federer was far from his best and in any case would have been expected to start declining, & Nadal was peaking. Agassi wasn't 5 years younger than Sampras.

The point is, EVEN IF the H2H had been 20-14 in Agassi's favour, with everything else the same (Sampras 14 slams to 8, many more weeks at No. 1), Sampras would STILL be far & away the greatest player of his era and one of the greatest of all time.

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:46 PM
Had Nadal of stayed healthy I dont believe Fed would be Number 1 currently. And still probably chasing Pete's record very likely. When Nadal went down during mid 2009, that gave Fed all the freedom and chances in the world to continue what he was doing. Nadal was owning the tennis world and at the peak of his powers

Had Krajicek been a better player, Pete probably wouldn't have the records he has. So what?

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Had Krajicek been a better player, Pete probably wouldn't have the records he has. So what?

Krajicek was never a consistent rival as Nadal has been to Federer. Whats the highest in the world Richard ever even made it? We can say the same thing about Nalbandian and Safin. They SHOULD HAVE provide the other two top consistent threats during Fed's dominant time period of 03-07 and grabbed some slams themselves. Yet where were they most of the time? They spent more time out of the top 10 then in it Nalbandian should have won his share of slams he never showed up for slams though. Both proved that they could take Roger's best and still beat him.

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Sampras had the luck of playing Agassi mostly in his own best surfaces, while Roger had the disadvantage of playing Rafa mostly on his :shrug:

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:55 PM
Krajicek was never a consistent rival as Nadal has been to Federer. Whats the highest in the world Richard ever even made it? We can say the same thing about Nalbandian and Safin. They SHOULD HAVE provide the other two top consistent threats during Fed's dominant time period of 03-07 and grabbed some slams themselves. Yet where were they most of the time? They spent more time out of the top 10 then in it Nalbandian should have won his share of slams he never showed up for slams though. Both proved that they could take Roger's best and still beat him.

Everything you say about those guys applies to Krajicek & Stich. So by your logic, Sampras benefitted from a weak era in which his most dangerous rivals never consistently stepped up to the plate.

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Sampras had the luck of playing Agassi mostly in his own best surfaces, while Roger had the disadvantage of playing Rafa mostly on his :shrug:

Good point well made.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Sampras had the luck of playing Agassi mostly in his own best surfaces, while Roger had the disadvantage of playing Rafa mostly on his :shrug:

Roger had the advantage of Nadal going down at the peak of his career where he had overtaken Roger was on top of the tennis world and Roger couldnt do anything about it. Nadal goes down with an injury and Federer gets free reign again. So again... Both had advantages. Roger gained the majority of his slams when Nadal was still learning his game outside of clay. During most of Roger's dominance Nadal was just great on clay and still learning on other surfaces. Sampras had the advantage of Agassi being MIA. Roger had his advantages and stroke of luck as well with Nadal. Lets not pretend he didnt

Orka_n
02-09-2010, 04:58 PM
Yes, it's a minor blemish, but as has repeatedly been said, off clay Federer is 5-4 against Nadal & 2-2 in slams, despite the fact Nadal is a bad match-up for him. If Sampras had played Agassi every year at Melbourne & Roland Garros he might have had an overall losing record against him too. It's not Federer's fault he's consistent enough on his worst surface to contest multiple finals against one of the finest clay-court players of all time. Against that minor blemish, we have 16 slams & counting, 268 weeks at No. 1 & counting, career grand slam, ridiculous match-winning percentages, & numerous different streaks.This is one of the most sensible and rational posts I have read on MTF. It sucks I can't rep you.
I only feel bad that SetSampras never will realize how much sense you are making, but keep rambling on about his What Ifs. Well, it's the only "argument" he has left now that Federer is removing all of Sampras' records.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:59 PM
Everything you say about those guys applies to Krajicek & Stich. So by your logic, Sampras benefitted from a weak era in which his most dangerous rivals never consistently stepped up to the plate.

Oh so you are labeling certain eras "weak" now as well. Accoring to the fedtards everything is "relative" when comparing strengths of eras:eek:

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:00 PM
I dont necessarily believe Sampras would go down to Agassi every year at Melbourne either.. But whatever... Agassi didnt even play Melbourne for the majority of his earlier career. They played twice. Agassi was too good once and then 2nd time Sampras had him yet he torn a rotator cuff. For those of you who actually watched the match would know Sampras had agassi before the injury occured

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 05:02 PM
Oh so you are labeling certain eras "weak" now as well. Accoring to the fedtards everything is "relative" when comparing strengths of eras:eek:

You're missing the all-important qualification: "by your logic".

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 05:02 PM
gosh no, Rafa = Sampras 2.0
the one whose fans always excuse his losses on injuries/illnesses :sad:

edit: is the tards the ones that do it, not the true fans ;)

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:03 PM
Your missing the all-important qualification: "by your logic".

well I dont believe everything is relative. There ARE certain eras which produce more top quality tennis players at the top than others. If we go by the "relative" theory.. then I guess the early 00s is every bit as strong as today, the 80s or the early 90s

Orka_n
02-09-2010, 05:09 PM
I dont necessarily believe Sampras would go down to Agassi every year at Melbourne either.. But whatever... Agassi didnt even play Melbourne for the majority of his earlier career. They played twice. Agassi was too good once and then 2nd time Sampras had him yet he torn a rotator cuff. For those of you who actually watched the match would know Sampras had agassi before the injury occuredYou and all the Nadaltards need to realize this: Injury or form or fragile mental state can NEVER excuse a loss because these things are all part of the sport. "Nadal would still be #1 if he never got injured" - Who knows. But more importantly: WHO CARES? What matters in this sport is RESULTS. The most pathetic kind of arguing is when you take things into account that can never be proven.

JackPumpkinHead
02-09-2010, 05:11 PM
Circular argument is circular. Fed wins all the time his competition looks weak, Fed loses more and everyone else looks better but his records take longer to achieve.



Take Fed out and the careers of Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, and Murray all look a lot better. People would be saying how great of an era this is.




Also, as far as Jmacs volleys. Pssh, no way he could hit those in the modern game. People hit with way more power and spin now. Go back and watch the old wooden racket matches. Its like watching tennis in slow mo.


Oh and please someone tell me how this http://auntiefashion.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/john-mcenroe.jpg body would be considered a world class athelete in todays sports.

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 05:12 PM
^ Indeed. Lew Hoad might have been the greatest. If his back hadn't packed up. Sadly it did, & he's no longer a factor in the GOAT discussion.

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 05:15 PM
But we dont know how it would have played off from them had Nadal stayed healthy. The h2h possibly would have continued to look even more and more lopsided thus giving Nadal the advantage outside of clay as well. Federer never did solve the Nadal problem. Fate just happened to intervene to stop the bloodshed IMO

ifs, let's assume, i reckon... what's the use?

you're also talking as if Nadal was done with tennis. Well, he isn't. I think there is a fair chance he might win RG again this year... There's of course also the chance that Federer might revert his h2h vs Nadal some time in the future.

marcRD
02-09-2010, 05:18 PM
I dont necessarily believe Sampras would go down to Agassi every year at Melbourne either.. But whatever... Agassi didnt even play Melbourne for the majority of his earlier career. They played twice. Agassi was too good once and then 2nd time Sampras had him yet he torn a rotator cuff. For those of you who actually watched the match would know Sampras had agassi before the injury occured

There is no doubt that Agassi was a better player in Australia than Sampras, he won there 4 times and it was one of his favorite tournaments. On other slow hardcourt tournaments like Indian Wells and Miami Agassi was a beast aswell and used to beat Sampras, he won 6 Miami and 3 Indian Wells which is very impressive. I also wonder if Agassi could have caused some serious trouble against Sampras if they had faced on the slow grass Federer is playing Nadal, even on fast grass Agassi did take Sampras to 5 sets in 1993.

Surely a great player like Sampras could on a good day beat Agassi or anyone else on slow hardcourt but he was never the favorite going against Agassi on slow hardcourt.

Castafiore
02-09-2010, 05:23 PM
the one whose fans always excuse his losses on injuries/illnesses :sad:
9/10 for your ability to make :retard: sweeping statements. :yeah:

:)

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:23 PM
There is no doubt that Agassi was a better player in Australia than Sampras, he won there 4 times and it was one of his favorite tournaments. On other slow hardcourt tournaments like Indian Wells and Miami Agassi was a beast aswell and used to beat Sampras, he won 6 Miami and 3 Indian Wells which is very impressive. I also wonder if Agassi could have caused some serious trouble against Sampras if they had faced on the slow grass Federer is playing Nadal, even on fast grass Agassi did take Sampras to 5 sets in 1993.

Surely a great player like Sampras could on a good day beat Agassi or anyone else on slow hardcourt but he was never the favorite going against Agassi on slow hardcourt.

Agassi's final two grabs of the AO in 2001 and 2003 were less than amazing. Look at who he played in the final Schuettler and Clement? Come on now... I agree Agassi was a better slow court player than Sampras. But I dont believe much can be said or taken from their two matches since they only played twice and the 2nd one Sampras had the match before he tore his rotator cuff. Anyone who watched their match in 2000 knows that Sampras' to take and Agassi got the luck going his way when Sampras got injured. If Sampras would have destroyed Sampras both times and a few other times then I would agree. But under the circumstances... its tough to draw a whole lot from it.


To be honest... they would have split their h2h at the AO had Sampras not of gotten injured. I know with the "what ifs". But it was evident for all who seen it. That was Sampras' match in 2000. Not to mention Agassi was at arguably the peak of his powers late 99-early 00's and Sampras wasnt at his still.

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 05:24 PM
9/10 for your ability to make :retard: sweeping statements. :yeah:

:)

coming from you, I take it as a compliment :)
don't try to offend me, you'll be losing your time ;)

Castafiore
02-09-2010, 05:26 PM
coming from you, I take it as a compliment :)
I aim to please. :)

Seriously, why do you keep making those sweeping statements about Nadal's fans? I'm used to it from people who don't claim to be his fans or those who even dislike him and it's even understandable coming from them given the MTF way of doing things but I find it odd coming from you because the illness/injury excuse is brought up more by his detractors than by his fans.

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 05:28 PM
I aim to please. :)

Seriously, why do you keep making those sweeping statements about Nadal's fans? I'm used to it from people who don't claim to be his fans or those who even dislike it but I find it odd coming from you because the illness/injury excuse is brought up more by his detractors than by his fans.

see the posts by Start da Game, RFK, mad world, theRAFA and other beautiful tards, according to them, Rafa always loses due to injury/illness/depression/getting his pet hamster killed...

but you're right, I should have written Tards instead of fans in my previous posts ;)

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 05:29 PM
But I dont believe much can be said or taken from their two matches since they only played twice and the 2nd one Sampras had the match before he tore his rotator cuff. Anyone who watched their match in 2000 knows that Sampras' to take and Agassi got the luck going his way when Sampras got injured.

Agassi was 4-2 against Sampras on slow hard courts - more impressive than Nadal's 1-2 on grass & 3-3 on hard against Federer, from which you extrapolate domination by the losing player. And in that Australian semi, Sampras had the stuffing knocked out of him when Agassi out-played him in the 4th-set tie-break. He knew he'd played about as well as he could and he still wasn't winning.

barbadosan
02-09-2010, 05:29 PM
"According to the ATP Rulebook, the tennis authority is neutral to H2H as it counts toward neither ranking points, nor award, nor a title, nor even as a tie breaker. If H2H proponents have employed this logic to break a tie between two players with equal number of Slams for historical purpose, that would probably not have been objectionable.

When ATP/ITF does not even consider using H2H stat as one of the ways to break a tie between two players’ rankings, Federer’s critics have been using this H2H statistics to question the best of the generation and/ or best of all times. In my opinion, Nadal has been made a pawn in this logic because their goal has been far from assessing Nadal’s place in the history of tennis; rather, the underlying target of the logic has been to defame and delegitimize Federer."

That opening paragraph from a Bleacher report, just about accurately sums up the situation and the attempt to impose a criterion that is not applied by the governing body.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:31 PM
Agassi was 4-2 against Sampras on slow hard courts - more impressive than Nadal's 1-2 on grass & 3-3 on hard against Federer, from which you extrapolate domination by the losing player. And in that Australian semi, Sampras had the stuffing knocked out of him when Agassi out-played him in the 4th-set tie-break. He knew he'd played about as well as he could and he still wasn't winning.

Why bring up Nadal here? Nadal was in his 4th grasscourt tournament EVER when he played Federer in the finals of the 2006 Wimbledon. A year later he took Fed to the edge in the finals, many argue he should have won but got injured.

I said Andre was a slightly better slower court player than Sampras but I am saying a whole lot cant be drawn from their AO matchups. The 1995 AO Agassi was just too good. The 2000 matchup Agassi was awesome, Sampras wasnt at his best and many feel Sampras should have won regardless but got injured.


Agassi hung on for a while longer and took advantage of the shit era that was the early 00s playing the tennis greats Scheuttler and Clement in the final so he could get his 4.

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 05:32 PM
"According to the ATP Rulebook, the tennis authority is neutral to H2H as it counts toward neither ranking points, nor award, nor a title, nor even as a tie breaker. If H2H proponents have employed this logic to break a tie between two players with equal number of Slams for historical purpose, that would probably not have been objectionable.

When ATP/ITF does not even consider using H2H stat as one of the ways to break a tie between two players’ rankings, Federer’s critics have been using this H2H statistics to question the best of the generation and/ or best of all times. In my opinion, Nadal has been made a pawn in this logic because their goal has been far from assessing Nadal’s place in the history of tennis; rather, the underlying target of the logic has been to defame and delegitimize Federer."

That opening paragraph from a Bleacher report, just about accurately sums up the situation and the attempt to impose a criterion that is not applied by the governing body.

I can't good rep you again but will do so as soon as possible

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 05:37 PM
Why bring up Nadal here?

Because there is a far better argument for supposing Agassi would have won a big majority of slow-hard-court matches against Sampras, had he played them, than there is for supposing Nadal would have won a big majority of non-clay matches against Federer had he stayed fit enough to compete - YET YOU HAVE MADE THE LATTER SUPPOSITION WHILE BEING UNABLE TO MAKE THE FORMER. But I understand if you're losing your way in the labyrinth of counter-factual speculation you have constructed as a hiding-place from the reality of Federer's surpassing of Sampras.

JackPumpkinHead
02-09-2010, 05:39 PM
The problem with the Fed/Nadal head to head is it doesnt take into account all the times they both entered the same tournament and Nadal didnt even make the final. Thats the real head to head because more often that Nadal, Federer did his part by getting to the final whilst Nadal failed and lost in an earlier round. Fed cannot be slighted for his lack of opportunities to face Nadal faster surfaces.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:40 PM
Because there is a far better argument for supposing Agassi would have won a big majority of slow-hard-court matches against Sampras, had he played them, than there is for supposing Nadal would have won a big majority of non-clay matches against Federer had he stayed fit enough to compete - YET YOU HAVE MADE THE LATTER SUPPOSITION WHILE BEING UNABLE TO MAKE THE FORMER. But I understand if you're losing your way in the labyrinth of counter-factual speculation you have constructed as a hiding-place from the reality of Federer's surpassing of Sampras.



I think there was a much better chance of Nadal continuing to lopside the h2h against Federer had he stayed healthy and continue his success against Federer outside of clay then there would be Agassi destroying Sampras time and time again at the Australian Open. As I said.. they only played two matches there. One went Agassi's way.. The other went Sampras' way until the injury occurred. Sampras also won two AO's and I would put Sampras in that form against Agassi at the Australian. Agassi was never as much of a matchup problem for Sampras as Nadal has been for Federer.


There is no proof anywhere that Federer was going to turn the corner on this Nadal issue unless someone can prove me wrong somewheres. I dont see the evidence for it. But I did see the evidence that Sampras could hang with Agassi at the AO. Many feel the 2000 AO was Andre in his best form ever.. It certainly wasnt Sampras' best

marcRD
02-09-2010, 05:42 PM
Agassi's final two grabs of the AO in 2001 and 2003 were less than amazing. Look at who he played in the final Schuettler and Clement? Come on now... I agree Agassi was a better slow court player than Sampras. But I dont believe much can be said or taken from their two matches since they only played twice and the 2nd one Sampras had the match before he tore his rotator cuff. Anyone who watched their match in 2000 knows that Sampras' to take and Agassi got the luck going his way when Sampras got injured. If Sampras would have destroyed Sampras both times and a few other times then I would agree. But under the circumstances... its tough to draw a whole lot from it.


To be honest... they would have split their h2h at the AO had Sampras not of gotten injured. I know with the "what ifs". But it was evident for all who seen it. That was Sampras' match in 2000. Not to mention Agassi was at arguably the peak of his powers late 99-early 00's and Sampras wasnt at his still.

Everybody had their weak draw in AO, Sampras had his in 97, Federer had his in 2006 and Agassi's draw in 2003 is one of the worst I have ever seen. What you must understand that not everybody can take advantage of weak draws, Sampras could lose to very avarage players on slow hardcourt, in 96 straight seted against Philippoussis, in 98 lost to Kucera and 2001 he lost to his own beating boy Todd Martin.

The what ifs just doesnt work, fitness is part of the game too and I dont think Sampras at 28 was capable of going through a 5 set match on hardcourt, something you have to if you are going to beat Agassi on slow hardcourts.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:50 PM
Everybody had their weak draw in AO, Sampras had his in 97, Federer had his in 2006 and Agassi's draw in 2003 is one of the worst I have ever seen. What you must understand that not everybody can take advantage of weak draws, Sampras could lose to very avarage players on slow hardcourt, in 96 straight seted against Philippoussis, in 98 lost to Kucera and 2001 he lost to his own beating boy Todd Martin.

The what ifs just doesnt work, fitness is part of the game too and I dont think Sampras at 28 was capable of going through a 5 set match on hardcourt, something you have to if you are going to beat Agassi on slow hardcourts.

1998 was a piss poor year for Sampras I agree outside of Wimbledon. I was watching in horror. I look at Sampras prime as 93-97. Everything thereafter was flashes of greatness but some low points through injuries, motivation etc. Yes Agassi took his little MIA session and came back guns a blazing but there never would have happen if he played the grind and led the tour for as long as Sampras did. So those final AO's kind of came convenient for Agassi in a way.

Sampras was hurt I believe for both the 1999 AO and USO

Orka_n
02-09-2010, 05:55 PM
There is no proof anywhere that Federer was going to turn the corner on this Nadal issue unless someone can prove me wrong somewheres.You can't prove a thing either so stop with your supposed "logical" arguments. And as I said: WHO CARES WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN? This is an actual fact however: Federer took back the #1 spot. Is it Fed's fault that Nadal has a retarded schedule, or has a playing style that results in injury? This is ridiculous.

Sophocles, don't worry. Every normal person who has followed this discussion can see that SetSampras constantly contradicts himself. There's no need for this anymore.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 05:58 PM
You can't prove a thing either so stop with your supposed "logical" arguments. And as I said: WHO CARES WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN? This is an actual fact however: Federer took back the #1 spot. Is it Fed's fault that Nadal has a retarded schedule, or has a playing style that results in injury? This is ridiculous.

Sophocles, don't worry. Every normal person who has followed this discussion can see that SetSampras constantly contradicts himself. There's no need for this anymore.

How am I contradicting myself? I said is there any logical reasoning that shows Federer was going to turn the corner on the nadal issue had Nadal of stayed healthy? He hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam final since 2007

serveandvolley80
02-09-2010, 06:07 PM
How am I contradicting myself? I said is there any logical reasoning that shows Federer was going to turn the corner on the nadal issue had Nadal of stayed healthy? He hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam final since 2007

Ahem, Madrid 09. Or are you like the other retards that will hang onto the injury excuse for Nadal and not factor in longevity and consistency as an aspect of a good player.

Face it, he smoked Nadal on his favorite surface recently.

Orka_n
02-09-2010, 06:09 PM
How am I contradicting myself? I said is there any logical reasoning that shows Federer was going to turn the corner on the nadal issue had Nadal of stayed healthy? He hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam final since 2007*sigh*. First of all, you're contradicting yourself all the time, not just in this issue. :sad: Secondly, Nadal only got to 1 of 4 slam finals in 2009 so your point isn't very impressive. And Federer beat Nadal in the Madrid Master on clay in 2009, that showed he has Nadal figured out. Now I don't want to argue with you anymore.

abraxas21
02-09-2010, 06:10 PM
How am I contradicting myself? I said is there any logical reasoning that shows Federer was going to turn the corner on the nadal issue had Nadal of stayed healthy? He hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam final since 2007

It's all suppositions at the end.

Anyhow, if you want to know my honest opinion, I think Federer would have lost in RG if he had to face a fit Nadal in the final. However, I think he would have claimed Wimby back.
Rafa was always superior to Federer on clay but he wasn't on grass. In 2008 Fed had a really tough season not playing well at all (remember he had this mono thing) and still Nadal was only able to defeat him in 5 tough sets.

but that's just my opinion anyway. it's impossible to know what would have happened in 2009 if Nadal hadn't got injured so why argue about it?

neptunium
02-09-2010, 06:30 PM
I would urge everyone to stop responding to SetSampras. Such a waste of time.

king_roger
02-09-2010, 06:40 PM
Why bring up Nadal here? Nadal was in his 4th grasscourt tournament EVER when he played Federer in the finals of the 2006 Wimbledon. A year later he took Fed to the edge in the finals, many argue he should have won but got injured.

I said Andre was a slightly better slower court player than Sampras but I am saying a whole lot cant be drawn from their AO matchups. The 1995 AO Agassi was just too good. The 2000 matchup Agassi was awesome, Sampras wasnt at his best and many feel Sampras should have won regardless but got injured.


Agassi hung on for a while longer and took advantage of the shit era that was the early 00s playing the tennis greats Scheuttler and Clement in the final so he could get his 4.

:haha:

Did you watch the W 2007 final at all? Nadal twice had 15-40 on Fed's serve, and Fed saved them all with serves. And then he won 4 straight games, and Nadal couldn't do anything.

luie
02-10-2010, 12:46 AM
FOR the H2H tards
Federer 5-4 off clay translation he is better than nadull off clay.
Nadull 9-2 on clay he owns federer on clay.
Translation nadull is incapable of making finals on his weakest surface or when he is scared of the tall 2hbh players.

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-10-2010, 03:13 AM
*sigh*. First of all, you're contradicting yourself all the time, not just in this issue. :sad: Secondly, Nadal only got to 1 of 4 slam finals in 2009 so your point isn't very impressive. And Federer beat Nadal in the Madrid Master on clay in 2009, that showed he has Nadal figured out. Now I don't want to argue with you anymore.

Also Soderclown is a legendary GOAT candidate who will win slams.

If you are illogical enough to like losers like Soderclown your points have no merit.

Arkulari
02-10-2010, 04:17 AM
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35315514/ns/sports-tennis/

McEnroe says Federer is best men's player ever

ZURICH - John McEnroe thinks Roger Federer is the best men's tennis player of all time.

McEnroe, also considered one of the game's greats, said Tuesday he ranks the Swiss star ahead of Rod Laver, the only man to win all four Grand Slam events in one year, and seven-time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras.

Promoting an ATP Champions Tour event in Zurich, McEnroe said Laver was his idol and Sampras was the greatest grass-court player ever. But the American left-hander said Federer, who has won a record 16 Grand Slam titles, was the greatest of all.

McEnroe said Federer's ability to average two Grand Slam titles a year was "phenomenally consistent and amazing."

I think Johnny Mac knows a bit more about the game than any of us, right? :p

I don't agree with the GOAT part, but he is the best player of this era hands down ;)

HarryMan
02-10-2010, 04:38 AM
I don't understand why people are getting so worked up due to SetSampras's comments. Almost everyone believe's Federer is the greatest ever, leaving a few handful aside.

Black Adam
02-10-2010, 10:00 AM
It's almost as if in the future no one will ever be better than Fed :rolleyes:

JolánGagó
02-10-2010, 10:15 AM
The level of Federina arselicking in this forum defies the wildest imagination... :rolleyes:

Corey Feldman
02-10-2010, 10:43 AM
It's almost as if in the future no one will ever be better than Fed :rolleyes:there wont be

hope that helps you never ending crying duck fan

Action Jackson
02-10-2010, 10:55 AM
Hmm, yes tennis didn't exist before Federer and it will cease to exist when he leaves the game.

habibko
02-10-2010, 11:13 AM
The level of Federina arselicking in this forum defies the wildest imagination... :rolleyes:

it's not just this forum, it's the whole world and for a very good reason, no athlete in the world today deserves it as much as him :worship:

federersforehand
02-10-2010, 12:27 PM
Fed does pretty much shit all over every other player in the ATP, including nadal in nonclay (and even now maybe clay, we will see) events. He is a level headed champion; a good family man, a frontrunner for charity and the biggest spokesman of the sport. Since he started dominating tennis's worldwide appeal has increased dramatically, that is no coincidence.

DrJules
02-10-2010, 12:40 PM
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35315514/ns/sports-tennis/



I think Johnny Mac knows a bit more about the game than any of us, right? :p

[B]I don't agree with the GOAT part, but he is the best player of this era hands down ;)

In terms of saying with no uncertainty I agree it is impossible to say somebody is a GOAT. However, you can use achievement records, opinions of former players and journalists and a variety of tennis data which when agregated can be used to make a good assessment of who is the greatest.

The view of the greatest to date has a very high level of agreement among past and present players combined with the records held by Federer to provide a high of support to the assertion of greatest to date. Post Rod Laver I feel it hard not to say Federer is the greatest player. Borg (US), Lendl(W) and Sampras(FO) all had a clear omission in their record.

oranges
02-10-2010, 12:41 PM
He'll be sanctified eventually

-Valhalla-
02-10-2010, 01:29 PM
You and all the Nadaltards need to realize this: Injury or form or fragile mental state can NEVER excuse a loss because these things are all part of the sport. "Nadal would still be #1 if he never got injured" - Who knows. But more importantly: WHO CARES? What matters in this sport is RESULTS. The most pathetic kind of arguing is when you take things into account that can never be proven.

Hey Orka, are you always this angry, hostile, and humorless? And why do you have such an intense hard-on for Nadal? ...

Do yourself a favor: turn off your internet connection and go out and get laid ;)

lessthanjake
02-10-2010, 02:54 PM
Yawn, so if it's not a mug era, it must be incredible and unprecedented. There's nothing in between I suppose. If you want incredible accompanied by depth, try late 80s early 90s.

Time for lessthanjake to chip in. He loves both the discussion and the black-white picture "if it doesn't suck, it must be the best ever"

LOL, I havent actually posted on this forum in months. I browsed for laughs just now and saw this. You expected me to chip in despite me not ever posting anymore? Cute.

But yes, its a glorious era of epic proportions. No reason to think it is not. Dominance by one player means nothing. If you created a 100% perfect tennis player and put them in an era with every single all time great, that perfect tennis player would win like every slam, and this forum would be littered with people saying that the likes of McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Sampras, and Agassi are complete losers who don't have what it takes to win. Thus, one man winning so much does not mean that his peers are lame. It COULD, but it could also mean he is awesome. We have no actual reason to believe that the level of tennis players has gone down, thus we are lead to the clear conclusion that Federer (and Nadal on clay) are just ridiculously awesome players.

abraxas21
02-10-2010, 03:04 PM
But yes, its a glorious era of epic proportions. No reason to think it is not. Dominance by one player means nothing. If you created a 100% perfect tennis player and put them in an era with every single all time great, that perfect tennis player would win like every slam, and this forum would be littered with people saying that the likes of McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Sampras, and Agassi are complete losers who don't have what it takes to win. Thus, one man winning so much does not mean that his peers are lame. It COULD, but it could also mean he is awesome. We have no actual reason to believe that the level of tennis players has gone down, thus we are lead to the clear conclusion that Federer (and Nadal on clay) are just ridiculously awesome players.

This man speaks the truth.

oranges
02-10-2010, 03:34 PM
This man speaks the truth.

That's the man who puts Roddick on par with Becker. He's an equivalent of SetSampras, just the other camp. This moderate approach in the above post is most unusual :lol:

manadrainer
02-10-2010, 04:14 PM
Because there is a far better argument for supposing Agassi would have won a big majority of slow-hard-court matches against Sampras, had he played them, than there is for supposing Nadal would have won a big majority of non-clay matches against Federer had he stayed fit enough to compete - YET YOU HAVE MADE THE LATTER SUPPOSITION WHILE BEING UNABLE TO MAKE THE FORMER. But I understand if you're losing your way in the labyrinth of counter-factual speculation you have constructed as a hiding-place from the reality of Federer's surpassing of Sampras.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Greatest post ever!

SetSampras
02-10-2010, 04:39 PM
Ahhh Join in the Federer jerk off wagon here....



I respect Mac as a player but just because Mac says its so we have to take his word as freakin gospel? ITS A FUCKING OPINION!!! NOT FACT!!!


The reason its an opinion because we all have our own personal GOATS and no one has developed a time machine so Federer has not played alot of the other all time greats. Just because I say Laver is GOAT doesnt make it so. Just because Mac says Fed is GOAT doesnt make it so.


If they invented a time machine, stuck Fed in a era with actually more than one other great player to contend and Fed still gets the same achievements, dominated and out achieves everyone else. I will give him his due and call him the GOAT. Until then hes just the greatest of his era

oranges
02-10-2010, 04:47 PM
Let it all out SetSampras, you haven't repeated your mantra for almost a day. It must have been painful

Sophocles
02-10-2010, 04:48 PM
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Greatest post ever!

Thank you.

Arkulari
02-10-2010, 05:14 PM
Ahhh Join in the Federer jerk off wagon here....



I respect Mac as a player but just because Mac says its so we have to take his word as freakin gospel? ITS A FUCKING OPINION!!! NOT FACT!!!


The reason its an opinion because we all have our own personal GOATS and no one has developed a time machine so Federer has not played alot of the other all time greats. Just because I say Laver is GOAT doesnt make it so. Just because Mac says Fed is GOAT doesnt make it so.


If they invented a time machine, stuck Fed in a era with actually more than one other great player to contend and Fed still gets the same achievements, dominated and out achieves everyone else. I will give him his due and call him the GOAT. Until then hes just the greatest of his era

we have been telling you that for ages, seems like you finally got it
I don't even believe in a GOAT FFS, so why should you try to diminish Roger's accomplishments as the greatest player of his own era? I really don't get it

Orka_n
02-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Also Soderclown is a legendary GOAT candidate who will win slams.

If you are illogical enough to like losers like Soderclown your points have no merit.Yes, yes. Go troll somewhere else please. :drive:

Hey Orka, are you always this angry, hostile, and humorless? And why do you have such an intense hard-on for Nadal? ...

Do yourself a favor: turn off your internet connection and go out and get laid ;)People who won't listen to reason annoy me. :shrug: But you're right, I could chill out a bit.
But HOW exactly do you reckon I have a hard-on for Nadull? If he retired today I would sleep with a smile on my face for like a month.

DrJules
02-10-2010, 05:40 PM
Ahhh Join in the Federer jerk off wagon here....



I respect Mac as a player but just because Mac says its so we have to take his word as freakin gospel? ITS A FUCKING OPINION!!! NOT FACT!!!


The reason its an opinion because we all have our own personal GOATS and no one has developed a time machine so Federer has not played alot of the other all time greats. Just because I say Laver is GOAT doesnt make it so. Just because Mac says Fed is GOAT doesnt make it so.


If they invented a time machine, stuck Fed in a era with actually more than one other great player to contend and Fed still gets the same achievements, dominated and out achieves everyone else. I will give him his due and call him the GOAT. Until then hes just the greatest of his era

I fully agree it is an opinion.

However, when many former players and regular tennis watchers collectively say the same thing combined with the actual grand slam titles won by Federer it does provide a strong argument supporting that assertion.

It does not make it fact, but the evidence presenting Federer in that position is very strong and substantial.

Shirogane
02-10-2010, 05:45 PM
we have been telling you that for ages, seems like you finally got it
I don't even believe in a GOAT FFS, so why should you try to diminish Roger's accomplishments as the greatest player of his own era? I really don't get it
I don't believe in GOAT either. Sorry for the pointless quote, it just sounded nice to my ear. ;)

SetSampras
02-10-2010, 05:48 PM
I fully agree it is an opinion.

However, when many former players and regular tennis watchers collectively say the same thing combined with the actual grand slam titles won by Federer it does provide a strong argument supporting that assertion.

It does not make it fact, but the evidence presenting Federer in that position is very strong and substantial.

I agree resume wise but its all constricted to the confines of a single era.. But will it ever be proved beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of a time machine? Player A can dominate his/her own era more than Player B. That does not mean B isnt the better player or that player A had it just as difficult to dominate in terms of threats. You have to into account, that certain eras are going to produce more threats and top talent than other eras. Because if not, we can just say an era like the 00s produced the same amount of talent and threats as the mid-late 80s. And we all know that is false. You can dominate your era but that should be only measured really against others of your era. The 80s for instance produced many great talented player yet no one really dominated. Can this attitibuted more to the fact that:

A: No one was good enough to dominate

or

B: Too many great players around for one person to dominate so slams and achievements are taken from each other



We could use the same logic today. Was Fed too good all these years that he made the field look much weaker and inept then they really were excluding Nadal. Or is alot of this the field's fault for never growing a backbone, competing, and doing everything they can to snatch that top spot and slams from Fed and Nadal? Would Fed's achievements and statistics drastically drop of had to deal with all the 80s talent or the 90s talent?

BlackSilver
02-10-2010, 05:54 PM
No idea why this thread wasn't closed up.
Anyway......

(and even now maybe clay, we will see) events.

Would you like to bet?

serveandvolley80
02-10-2010, 06:34 PM
We could use the same logic today. Was Fed too good all these years that he made the field look much weaker and inept then they really were excluding Nadal. Or is alot of this the field's fault for never growing a backbone, competing, and doing everything they can to snatch that top spot and slams from Fed and Nadal? Would Fed's achievements and statistics drastically drop of had to deal with all the 80s talent or the 90s talent?

You are amazing, you sprout some kind of speech about never knowing about who is the greatest player unless you build a time machine and have them all play each other. Then start a statement questioning Federer's dominance in his own era totally destroying your own philosophy if you even have one.

Yeah ridiculing and playing down someones accomplishment in an era is proof in your weak mind that that he would not be able to take on some player in 1980. Guess what? its 2010 who the fuck cares about 1980. If you do not recognize that Federer is the greatest of this tennis era then you are a massive tool and nothing will save you from a future date with a straight jacket and a padded room, until you accept the fact that Sampras is no longer playing and no longer valid in discussing current tennis.......

-Valhalla-
02-10-2010, 07:48 PM
People who won't listen to reason annoy me. :shrug: But you're right, I could chill out a bit.
But HOW exactly do you reckon I have a hard-on for Nadull? If he retired today I would sleep with a smile on my face for like a month.

Because he's in your head, messing with your mind, stressing you out.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 08:05 AM
That's the man who puts Roddick on par with Becker. He's an equivalent of SetSampras, just the other camp. This moderate approach in the above post is most unusual :lol:

Oh how you make me laugh.

I never said that Roddick was definitely as good as Becker. I said that there is really no way of knowing whether he is or not. I also said that without Federer, Roddick would probably have won about as many slams as Becker. As of now, Roddick is a one-slam wonder. When someone is a one-slam wonder for an entire career, we focus on his flaws. We think about why he didnt win more. But if Federer weren't around, Roddick would have won a bunch of slams and people would be talking a lot more about his strengths. His serve would be considered absolutely legendary, for instance.

And that is what I was trying to get you to think about back when we talked about this. I wanted you to realize that our perceptions of a player's strengths and weaknesses are based on how much they win. If they win, we inflate their strengths and minimize their flaws in our mind. If they lose, we do the opposite. The fact that Federer has made all his peers lose has made us minimize their strengths and maximize their flaws in our minds. That makes them seem like lesser players than they are. This sort of psychology is what makes you scoff so arrogantly at a comparison between Roddick and Becker. The difference between the two is smaller than you are imagining in your mind.

paseo
02-11-2010, 08:15 AM
Oh how you make me laugh.

I never said that Roddick was definitely as good as Becker. I said that there is really no way of knowing whether he is or not. I also said that without Federer, Roddick would probably have won about as many slams as Becker. As of now, Roddick is a one-slam wonder. When someone is a one-slam wonder for an entire career, we focus on his flaws. We think about why he didnt win more. But if Federer weren't around, Roddick would have won a bunch of slams and people would be talking a lot more about his strengths. His serve would be considered absolutely legendary, for instance.

And that is what I was trying to get you to think about back when we talked about this. I wanted you to realize that our perceptions of a player's strengths and weaknesses are based on how much they win. If they win, we inflate their strengths and minimize their flaws in our mind. If they lose, we do the opposite. The fact that Federer has made all his peers lose has made us minimize their strengths and maximize their flaws in our minds. That makes them seem like lesser players than they are. This sort of psychology is what makes you scoff so arrogantly at a comparison between Roddick and Becker. The difference between the two is smaller than you are imagining in your mind.

Yeah, Fed's generation (especially Roddick & Hewitt) is really suffering from his dominance. The new generation (Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, etc) at least, can wait it out.

oranges
02-11-2010, 08:24 AM
Oh come on Jakey, you and I, and half the board that actually bothered to read it, all know what you were saying :lol: It was the famous logical argument if we can't disprove that he's as good, it's as likely to be true as not. Face it, you're SetSampras' mirror image. Just as he's obsessed with knocking down everyone in this era to indirectly diminish Fed's achievements, you're as much in love doing the opposite.

serveandvolley80
02-11-2010, 09:06 AM
Andy Roddick is extremely underrated, hes been a top ten player for so long, that does not happen by fluke, hes mister consistency. Hes made so many slam quarters, semi's and finals and today is even playing better then a few years ago.

I re watched last years Wimbledon final, and Roddick played unreal, he had 3 unforced errors in the first set to about 14 winners. The second set was not much worse with about 5 errors to 12 winners. He had a chance to be up 2-0 in sets to Fed and probably should have won that final. He was actually winning the baseline war and out hitting Federer, his serve was hard to pick up.

Then what happens? you have a guy that ended up having the serving day of his life, and career, has anyone ever served 50 aces in such a big stage? In a final perhaps? Roddick's return game may not be great, but its not as horrible to suggest they would get aced 50 times. Federer's action on his serve is exactly the same direction no matter where he serves, when hes on its impossible to read. He made Murray a great returner look ordinary in the Aussie open final. Its hard to play a guy with so many weapons, because odds are if one weapon does not work, he beats you with another.

The man found a way to get it done despite being outplayed, Roddick would have beat anyone in that final that day, he was on fire, hes a fantastic player and a worthy top 10 and grand slam champion. Anyone saying Roddick sucks or is overrated, then will defend Ivanesivic as some kind of legend is really not a tennis fan but a biased fool.

oranges
02-11-2010, 09:12 AM
Yeah, why give credit to the guy that was actually able to beat the one racking up most slams in his time. He's an all serve mug. Let's not be biased fools :lol:

serveandvolley80
02-11-2010, 09:13 AM
Yeah, why give credit to the guy that was actually able to beat the one racking up most slams in his time. He's an all serve mug. Let's not be biased fools :lol:

Yeah like i said, comments like that make it easy to figure out who is actually a tennis fan.

Slept through the Wimbledon final perhaps?

If Federer won the match because of his 50 aces, does it make him an all serve mug too?

oranges
02-11-2010, 09:30 AM
I think you missed the point that I was making fun of you

Action Jackson
02-11-2010, 09:38 AM
lessthanfake, this thread has it all.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 09:55 AM
Oh come on Jakey, you and I, and half the board that actually bothered to read it, all know what you were saying :lol: It was the famous logical argument if we can't disprove that he's as good, it's as likely to be true as not. Face it, you're SetSampras' mirror image. Just as he's obsessed with knocking down everyone in this era to indirectly diminish Fed's achievements, you're as much in love doing the opposite.

You slay me.

You can't prove which one is better. Neither can I. The fact that you think it is such a joke was actually my point all along. No one seriously makes that comparison as it is. But without Federer, I think people would, because Roddick would likely have an almost identical slam win count as Becker (3 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens, and 1 Australian Open sounds almost exactly like what I think Roddick would have had). They would be easily comparable for that reason, and because in both cases, their serve would have been what catapulted them to slams.

It really comes down to this. Can you honestly tell me that your opinion of Roddick's skills would be the same if Federer weren't around and thus Roddick had won 2003 Wimbledon, 2003 US Open, 2004 Wimbledon, 2005 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open, 2007 US Open, and 2009 Wimbledon? I can tell you with complete certainty that your opinion of Roddick in every facet of the game would be higher, even though he would actually be the same player. You might argue on some of those slams I just listed, but that is the sort of resume that Roddick would have without Federer. And if he had that kind of resume, people WOULD be making comparisons to a player like Becker and it wouldn't be silly.

oranges
02-11-2010, 10:05 AM
There you go. I missed the infallible logic and the passion to prove the unprovable :lol: I'm sure he'd go through Becker's draws as successfully and win the same number of slams. After all, they are the same caliber of players, right?

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 10:23 AM
There you go. I missed the infallible logic and the passion to prove the unprovable :lol: I'm sure he'd go through Becker's draws as successfully and win the same number of slams. After all, they are the same caliber of players, right?

Oh give me a break. I was never out to prove that they are definitely of equal caliber. We both know that's impossible to PROVE either way.

My point was simply that your perception of a player like Roddick is shaped by the fact that he hasn't won that much. That perception would be VERY different if he had won a lot, which he would have if Federer hadn't been around. You would see him as better than you see him now in every facet of the game. Do you not realize this?

Becker was just an example of a player who he MIGHT draw comparisons to if Federer hadn't stopped him from winning a lot of slams. Becker's vast superiority on clay would probably leave him seen as the better player still in that case, but the comparison wouldnt be deemed silly because no comparison between players who have won an equal number of slams is considered silly. That was the only point I ever wanted to make about Becker. If Federer weren't around, Roddick and Becker would have won a similar number of slams with a similar breakdown of what they won. If that were the case, no one would deem a comparison of the two as silly.

oranges
02-11-2010, 10:38 AM
Sorry for nitpicking such a perfectly presented argument, but if you insist he'd win Becker's number of slams if not for Federer, you're effectively saying that they are of the same caliber. The same goes for implied belief that Becker would have his career had he been born in Federer era. Since you're now of two minds what to actually claim, I have to repeat the question, would he then win Becker's slams in your opinion?

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 10:55 AM
Sorry for nitpicking such a perfectly presented argument, but if you insist he'd win Becker's number of slams if not for Federer, you're effectively saying that they are of the same caliber. The same goes for implied belief that Becker would have his career had he been born in Federer era. Since you're now of two minds what to actually claim, I have to repeat the question, would he then win Becker's slams in your opinion?

They are different players, and both would have a hard time translating to the other's era, so your questions are just silly. Becker excelled indoors and on very fast grass. In this era he wouldnt have almost any indoor tournaments and the grass is a lot slower. He would find things tougher. Roddick would find things tougher IMO in Becker's era because he is not a particularly strong volleyer, nor does his awesome serve lend itself to serve and volleying (his momentum isnt really catapulted forwards enough). He would probably have made himself a somewhat stronger volleyer if he played in that era, but he is more suited to a baseline era like this one.

So saying what Becker would do in this era or what Roddick would do in that era is silly. They are products of the conditions of their era. I'm sure you realize this, you are just being foolish because you can't argue with the fact that your perception of Roddick would be ENTIRELY different had Federer not been around.

oranges
02-11-2010, 11:15 AM
So it's silly to compare them, but you're doing it nevertheless when you need it to further your own agenda :yeah:

My perception of Roddick is based on all of his matches I've seen and the level of game he's produced, but thanks for the patronizing tone, it's not misplaced at all

Federer=God
02-11-2010, 11:17 AM
Roddick would have likely won 3 Wimbledons, US open (2006, maybe 07), and at least made 2 AO finals if Roger wasn't around. Not a big fan of Roddick, but let's not forget he has come up against some of the greatest play we will ever see in tennis numerous times in key matches (AO 2007 for example). In say, the 90's, I suspect he would have been much more successful.

GOAT or not, Federer > Sampras. Better forehand, better backhand, better movement, better shotmaking and far more diversity across all surfaces compounded with better results. I wouldn't make a comparison against anyone of any further back, but I suspect Federer would come out trumps.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 11:26 AM
So it's silly to compare them, but you're doing it nevertheless when you need it to further your own agenda :yeah:

My perception of Roddick is based on all of his matches I've seen and the level of game he's produced, but thanks for the patronizing tone, it's not misplaced at all

Dont be ridiculous. You know as well as I do that my point was never to have some huge in depth comparison of becker and roddick. It came to that, but that wasnt what I was going for. I just wanted to point out that without Federer, Roddick would likely be being compared to a player of Becker's caliber, which he isn't nowadays. Winning does a lot to change people's perceptions of a player. When one player wins everything, our perception of every other player significantly lessens, rightly or not. That was ALWAYS my point: that without Federer, his peers would be seen in a much more positive light than they are seen with Federer. Saying that Roddick would be seen in a similar light as Becker was just one example of what I thought the results of that change in perception would be. It was nowhere even close to the crux of my argument. Talking about that was just tangential to my main point.

And dont tell me that your perception of roddick wouldnt be different if Federer wasnt around and he had instead won 5-7 slams. You can say all you want that your perception of him is based on watching him play. However, when you watch someone lose, you think about the weaknesses that made them lose. When you watch someone win, you think about the strengths that lead them to victory. This is pretty basic. If Roddick won a bunch of slams, your watching of him would be much more dominated by thoughts of how great his serve was than how lame his volleying skills or backhand are.

oranges
02-11-2010, 11:34 AM
Your point was to elevate Roddick as much possible so as to add to the glory of Fed's achievements, plain and simple. There's no other point to it. Get married with SetSampras and you can have some glorious marital disputes

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 11:41 AM
Your point was to elevate Roddick as much possible so as to add to the glory of Fed's achievements, plain and simple. There's no other point to it. Get married with SetSampras and you can have some glorious marital disputes

No that wasnt the point. This goes beyond elevating one single player. I was talking about the perceptions of an entire era of players and how everyone sees the non-Federer/Nadal players as crap because they dont win. But if Federer weren't there, they WOULD win, and if they did win, people would see them in an entirely different light. Their strengths would be emphasized and their weaknesses minimized.

So then, this begs the question. Are the rest of the players in Federer's era worse than players in other eras, or is Federer so good that his dominance just makes them perceived as worse than they are?

Either way could be true, but I see no logical reason to believe that there was some sudden fall off in the quality of tennis. If anything, tennis is getting more and more popular worldwide, so we would expect better and better players. I have no desire to argue that this era is BETTER, but I think that the fact that there is some reason to believe that it would be better is reason enough to believe that the era isnt bad, but instead that Federer is just that good.

oranges
02-11-2010, 11:54 AM
Sure, sure, you just had to dig up Becker or a name of comparable weight to enlighten us that we are all extremely prejudiced *pats Jackey on the head*

habibko
02-11-2010, 11:58 AM
there is also the natural evolution of sports and athletic performances which support that the field only gets stronger and harder to dominate, regardless of lessthanjake's motives behind his posts, he is accurate when saying there is no way to find out wheather the field is weak or Federer/Nadal are just exceptionally good, there are however more reasons to think it's the latter than the former.

abraxas21
02-11-2010, 11:59 AM
In a nutshell:

Federer > '90s era entirely.

no RG for Pete = no GOAT.

Sophocles
02-11-2010, 12:05 PM
Lessthanjake's point is reasonable. Take away Federer & Roddick has 4-6 slams: people would no longer find it ridiculous to compare Roddick with Becker, even though they could still argue inconclusively about who was better. It doesn't need more than a sentence though.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 12:22 PM
Sure, sure, you just had to dig up Becker or a name of comparable weight to enlighten us that we are all extremely prejudiced *pats Jackey on the head*

I used Becker on a whim because I thought his exact slam resume (as in how many slams won and which ones won) was most similar to what I thought Roddick would have done if Federer hadn't been around.

But again, comparing the two players in depth was never my point. I just wanted to make a statement about how perceptions would be very different without Federer. Dropping Becker's name as someone we might compare Roddick to was simply to demonstrate the magnitude of how I felt perceptions of players are lessened when a dominant player is in their era.

It was never meant as a concrete comparison. It went that way because of things you and others said. Your argument was basically "Roddick sucks and, as you said, without Federer, Roddick would have won as much as Becker, who is way better. That just shows how weak this era is." That forced me to argue that you really don't KNOW that Roddick is worse than Becker, so that sort of argument doesnt necessarily hold. Then that lead to you going on rants about how much better Becker is in a bunch of ways. I continued to point out that none of it could be proven (especially since it is all based on your perceptions, which, as I said, change when someone wins as opposed to loses) and you then felt victorious because in your mind, my whole argument was that Roddick was as good as Becker and me saying it cant be proven either way was me admitting defeat.

But that was never what my argument was. I just wanted you to realize that perceptions of players change based mostly on whether they win, not on how good they actually are. And this plays heavily into how players of Federer's era are seen.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 12:40 PM
And let me even say that I think Becker is better than Roddick. I said this when we talked about this before, but ill say it again. Taking away a player from Roddick's era and then saying how much Roddick would win compared to someone else without anyone taken away from his era does not show them to be of similar caliber. Federer IS part of his era. Taking him away does create a weak era for someone to have imaginary slams in. Thus the only ways to make such a comparison fair is to take away the best player from Becker's era as well and think about what would happen OR to keep Federer, but pretend he wasnt quite as good. If you took away any great player from Becker's era, his resume would end up better than Roddick's without Federer, and if you kept a watered down Federer in Roddick's era, Roddick would likely not achieve as much as Becker did.

So this just shows that my argument was NEVER meant to say that Roddick and Becker are equals. I just shot down that argument, and I don't make arguments I can shoot down in 2 minutes.

The comparison with Becker did not extend beyond how I felt Roddick would be perceived if Federer didn't exist. The idea was to show that Federer being so great has had a hugely negative impact on how good we think the players who lose to him are, and that if he wasnt around, we might revere the same players we see as losers now.

oranges
02-11-2010, 12:42 PM
There's a reason outside of Federer Roddick has one slam. If he could produce the level of play say Safin or Nalbandian are capable of, what if speculations would perhaps make some sense. As it is, drawing any comparison whatsoever with the likes of Becker is beyond ridiculous. He could just as easily end up with that one slam as with a few more even without Federer around. Gasquet took him out in Wimbledon, plenty of others are capable of the same all too often. He played Fed in 7 slams, the rest is going down to others. I don't see how it would be a given he'd be winning slams left and right, but even more so, what exactly is the point. How many would anyone win without someone or another around.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 12:54 PM
There's a reason outside of Federer Roddick has one slam. If he could produce the level of play say Safin or Nalbandian are capable of, what if speculations would perhaps make some sense. As it is, drawing any comparison whatsoever with the likes of Becker is beyond ridiculous. He could just as easily end up with that one slam as with a few more even without Federer around. Gasquet took him out in Wimbledon, plenty of others are capable of the same all too often. He played Fed in 7 slams, the rest is going down to others. I don't see how it would be a given he'd be winning slams left and right, but even more so, what exactly is the point. How many would anyone win without someone or another around.

Read the post I made above. I suspect you started replying before it was there because it really addresses what you just said.

In a nutshell, taking Federer away from Roddick's era and talking about how many slams he would have IS silly. It is just saying that in an era without its best player, Roddick would win as much as Becker did without taking anyone away. So obviously Becker is the better player in that case.

Again, though, for the billionth time, it was never meant as a concrete comparison of the two players. Rather I just wanted to point out how perceptions are less based on the actual skill of the player, and more about how much he wins. The point was that if you put Roddick in a weakened era (ie. no Federer) he would win a lot and people would see him as an all time great. However, put the SAME player in an era with the GOAT who he matches up badly against and he is seen as a loser. The difference there is not in how good Roddick is, but rather how much he wins. That is what creates perceptions. So I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to dominate an era and still have his peers seen as great.

I will say also that your treatment of Roddick in that post is rather ridiculous. You act like Roddick flames out all the time in slams. In fact, he is quite consistent.

oranges
02-11-2010, 01:21 PM
That's what you keep saying, yet I see people assessing the game players are able produce more often than not and consequently label them as over/underachievers.

As for Roddick, according to interpretations that he'd be winning a number of slams without Federer around, I'd say flaming out would be accurate for those results. In reality, they are consistent and account for his being in top 10 for years. All I said is that he's lost to others than Federer numerous times. Hence, winning them without Fed around is hardly a given.

federersforehand
02-11-2010, 01:35 PM
i love this place, its the only place on the internet where people think that federer isnt a once in a lifetime talent. Federer has now dominated the early 00's era, completely annhialated anything in the mid 00's and is now shitting over the late 00's/10's. THATS 3 ERAS DADDY FED IS DOMINATING.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 02:00 PM
That's what you keep saying, yet I see people assessing the game players are able produce more often than not and consequently label them as over/underachievers.

As for Roddick, according to interpretations that he'd be winning a number of slams without Federer around, I'd say flaming out would be accurate for those results. In reality, they are consistent and account for his being in top 10 for years. All I said is that he's lost to others than Federer numerous times. Hence, winning them without Fed around is hardly a given.

Labeling someone as an overachiever or underachiever is irrelevant. That label is based on assessing a player's mental toughness as a strength or weakness. But mental toughness is part of the skill set in tennis. Thus, that assessment is just based on identifying the strengths or weaknesses of a player.

In the end, tennis fans CAN recognize relative strengths and weaknesses of a player. But when it comes to assessing the OVERALL quality of a player, wins are really all that matters.

thrust
02-11-2010, 02:09 PM
I used Becker on a whim because I thought his exact slam resume (as in how many slams won and which ones won) was most similar to what I thought Roddick would have done if Federer hadn't been around.

But again, comparing the two players in depth was never my point. I just wanted to make a statement about how perceptions would be very different without Federer. Dropping Becker's name as someone we might compare Roddick to was simply to demonstrate the magnitude of how I felt perceptions of players are lessened when a dominant player is in their era.

It was never meant as a concrete comparison. It went that way because of things you and others said. Your argument was basically "Roddick sucks and, as you said, without Federer, Roddick would have won as much as Becker, who is way better. That just shows how weak this era is." That forced me to argue that you really don't KNOW that Roddick is worse than Becker, so that sort of argument doesnt necessarily hold. Then that lead to you going on rants about how much better Becker is in a bunch of ways. I continued to point out that none of it could be proven (especially since it is all based on your perceptions, which, as I said, change when someone wins as opposed to loses) and you then felt victorious because in your mind, my whole argument was that Roddick was as good as Becker and me saying it cant be proven either way was me admitting defeat.

But that was never what my argument was. I just wanted you to realize that perceptions of players change based mostly on whether they win, not on how good they actually are. And this plays heavily into how players of Federer's era are seen.

Becker was mentally much stronger than Roddick. Boris was a great grass court player, having a great serve and net game. Roddick has a great serve on grass, otherwise, his grass game is barely above average. If not for Sampras, Boris would have won more Wimbledon titles. Roger had NO grass court competition till Nadal was able to take advantage of the slower Wimby courts. Sampras had great grass competition: Becker, Edberg, Goran, Ricard K., Rafter-etc.. Based on ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Laver is the GOAT. Close are: Rosewall, Federer, Sampras, Gonzales. Next tier: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Becker.

rocketassist
02-11-2010, 02:15 PM
i love this place, its the only place on the internet where people think that federer isnt a once in a lifetime talent. Federer has now dominated the early 00's era, completely annhialated anything in the mid 00's and is now shitting over the late 00's/10's. THATS 3 ERAS DADDY FED IS DOMINATING.

The early 00s was Hewitt- stop with the fucking fanboy asskissing posts.

That's what you keep saying, yet I see people assessing the game players are able produce more often than not and consequently label them as over/underachievers.

As for Roddick, according to interpretations that he'd be winning a number of slams without Federer around, I'd say flaming out would be accurate for those results. In reality, they are consistent and account for his being in top 10 for years. All I said is that he's lost to others than Federer numerous times. Hence, winning them without Fed around is hardly a given.

Exactly, for example in slams he's lost to Fed- 2005 it would have been Hewitt in the Wimbledon final assuming someone else else other than Fed made it, and even Wimbledon 2009 look at Haas's record over Roddick. Neither of those are gimmes.

He wasn't beating Gonzo in the form he was in in AO 2007 and in the US Open 07 Fakervic was in his best ever form in a GS and would have taken him to the cleaners.

Yep, every slam Federer knocked out Roddick would have been won by Roddick if he hadn't. :lol:

I used Becker on a whim because I thought his exact slam resume (as in how many slams won and which ones won) was most similar to what I thought Roddick would have done if Federer hadn't been around.

But again, comparing the two players in depth was never my point. I just wanted to make a statement about how perceptions would be very different without Federer. Dropping Becker's name as someone we might compare Roddick to was simply to demonstrate the magnitude of how I felt perceptions of players are lessened when a dominant player is in their era.

It was never meant as a concrete comparison. It went that way because of things you and others said. Your argument was basically "Roddick sucks and, as you said, without Federer, Roddick would have won as much as Becker, who is way better. That just shows how weak this era is." That forced me to argue that you really don't KNOW that Roddick is worse than Becker, so that sort of argument doesnt necessarily hold. Then that lead to you going on rants about how much better Becker is in a bunch of ways. I continued to point out that none of it could be proven (especially since it is all based on your perceptions, which, as I said, change when someone wins as opposed to loses) and you then felt victorious because in your mind, my whole argument was that Roddick was as good as Becker and me saying it cant be proven either way was me admitting defeat.

But that was never what my argument was. I just wanted you to realize that perceptions of players change based mostly on whether they win, not on how good they actually are. And this plays heavily into how players of Federer's era are seen.

If it wasn't for Sampras, Boris Becker could have won a couple more Wimbledons, if it wasn't for Lendl, Mecir would have slams, if it wasn't for Federer, Murray would have slams, you know the score.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 02:17 PM
Becker was mentally much stronger than Roddick. Boris was a great grass court player, having a great serve and net game. Roddick has a great serve on grass, otherwise, his grass game is barely above average. If not for Sampras, Boris would have won more Wimbledon titles. Roger had NO grass court competition till Nadal was able to take advantage of the slower Wimby courts. Sampras had great grass competition: Becker, Edberg, Goran, Ricard K., Rafter-etc.. Based on ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Laver is the GOAT. Close are: Rosewall, Federer, Sampras, Gonzales. Next tier: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Becker.

That's silly. Only someone who really overvalues the Calendar Year Grand Slam would think that Laver is the GOAT based on accomplishments. The CYGS is great, but Laver also crashed out early in a TON of slams. Federer doesnt do that.

In any case, I guarantee you that you think Becker was more mentally tough than Roddick because Becker won slams and Roddick always loses to Federer. Guarantee it. Again, if Federer didn't exist, or wasnt quite as good, and Roddick won 4-7 slams (as he probably would have), you would not think he was mentally weak. Mental toughness is a really good example of a strength or weakness that is perceived based almost entirely on whether someone wins or loses.

And I'm not interested in comparing Becker and Roddick. If you read the post you quoted, that is exactly what I was saying. Why must you insist on doing so? It is not about which one is better, but just about how perceptions of Roddick might be SO different if Federer werent around, yet he would actually be the same player.

If it wasn't for Sampras, Boris Becker could have won a couple more Wimbledons, if it wasn't for Lendl, Mecir would have slams, if it wasn't for Federer, Murray would have slams, you know the score.

Read my other posts. I addressed this. Taking Federer away from the era and saying Roddick would win a bunch is not to say that Roddick is actually good enough to have won that many slams. The point was that IF Federer didn't exist, Roddick WOULD have won a lot of slams and he WOULD be compared to a player like Becker by the same people who say Roddick's lame now. He wouldnt be a different player. Its just the difference between playing in an era with the GOAT and playing in an artificially weakened era. My point, then, is that perceptions of a player are based entirely on wins, not actual ability.

He wasn't beating Gonzo in the form he was in in AO 2007 and in the US Open 07 Fakervic was in his best ever form in a GS and would have taken him to the cleaners.

Yep, every slam Federer knocked out Roddick would have been won by Roddick if he hadn't.

Thats an amusing bunch of claims.

You might be right, but you would only be right because you believe that Gonzo was playing absurdly well, and Djokovic was in better form in 2007 US Open than he was when he actually won a slam. You believe that a very good slam winner (ie Roddick) would have gotten clobbered by both of those guys. Federer beat both of these men. So then doesnt that mean that Federer faced clearly worthy opponents?

rocketassist
02-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Roddick would have likely won 3 Wimbledons, US open (2006, maybe 07), and at least made 2 AO finals if Roger wasn't around. Not a big fan of Roddick, but let's not forget he has come up against some of the greatest play we will ever see in tennis numerous times in key matches (AO 2007 for example). In say, the 90's, I suspect he would have been much more successful.

GOAT or not, Federer > Sampras. Better forehand, better backhand, better movement, better shotmaking and far more diversity across all surfaces compounded with better results. I wouldn't make a comparison against anyone of any further back, but I suspect Federer would come out trumps.

Haas's record over Roddick- 09 Wimbledon would not have been a given.
Hewitt was still at the top of the game in 05- had he made the final, Roddick was not a guarantee at all
2004 yeah, he'd probably beat Grosjean.

He would not have beaten Djokovic the form he was in NY 07.

rocketassist
02-11-2010, 02:21 PM
That's silly. Only someone who really overvalues the Calendar Year Grand Slam would think that Laver is the GOAT based on accomplishments. The CYGS is great, but Laver also crashed out early in a TON of slams. Federer doesnt do that.

In any case, I guarantee you that you think Becker was more mentally tough than Roddick because Becker won slams and Roddick always loses to Federer. Guarantee it. Again, if Federer didn't exist, or wasnt quite as good, and Roddick won 4-7 slams (as he probably would have), you would not think he was mentally weak. Mental toughness is a really good example of a strength or weakness that is perceived based almost entirely on whether someone wins or loses.

And I'm not interested in comparing Becker and Roddick. If you read the post you quoted, that is exactly what I was saying. Why must you insist on doing so? It is not about which one is better, but just about how perceptions of Roddick might be SO different if Federer werent around, yet he would actually be the same player.

And if Sampras didn't exist and Becker won 9-10 slams and Agassi won 12-13 slams?

rofe
02-11-2010, 02:26 PM
That's what you keep saying, yet I see people assessing the game players are able produce more often than not and consequently label them as over/underachievers.

As for Roddick, according to interpretations that he'd be winning a number of slams without Federer around, I'd say flaming out would be accurate for those results. In reality, they are consistent and account for his being in top 10 for years. All I said is that he's lost to others than Federer numerous times. Hence, winning them without Fed around is hardly a given.

On the other hand, if Roddick had won Wimbly '04, he may have gone on to be a multiple slam winner at Wimbly and USO. In the Federer era, Roddick has succumbed to the "death by a thousand cuts" syndrome. Without Fed, perhaps all that was required was one more GS win to push him into getting a champion's mindset and win 6-7 more slams.

oranges
02-11-2010, 02:27 PM
No, it's not irrelevant and you know it. It indicates awareness of actual game irrespective of results. The reasons why some over or underachieve are irrelevant. The point is people perceive potential for more or conversely, think someone has maximized their potential.

rocketassist
02-11-2010, 02:30 PM
Thats an amusing bunch of claims.

You might be right, but you would only be right because you believe that Gonzo was playing absurdly well, and Djokovic was in better form in 2007 US Open than he was when he actually won a slam. You believe that a very good slam winner (ie Roddick) would have gotten clobbered by both of those guys. Federer beat both of these men. So then doesnt that mean that Federer faced clearly worthy opponents?

Gonzo was unreal that tournament, a complete fluke, but if he played like he did against Nadal and Haas, Roddick was not winning a theoretical final.

The best tennis I've seen Novak play was that 2007 US Open and he outplayed Federer for two sets and choked. IMO he played far better in those sets than he did against a weak, movement-restricted Fed in Melbourne a few months later.

oranges
02-11-2010, 02:40 PM
On the other hand, if Roddick had won Wimbly '04, he may have gone on to be a multiple slam winner at Wimbly and USO. In the Federer era, Roddick has succumbed to the "death by a thousand cuts" syndrome. Without Fed, perhaps all that was required was one more GS win to push him into getting a champion's mindset and win 6-7 more slams.

But he didn't, did he. He took a set, that's it. Funnily enough, there's a guy named Safin who's shown that it was feasible to win slams in that "death by a thousand cuts" era and what it took to do it and it has more to do with having big enough game than having the champion mindset.

MatchFederer
02-11-2010, 02:43 PM
On the other hand, if Roddick had won Wimbly '04, he may have gone on to be a multiple slam winner at Wimbly and USO. In the Federer era, Roddick has succumbed to the "death by a thousand cuts" syndrome. Without Fed, perhaps all that was required was one more GS win to push him into getting a champion's mindset and win 6-7 more slams.

NOT rolling with this at all.

But he didn't, did he. He took a set, that's it. Funnily enough, there's a guy named Safin who's shown that it was feasible to win slams in that "death by a thousand cuts" era and what it took to do it and it has more to do with having big enough game than having the champion mindset.

Yep.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 03:15 PM
And if Sampras didn't exist and Becker won 9-10 slams and Agassi won 12-13 slams?

Yes, but that's not the point. It's ONLY about the point that perceptions of someone change based on whether they win. Thus, if there is a player who dominates his era, it is IMPOSSIBLE for people to perceive his opposition as great. They might be great, but they will never be perceived as such.

No, it's not irrelevant and you know it. It indicates awareness of actual game irrespective of results. The reasons why some over or underachieve are irrelevant. The point is people perceive potential for more or conversely, think someone has maximized their potential.

I really just don't see your point. You think that because we can recognize shotmaking even in someone who loses means that our perception of them is not based on whether they win or lose. But that is just not true. It is just that when shotmaking ability is undeniably visible, but the person still doesnt win, we come up with other ways in which he is lame (like being a mentally weak underachiever). That is still our perception of the person being based on wins and losses, it is just that the negative perception from losses must manifest itself in aspects other than shotmaking because the shotmaking is obviously there.

rofe
02-11-2010, 03:33 PM
But he didn't, did he. He took a set, that's it. Funnily enough, there's a guy named Safin who's shown that it was feasible to win slams in that "death by a thousand cuts" era and what it took to do it and it has more to do with having big enough game than having the champion mindset.

That is because Roddick's greatest strength, his serve, was very effectively neutralized by Fed. Safin's ground game was something that could over power Fed. Yes, Roddick had (and still has) limited weapons but it is entirely conceivable that he could have added more weapons through sheer hard work (like he has tried in the last few years) if he had developed the confidence and aura of being a multiple slam winner.

oranges
02-11-2010, 03:41 PM
I really just don't see your point. You think that because we can recognize shotmaking even in someone who loses means that our perception of them is not based on whether they win or lose. But that is just not true. It is just that when shotmaking ability is undeniably visible, but the person still doesnt win, we come up with other ways in which he is lame (like being a mentally weak underachiever). That is still our perception of the person being based on wins and losses, it is just that the negative perception from losses must manifest itself in aspects other than shotmaking because the shotmaking is obviously there.

What is it that you don't understand? People perceive when players have the ability, but lack consistency, mental fortitude or whatever else is stopping them from fully realizing their potential. They also recognize when someone basically maximizes their potential, Hewitt comes to mind as one I've often seen referred to in this context. Instead of insisting that our perception depends on wins and losses, try looking at it the other way around. Our expectations of what they should win and lose depend on our perception of their ability.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 03:51 PM
What is it that you don't understand? People perceive when players have the ability, but lack consistency, mental fortitude or whatever else is stopping them from fully realizing their potential. They also recognize when someone basically maximizes their potential, Hewitt comes to mind as one I've often seen referred to in this context. Instead of insisting that our perception depends on wins and losses, try looking at it the other way around. Our expectations of what they should win and lose depend on our perception of their ability.

Do you see the irony in what you say? Hewitt is perceived as a great player because of "mental toughness." YOu fail to realize that mental toughness is part of the tennis skill set, so how we see peoples mental toughness is part of how we see them overall. A mentally tough player is seen as a better player. You say "our expectations of what they should win and lose depend on our perception of their ability." But again, we expect people to win or lose partially based on our perception of their mental toughness. Mental toughness is part of the overall picture, and it is the overall picture that is all about wins and losses.

A player who we dont see brilliant shotmaking from but who still wins is perceived as mentally tough. A player who we do see brilliant shotmaking from but who doesnt win is perceived as mentally weak. Either way, the strengths and weaknesses that we see are based entirely on whether they win or lose.

Vida
02-11-2010, 04:21 PM
Do you see the irony in what you say? Hewitt is perceived as a great player because of "mental toughness." YOu fail to realize that mental toughness is part of the tennis skill set, so how we see peoples mental toughness is part of how we see them overall. A mentally tough player is seen as a better player. You say "our expectations of what they should win and lose depend on our perception of their ability." But again, we expect people to win or lose partially based on our perception of their mental toughness. Mental toughness is part of the overall picture, and it is the overall picture that is all about wins and losses.

A player who we dont see brilliant shotmaking from but who still wins is perceived as mentally tough. A player who we do see brilliant shotmaking from but who doesnt win is perceived as mentally weak. Either way, the strengths and weaknesses that we see are based entirely on whether they win or lose.

Id go along with that. on occasion Id even put mental toughness in talent, though that is debatable. I mean if talent is something 'given', whos to say a players mentality is based solely on formation process through years of development, and not even a slight bit of genes.