Why is Agassi always kissing this era of tennis' ass? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why is Agassi always kissing this era of tennis' ass?

SetSampras
05-21-2011, 03:01 PM
It seems like every interview Andre conducts its about how superior tennis is now then its ever been? Wasn't Agassi at 34 years old putting the beatdown on Roddick 5-1 in the h2h or taking a prime Federer to 5 sets? Or even winning the Australian Open or giving Fed a pretty tough time in the finals of the USO at 35 YEARS OLD!!!! After playing 3 straight 5 set matches himself?


Many will argue that the 04-05 timeframe consisted of a much better field then we have today at least in terms of the top 10 in overrall threats. There should be no disputing that. We got CLOWNS like Fish and Monfils or Melzer in the top 10 today. A 35 YEAR OLD AGASSI, was IN THE TOP 10 at the time!!! Yet he will continue to kiss this era's ass repeatedly. If even an old brokeback Agassi could maintain a top 10 ranking back in 2004-2005 when the top 10 was superior, what does that say about now?


Look at the top 10 between now and then.

2004-2005 timeframe:

Federer, Roger (SUI) 6,725 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,765 0 24
3 Roddick, Andy (USA) 3,085 0 20
4 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 2,490 0 17
5 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,390 0 30
6 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,370 0 21
7 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,275 0 17
8 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 2,190 0 22
9 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,180 0 25
10 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) 2,050 0 2



2011 top 10

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 0 22
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,665 0 19
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,390 0 22
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,085 0 20
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,435 0 25
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,215 1 25
7 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,060 -1 23
8 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,850 0 24
9 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,465 0 22
10 Fish, Mardy (USA) 2,395 1 21


Obviously 04-05 was more balanced and had more threats threatening the top spots. Unlike today where outside of Nadal and DJokovic we have a washed up Federer and a bunch of mental pretenders and guys who have no business being anywhere around the top 10. Losers like Monfils, Fish, Soderling, and Melzer. They pale in comparison to even an OLD Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin etc

Steelq
05-21-2011, 03:12 PM
It's not just Aggasi all retired tennis players are saying the same.

misty1
05-21-2011, 03:16 PM
i dont know..i hate that they do it myself, it just doesnt make any sense

top 10 of 2004-2005 trumps this current top 10

xdrewitdajx
05-21-2011, 03:17 PM
give him some time. you'll start to hear "the good old days" stories soon enough.

rocketassist
05-21-2011, 03:18 PM
They get asked, and if they don't say what we all know, then he'll get accused of bitterness.

misty1
05-21-2011, 03:21 PM
they can praise them but they shouldnt be afraid to say something negative

philosophicalarf
05-21-2011, 03:21 PM
Becaused he knows his success after 30 came from *cough* "running up hills".

Dr.Slice
05-21-2011, 03:45 PM
It seems like every interview Andre conducts its about how superior tennis is now then its ever been? Wasn't Agassi at 34 years old putting the beatdown on Roddick 5-1 in the h2h or taking a prime Federer to 5 sets? Or even winning the Australian Open or giving Fed a pretty tough time in the finals of the USO at 35 YEARS OLD!!!! After playing 3 straight 5 set matches himself?


Many will argue that the 04-05 timeframe consisted of a much better field then we have today at least in terms of the top 10 in overrall threats. There should be no disputing that. We got CLOWNS like Fish and Monfils or Melzer in the top 10 today. A 35 YEAR OLD AGASSI, was IN THE TOP 10 at the time!!! Yet he will continue to kiss this era's ass repeatedly. If even an old brokeback Agassi could maintain a top 10 ranking back in 2004-2005 when the top 10 was superior, what does that say about now?


Look at the top 10 between now and then.

2004-2005 timeframe:

Federer, Roger (SUI) 6,725 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,765 0 24
3 Roddick, Andy (USA) 3,085 0 20
4 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 2,490 0 17
5 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,390 0 30
6 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,370 0 21
7 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,275 0 17
8 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 2,190 0 22
9 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,180 0 25
10 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) 2,050 0 2



2011 top 10

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 0 22
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,665 0 19
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,390 0 22
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,085 0 20
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,435 0 25
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,215 1 25
7 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,060 -1 23
8 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,850 0 24
9 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,465 0 22
10 Fish, Mardy (USA) 2,395 1 21


Obviously 04-05 was more balanced and had more threats threatening the top spots. Unlike today where outside of Nadal and DJokovic we have a washed up Federer and a bunch of mental pretenders and guys who have no business being anywhere around the top 10. Losers like Monfils, Fish, Soderling, and Melzer. They pale in comparison to even an OLD Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin etc
What is your point? Trying to hype Sampras era again?

Mjau!
05-21-2011, 03:46 PM
I thought the only reason Rogi dominated in 04-05 was due to the extraordinary weakness of that era? :scratch: :unsure:

Dr.Slice
05-21-2011, 03:49 PM
Sampras would beat Nadal on clay

SetSampras
05-21-2011, 03:52 PM
I thought the only reason Rogi dominated in 04-05 was due to the extraordinary weakness of that era? :scratch: :unsure:


Tennis was more questionable in the 06-07 timeframe. But 04-05 was exceptionally good

fabolous
05-21-2011, 03:52 PM
it is a "political correctness" answer which should not be taken seriously.

It's not just Aggasi all retired tennis players are saying the same.
no, definitely not.

ossie
05-21-2011, 03:53 PM
because this is the strongest era in tennis thats why.

rocketassist
05-21-2011, 03:55 PM
because this is the strongest era in tennis thats why.

Go see a doctor.

philosophicalarf
05-21-2011, 04:04 PM
Tennis was more questionable in the 06-07 timeframe. But 04-05 was exceptionally good

04/05 was both weak and strong for the same reasons: Nalbandian and Safin. At their best they were awesome, but a lot of the time they were awol.

Every era tends to have 3/4 geuinely big names at the slams, but in the middle part of the decade 2 of them only showed up occasionally. Hewitt/Roddick really weren't in that class.

tribalfusion
05-21-2011, 04:09 PM
I love the MTF clowns avoiding the obvious when Federer, Agassi et al all say the same thing...the game is at a higher level now. Of course fanboys looking to diminish it can find a way in their basements.

Athletically alone it is obvious what has happened.

You may not like to watch it and there is no question it has changed a bit stylistically (in which case one wishes you refrained from commenting) but that's how it is.

GugaF1
05-21-2011, 04:18 PM
It is called evolution for you my tennis creationists friends. Evolution affects everything including sports, sorry if this is news for the Nostalgiatards. :wavey:

sexybeast
05-21-2011, 04:20 PM
It seems like every interview Andre conducts its about how superior tennis is now then its ever been? Wasn't Agassi at 34 years old putting the beatdown on Roddick 5-1 in the h2h or taking a prime Federer to 5 sets? Or even winning the Australian Open or giving Fed a pretty tough time in the finals of the USO at 35 YEARS OLD!!!! After playing 3 straight 5 set matches himself?


Many will argue that the 04-05 timeframe consisted of a much better field then we have today at least in terms of the top 10 in overrall threats. There should be no disputing that. We got CLOWNS like Fish and Monfils or Melzer in the top 10 today. A 35 YEAR OLD AGASSI, was IN THE TOP 10 at the time!!! Yet he will continue to kiss this era's ass repeatedly. If even an old brokeback Agassi could maintain a top 10 ranking back in 2004-2005 when the top 10 was superior, what does that say about now?


Look at the top 10 between now and then.

2004-2005 timeframe:

Federer, Roger (SUI) 6,725 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,765 0 24
3 Roddick, Andy (USA) 3,085 0 20
4 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 2,490 0 17
5 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,390 0 30
6 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,370 0 21
7 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,275 0 17
8 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 2,190 0 22
9 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,180 0 25
10 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) 2,050 0 2



2011 top 10

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 0 22
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,665 0 19
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,390 0 22
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,085 0 20
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,435 0 25
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,215 1 25
7 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,060 -1 23
8 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,850 0 24
9 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,465 0 22
10 Fish, Mardy (USA) 2,395 1 21


Obviously 04-05 was more balanced and had more threats threatening the top spots. Unlike today where outside of Nadal and DJokovic we have a washed up Federer and a bunch of mental pretenders and guys who have no business being anywhere around the top 10. Losers like Monfils, Fish, Soderling, and Melzer. They pale in comparison to even an OLD Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin etc

I do agree with you this time, 2004-2005 top 10 was better than 2011, 5-10 was alot better while 1-5 was pretty much as good as 2005. I think 2000-2002 is the weakest era of all time in tennis (challenged maybe only by 1989-1992), but 2010-2011 feels very weak outside the top 4 (Murray, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). Seems like the start of every decade has been kind of weak.

Topspindoctor
05-21-2011, 04:36 PM
Agassi should be spending more quality time with his wife rather than making a fool of himself.

luie
05-21-2011, 04:38 PM
I love the MTF clowns avoiding the obvious when Federer, Agassi et al all say the same thing...the game is at a higher level now. Of course fanboys looking to diminish it can find a way in their basements.

Athletically alone it is obvious what has happened.

You may not like to watch it and there is no question it has changed a bit stylistically (in which case one wishes you refrained from commenting) but that's how it is.
Well then the strongest era will always be the present one or a futuristic one...The generation in 10 years time will be the strongest etc etc.
It makes silly discussions about GOAT & such useless.

hipolymer
05-21-2011, 04:42 PM
It makes silly discussions about GOAT & such useless.


I'm glad to see that you finally found the truth...:cool:

luie
05-21-2011, 04:51 PM
I'm glad to see that you finally found the truth...:cool:
I was never a proponent of the GOAT debate,,,,in any event....It all media driven to sell tickets,get sponsors & raise interest in the sport.Tennis has a business element to it,,,most if not all sports do.

sexybeast
05-21-2011, 05:11 PM
The claim that every generation is stronger than the earlier one is ofcourse seriously flawed, we do know some generations seriously owns earlier generations like the Agassi/Sampras generation did to the generation which was 5 years younger than them. There are problems involving countries losing a proper tennis culture to produce great players, like what happened in the United States the latest 10-15 years.

There are problems involving children sitting too much on computers and with video games, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic all grew up in maybe the last generation of children in the western world who still played outside more than inside.

There is also the case of homogenization of styles, almost every child in my academy plays with twohanded backhands from the baseline, it has by now been proven that your chanses to become great is increased playing this way, the onehanded backhand and allcourt styles require exceptional talent for you to even suceed becoming a pro, better take the safe way which is easier to learn, right?

Well, this means certain kind of genius tennis players wont appear too often from now on and I predict the ATP will look more like the WTA in 10 years. There will be no more "greats" and "geniuses" but just alot of players playing similar to each other and whoever is physicaly more fit or mentaly more ready will win some more titles than others but I doubt anyone will be able to win 3 slams a year or even 2 slams...

Then last of all is the question of probability. There is the good argument that 5 milion kids playing tennis creates more great players than 3 milion kids playing tennis. However anyone who knows statistics know that a generation of 3 milion tennis players just might happen to produce 2-3 exceptional "1 in 5 milion tennis greats" while a generation of 5 milion might not produce any greats at all!

Take the early 70s generation which produced Sampras and Agassi and mid 70s generation who produced no greats at all!

Some generations are fortunate enought to produce greatness others are not, I think it is a mixture of odds and other factors (like changing tennis enviroments, equipment, culture).

BigJohn
05-21-2011, 05:21 PM
Some people will blame his drug use for those statements.

But junkie or not, I'll take his opinion over the one of MTF fangirls, trolls and tards.

Let me explain why that would be:

Agassi's opinion matters because he has the ability to base his opinion on actual experience of playing tennis on the ATP tour in a few eras over the years. He's also happens to be a former #1, the winner of the career GGS, plus he's the husband of Steffi Graff.


SetSampras, do you have comparable credentials?

tribalfusion
05-21-2011, 05:37 PM
Well then the strongest era will always be the present one or a futuristic one...The generation in 10 years time will be the strongest etc etc.
It makes silly discussions about GOAT & such useless.

Agreed

timafi
05-21-2011, 05:44 PM
he knows that they players nowadays are better movers;faster;return better and are ALL surface players unlike that arrogant cheap ass Pete Sampras who was called the "greatest" without ever making 1 final in Paris:tape:

Federer;Agassi;Nadal winners of ALL 4 slams >>>Pete (14 slams on 3 surfaces)Sampras

GugaF1
05-21-2011, 06:10 PM
The claim that every generation is stronger than the earlier one is ofcourse seriously flawed, we do know some generations seriously owns earlier generations like the Agassi/Sampras generation did to the generation which was 5 years younger than them. There are problems involving countries losing a proper tennis culture to produce great players, like what happened in the United States the latest 10-15 years.

There are problems involving children sitting too much on computers and with video games, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic all grew up in maybe the last generation of children in the western world who still played outside more than inside.

There is also the case of homogenization of styles, almost every child in my academy plays with twohanded backhands from the baseline, it has by now been proven that your chanses to become great is increased playing this way, the onehanded backhand and allcourt styles require exceptional talent for you to even suceed becoming a pro, better take the safe way which is easier to learn, right?

Well, this means certain kind of genius tennis players wont appear too often from now on and I predict the ATP will look more like the WTA in 10 years. There will be no more "greats" and "geniuses" but just alot of players playing similar to each other and whoever is physicaly more fit or mentaly more ready will win some more titles than others but I doubt anyone will be able to win 3 slams a year or even 2 slams...

Then last of all is the question of probability. There is the good argument that 5 milion kids playing tennis creates more great players than 3 milion kids playing tennis. However anyone who knows statistics know that a generation of 3 milion tennis players just might happen to produce 2-3 exceptional "1 in 5 milion tennis greats" while a generation of 5 milion might not produce any greats at all!

Take the early 70s generation which produced Sampras and Agassi and mid 70s generation who produced no greats at all!

Some generations are fortunate enought to produce greatness others are not, I think it is a mixture of odds and other factors (like changing tennis enviroments, equipment, culture).

Is this Comedy? Mr. Play outside makes geniuses.

madmax
05-21-2011, 06:11 PM
Becaused he knows his success after 30 came from *cough* "running up hills".

:devil:
oh those purple pills...

EliSter
05-21-2011, 06:24 PM
Sampras would beat Nadal on clay

:stupid:

mark73
05-21-2011, 06:35 PM
Yes the 90's were better, and early 1900's even better than the 90's. Max decugis would beat today's players. See my signature he is the clay goat. Actually if they played tennis in 400 bc just imagine how great they would be.

P.S. This is MTF so I need to state that I'm being sarcastic.

P.S. to my P.S. Sarcastic means I'm stating the opposite of what i mean. Like when someone tells a dumb person, thanks Einstein.

P.S to my P.S to my P.S. Einstein was a great physicist. He was a genius

mark73
05-21-2011, 06:38 PM
:stupid:

He was being sarcastic. Holy crap. :lol:
This thread is so retarded and you can't reason with people here on MTF so humour is the only way to respond.

oranges
05-21-2011, 06:57 PM
It's not just Aggasi all retired tennis players are saying the same.

Not all tread the PC line as rigorously. Edberg is known to both praise the positive changes and somewhat opine the loss of versatility.

oranges
05-21-2011, 07:02 PM
P.S to my P.S to my P.S. Einstein was a great physicist. He was a genius

If only you had a a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that genius, and I don't mean physics, but alas

mark73
05-21-2011, 07:09 PM
If only you had a a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that genius, and I don't mean physics, but alas

Seriously, Mtf is not an intellectual place. Ive tried arguing before about superior conditioning but to no effect. Its better to just make silly threads and silly signatures.

Also thanks for the insult asshole.

Start da Game
05-21-2011, 07:12 PM
It seems like every interview Andre conducts its about how superior tennis is now then its ever been? Wasn't Agassi at 34 years old putting the beatdown on Roddick 5-1 in the h2h or taking a prime Federer to 5 sets? Or even winning the Australian Open or giving Fed a pretty tough time in the finals of the USO at 35 YEARS OLD!!!! After playing 3 straight 5 set matches himself?


Many will argue that the 04-05 timeframe consisted of a much better field then we have today at least in terms of the top 10 in overrall threats. There should be no disputing that. We got CLOWNS like Fish and Monfils or Melzer in the top 10 today. A 35 YEAR OLD AGASSI, was IN THE TOP 10 at the time!!! Yet he will continue to kiss this era's ass repeatedly. If even an old brokeback Agassi could maintain a top 10 ranking back in 2004-2005 when the top 10 was superior, what does that say about now?


Look at the top 10 between now and then.

2004-2005 timeframe:

Federer, Roger (SUI) 6,725 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,765 0 24
3 Roddick, Andy (USA) 3,085 0 20
4 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 2,490 0 17
5 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,390 0 30
6 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,370 0 21
7 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,275 0 17
8 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 2,190 0 22
9 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,180 0 25
10 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) 2,050 0 2



2011 top 10

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 0 22
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,665 0 19
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,390 0 22
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,085 0 20
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,435 0 25
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,215 1 25
7 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,060 -1 23
8 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,850 0 24
9 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,465 0 22
10 Fish, Mardy (USA) 2,395 1 21


Obviously 04-05 was more balanced and had more threats threatening the top spots. Unlike today where outside of Nadal and DJokovic we have a washed up Federer and a bunch of mental pretenders and guys who have no business being anywhere around the top 10. Losers like Monfils, Fish, Soderling, and Melzer. They pale in comparison to even an OLD Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin etc

agassi's kissing aside for a minute, the eras you compare are not even comparable.......2002-06 was absolute vacuum with just too many substandard players just lucky to find themselves in the top 10.......

djokovic and clay god are showing the tennis world what a rivalry really is.......they have taken tennis to an insanely high level.......even the few players that follow them have created a name for themselves by challenging each other as opposed to taking advantage of vacuum.......

agassi is just a bitter baldy who will praise even a court sweeper starting from 2001 just to elevate his period at the top during 2001-03 and degrade sampygoat's aura which overshadowed him through out the 90s.......

oranges
05-21-2011, 07:13 PM
Seriously, Mtf is not an intellectual place. Ive tried arguing before about superior conditioning but to no effect. Its better to just make silly threads and silly signatures.

Ah, that explains the need for stupidity, silly me. It's probably the sole reason why you chose early 90's to be sarcastic about. Such terrible years 91/92, can't compare to the gloriousness of today's field. So apt.

Also thanks for the insult asshole.

Welcome.

mark73
05-21-2011, 07:25 PM
Ah, that explains the need for stupidity, silly me. It's probably the sole reason why you chose early 90's to be sarcastic about. Such terrible years 91/92, can't compare to the gloriousness of today's field. So apt.



Welcome.

Players today are more athletic than those from 20 years ago. I dont want to repeat my arguments from earlier threads because your little brain will get sore.

rocketassist
05-21-2011, 07:35 PM
Players today are more athletic than those from 20 years ago. I dont want to repeat my arguments from earlier threads because your little brain will get sore.

Athletic doesn't mean better, it just means the game's more physical and defence-favoured.

MayerFan
05-21-2011, 07:51 PM
There are two main reasons.

The first one is to avoid being accused of bitterness, as already pointed out.

The second one is that Agassi is, if I can be a bit crass, a media whore. He'll do whatever it takes to be in the news and he knows that criticising the tennis establishment won't take him anywhere in that matter.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-21-2011, 08:14 PM
agassi hates sampras

to make the 90s look bad makes diminishes sampras

agassi is being a douche

sampras is a goat contender

oranges
05-21-2011, 09:09 PM
Players today are more athletic than those from 20 years ago. I dont want to repeat my arguments from earlier threads because your little brain will get sore.

Good too see you continue being dense. Perhaps third time is the charm and it will dawn on you - you chose to mock one of the greatest periods. Players being or not being more athletic has fuck all to do with it.

Sophocles
05-21-2011, 09:38 PM
SetSampras with an uncharacteristically sensible post. Tribalfusion yet again demonstrating her staggeringly low I.Q.

DrJules
05-21-2011, 09:55 PM
The username discloses the objective of SetSampras's agenda. Having seen Federer overtake Sampras he is worried that Nadal will also in due course so is trying to denigrate the current field.

Actually over the last 20 years I am not convinced that the quality of the field has significantly changed although accept a steady marginal improvement may have happened.

mark73
05-21-2011, 10:02 PM
Good too see you continue being dense. Perhaps third time is the charm and it will dawn on you - you chose to mock one of the greatest periods. Players being or not being more athletic has fuck all to do with it.

Only mocking the idea that tennis is not getting better. Today's players are more athletic. That allows them to play better. They get to the ball earlier, hit the ball harder and get less easily tired. The OP clearly believes players from the 90's were the best ever. That's all I'm mocking.

If the retired players are saying todays game is played at a higer level it's probably because they believe that. You don't like what they say so you believe this political correcteness nonsense. If they say what you want they are honest. If they say what they dont it's all white lies. You see the absurdity?

mark73
05-21-2011, 10:05 PM
The username discloses the objective of SetSampras's agenda. Having seen Federer overtake Sampras he is worried that Nadal will also in due course so is trying to denigrate the current field.

Actually over the last 20 years I am not convinced that the quality of the field has significantly changed although accept a steady marginal improvement may have happened.

Exactly. Steady improvement.

DrJules
05-21-2011, 10:14 PM
agassi's kissing aside for a minute, the eras you compare are not even comparable.......2002-06 was absolute vacuum with just too many substandard players just lucky to find themselves in the top 10.......

djokovic and clay god are showing the tennis world what a rivalry really is.......they have taken tennis to an insanely high level.......even the few players that follow them have created a name for themselves by challenging each other as opposed to taking advantage of vacuum.......

agassi is just a bitter baldy who will praise even a court sweeper starting from 2001 just to elevate his period at the top during 2001-03 and degrade sampygoat's aura which overshadowed him through out the 90s.......

Many have said that Nadal has benefited from a weak clay field to accumulate his 5 RG titles which is reflected by Federer reaching the final at RG 4 times in a row from 2006 to 2009. If you make out Federer to be a weak performer you are confirming that the clay field at RG was weak otherwise Federer would not be reaching the final each year.

2011 has seen total domination of the tour by Djokovic with 1 GS and 4 MS wins while Nadal has only won 1 MS. That is domination not rivalry so far this year. I believe around the end of 2006 Federer had around 90% more ranking points than Nadal in second place. Djokovic could achieve a similar domination of Nadal this year. Between 2005 and 2007 Federer dominated Nadal with 3 GS + YE to 1 GS for Nadal in 2006 and 2007 and in 2005 Nadal often failed to go deep in GS events. The only year Nadal had extreme domination of Federer was in 2010 when he won 3 GS to 1 GS + YE event. The number of weeks at number 1 are much greater for Federer than Nadal for a reason.

fast_clay
05-21-2011, 10:17 PM
Players today are more athletic than those from 20 years ago. I dont want to repeat my arguments from earlier threads because your little brain will get sore.

Athletic doesn't mean better, it just means the game's more physical and defence-favoured.

Good too see you continue being dense. Perhaps third time is the charm and it will dawn on you - you chose to mock one of the greatest periods. Players being or not being more athletic has fuck all to do with it.

good to see you two have dramatically reduced the length of your responses to this fella... has not yet properly grasped the holistic view of tennis evolution... put sampras in today's era, and he's also goat defender in addition to what he had... :shrug: ...it was not a requirement for GOATage in his time - the last era of surface specialisation aka 'GOAT draw era'...

mark73 is sharing the same oxygen as us... it is disheartening to contemplate...

There are two main reasons.

The first one is to avoid being accused of bitterness, as already pointed out.

The second one is that Agassi is, if I can be a bit crass, a media whore. He'll do whatever it takes to be in the news and he knows that criticising the tennis establishment won't take him anywhere in that matter.

indeed... best to keep that dome nice and shiny...

The username discloses the objective of SetSampras's agenda. Having seen Federer overtake Sampras he is worried that Nadal will also in due course so is trying to denigrate the current field.

Actually over the last 20 years I am not convinced that the quality of the field has significantly changed although accept a steady marginal improvement may have happened.

i would further move to say that only very recently has they level of competition at the very top has shown signs of a weak pulse, where for over half a decade it has been flat-lining...

finding faults in any era isn't hard to do... but for even the casual observer of tennis history it will be all too easy to pick holes in the last 5-7 years... holier than the pope... definitely a changeover period that favoured some and not others... a time when measures taken in the generation previous later went unchecked by those who forced them...

oranges
05-21-2011, 10:19 PM
Only mocking the idea that tennis is not getting better.

Once again, you fail to grasp the fact that more athletic does nto equate better tennis. What a surprise. No, just getting to the ball quicker is not it.

If the retired players are saying todays game is played at a higer level it's probably because they believe that. You don't like what they say so you believe this political correcteness nonsense. If they say what you want they are honest. If they say what they dont it's all white lies. You see the absurdity?

No, it's because it's the nice thing to say. What kind of a tool would glorify his own era. It's also what almost everybody wants to hear. It's sure to get a lot of tennis fans if you say, hey those guys in the 80's were actually better. Some are, however, both smart enough and care enough to say the truth. See my Edberg reference. Bottom line is, tennis is not better. As with everything in life, some things have progressed for the better, some have deteriorated. Wonder whether all those invoking evolutionism have the slightest idea what it means, because it most definitely means both of those processes.

rocketassist
05-21-2011, 10:55 PM
How can going from periods that favour ATTACKING tennis to one that favours DEFENSIVE tennis be considered evolution?

I call that regression.

Topspindoctor
05-22-2011, 12:18 AM
agassi hates sampras

to make the 90s look bad makes diminishes sampras

agassi is being a douche

sampras is a goat contender

A goat contender who couldn't even reach RG final. Good joke, mate.

Johnny Groove
05-22-2011, 12:20 AM
Because he is paid to do so.

Sunset of Age
05-22-2011, 12:27 AM
Many have said that Nadal has benefited from a weak clay field to accumulate his 5 RG titles which is reflected by Federer reaching the final at RG 4 times in a row from 2006 to 2009. If you make out Federer to be a weak performer you are confirming that the clay field at RG was weak otherwise Federer would not be reaching the final each year.

Sensible logic reasoning, don't expect SdF to understand it though, as his brains are so ridiulously clouded by his hatred of Federer...

2011 has seen total domination of the tour by Djokovic with 1 GS and 4 MS wins while Nadal has only won 1 MS. That is domination not rivalry so far this year. I believe around the end of 2006 Federer had around 90% more ranking points than Nadal in second place. Djokovic could achieve a similar domination of Nadal this year. Between 2005 and 2007 Federer dominated Nadal with 3 GS + YE to 1 GS for Nadal in 2006 and 2007 and in 2005 Nadal often failed to go deep in GS events. The only year Nadal had extreme domination of Federer was in 2010 when he won 3 GS to 1 GS + YE event. The number of weeks at number 1 are much greater for Federer than Nadal for a reason.

Bolded part - for a reason. :angel:

ballbasher101
05-22-2011, 12:41 AM
As others have said it's not just Agassi who is saying this era is tough. Every tennis great who is not pompous knows this era is the best. Agassi knows best :yeah:. He has been there and done it.

leng jai
05-22-2011, 12:46 AM
Tennis was more questionable in the 06-07 timeframe. But 04-05 was exceptionally good

So an era went from being exceptionally good to questionable in the space of 1 year?

tests
05-22-2011, 12:48 AM
The claim that every generation is stronger than the earlier one is ofcourse seriously flawed, we do know some generations seriously owns earlier generations like the Agassi/Sampras generation did to the generation which was 5 years younger than them. There are problems involving countries losing a proper tennis culture to produce great players, like what happened in the United States the latest 10-15 years.

There are problems involving children sitting too much on computers and with video games, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic all grew up in maybe the last generation of children in the western world who still played outside more than inside.

There is also the case of homogenization of styles, almost every child in my academy plays with twohanded backhands from the baseline, it has by now been proven that your chanses to become great is increased playing this way, the onehanded backhand and allcourt styles require exceptional talent for you to even suceed becoming a pro, better take the safe way which is easier to learn, right?

Well, this means certain kind of genius tennis players wont appear too often from now on and I predict the ATP will look more like the WTA in 10 years. There will be no more "greats" and "geniuses" but just alot of players playing similar to each other and whoever is physicaly more fit or mentaly more ready will win some more titles than others but I doubt anyone will be able to win 3 slams a year or even 2 slams...

Then last of all is the question of probability. There is the good argument that 5 milion kids playing tennis creates more great players than 3 milion kids playing tennis. However anyone who knows statistics know that a generation of 3 milion tennis players just might happen to produce 2-3 exceptional "1 in 5 milion tennis greats" while a generation of 5 milion might not produce any greats at all!

Take the early 70s generation which produced Sampras and Agassi and mid 70s generation who produced no greats at all!

Some generations are fortunate enought to produce greatness others are not, I think it is a mixture of odds and other factors (like changing tennis enviroments, equipment, culture).

I disagree. I think there have been a good amount of two-handed backhand players with supreme talent and an all court game (safin comes to mind and agassi).

Obviously the two-handed backhand allows for a more "Safe" shot.... but history has shown us that there are indeed beautiful/talented/variety full two handers in the game.

Forehander
05-22-2011, 02:37 AM
you just named Federer washed up. Many great players were washed up mugs when Sampras played trust me lol

GugaF1
05-22-2011, 04:36 AM
How can going from periods that favour ATTACKING tennis to one that favours DEFENSIVE tennis be considered evolution?

I call that regression.

Uh, oh, let me think about this one, maybe, it has to do with the fact that players today can reach all kinds of balls from great defensive positions. Maybe, just, maybe, a lot of the balls that you call defensive, that pros hit today would be winners a while back ago.

I don't know how people can even argue about this and trow logic out of the window. There are a lot of tangible factors in tennis that evolve with time like several other areas of human kind activity even though its a sport, techonology, physical conditionning, professionalism, drill trainning, mental and not withstanding the fact that all players today stand in the shoulder of all the great players. Every player has incorporated the eficciencies, what work what not, players starting today have the inspiration for example, of a Nadal and Federer etc. and all pushed the game forward into different areas, for example.

I mean of course there are intangibles talent in talent whenever, quality is subjetive and it is a sport which is being the best at the given conditions and intangibles, but to doubt that the game keeps on evolving trough the tangible conditions is ludicrous.

yesh222
05-22-2011, 05:08 AM
Because he wants to stay relevant instead of quietly retiring like Sampras did.

General Suburbia
05-22-2011, 05:09 AM
I like how everyone's using the term "evolution" in this thread while completely misinterpreting what "evolution" actually means.

Benny_Maths
05-22-2011, 05:32 AM
Many have said that Nadal has benefited from a weak clay field to accumulate his 5 RG titles which is reflected by Federer reaching the final at RG 4 times in a row from 2006 to 2009. If you make out Federer to be a weak performer you are confirming that the clay field at RG was weak otherwise Federer would not be reaching the final each year.

2011 has seen total domination of the tour by Djokovic with 1 GS and 4 MS wins while Nadal has only won 1 MS. That is domination not rivalry so far this year. I believe around the end of 2006 Federer had around 90% more ranking points than Nadal in second place. Djokovic could achieve a similar domination of Nadal this year. Between 2005 and 2007 Federer dominated Nadal with 3 GS + YE to 1 GS for Nadal in 2006 and 2007 and in 2005 Nadal often failed to go deep in GS events. The only year Nadal had extreme domination of Federer was in 2010 when he won 3 GS to 1 GS + YE event. The number of weeks at number 1 are much greater for Federer than Nadal for a reason.

:worship::worship::worship:

BULLZ1LLA
05-22-2011, 05:48 AM
(Maybe Agassi is talking down the 90s era to annoy Sampras)

BULLZ1LLA
05-22-2011, 05:57 AM
2011 has seen total domination of the tour by Djokovic with 1 GS and 4 MS wins while Nadal has only won 1 MS. That is domination not rivalry so far this year.

(Djokovic's dominance is useless without slams. If by the end of 2011 Djokovic still only has the Australian Open while Rafa has 2 or 3 slams for the year then Djokovic won't even be close to dominant. So we really have to wait and see how the slams unfold, because the slams rule everything in the end. Djokovic will be dwarfed by Rafa this year if Rafa does the usual and wins RG-Wimbledon-double, and then the US Open will be upon us where Rafa has supreme confidence. The key to Djokovic's career is beating Rafa in a slam, much like Murray not being able to beat Federer in a slam. It's a huge psychological barrier)

MaxPower
05-22-2011, 06:07 AM
Agassi isn't unique really. Listening to swedish former world nr1s like Wilander, Edberg they always bring up how physical and competitive this era has become.

Looking back to the 90s and early 2000s there were tons of swedish players that could compete. Now in 2011 Sweden only got Soderling in the entire top300. The whole explanation isn't that trainers in this country started to suck. Its the same ppl that was with the golden era in 1987-2000. It's just that the level has improved overall and the talent pool is so much larger. The physical demands and the amount of training needed has also been increasing for every year.

What people should do instead of bringing up arguments about a slam win here and there that makes no sense is to just grab some snacks and sit down and watch 10 games from the top10 in 2000, 2005 and 2011. Then come back and say that top10 is worse today. That is just retarded. If anything they are superior.

Send the current top10 back to year 2000 and put any of them against Sampras and he would win in a similar fashion like Safin in the US Open finals. Tennis has gotten better. Just because we have a few of the greatest players of all time in the top3 right now doesn't make the 7 other players in the top10 any worse just because they don't have slams. That is very flawed logic.

What matters for an era isn't only the distribution of titles. In fact I find that as a minor thing because it will be skewed depending on the quality of the very best 1-3 players. What matters most is the general quality of the players- the way they move, hit the ball, their athleticism and their mental strength. The current top10 is vastly superior in that respect and has only gotten better and better the past decade.

Roadmap
05-22-2011, 06:14 AM
Maybe agassi thinks almagro is special player. Maybe Almagro should return every penny he ever earned to the fans of tennis and retire gracefully

Action Jackson
05-22-2011, 06:39 AM
Agassi isn't unique really. Listening to swedish former world nr1s like Wilander, Edberg they always bring up how physical and competitive this era has become.

Looking back to the 90s and early 2000s there were tons of swedish players that could compete. Now in 2011 Sweden only got Soderling in the entire top300. The whole explanation isn't that trainers in this country started to suck. Its the same ppl that was with the golden era in 1987-2000. It's just that the level has improved overall and the talent pool is so much larger. The physical demands and the amount of training needed has also been increasing for every year.


As for Sweden, they got lazy and expected that golden generation to continue, the massive hype on Kulti and Enqvist to follow the golden generation was immense. Stopped doing what got them ahead initially and being a small nation, they aren't going to have a generation like this for a long time.

The game is different, is it better that depends on who you speak to. There is a difference between playing tennis and hitting tennis balls.

MaxPower
05-22-2011, 09:22 AM
The game is different, is it better that depends on who you speak to. There is a difference between playing tennis and hitting tennis balls.

So your point is that the game was more beautiful or what not before and that makes today's players worse? It's not the current "era"s fault that tennis today is basically baseline duels with speed and power. If that is what matters for success it will also be what top players work to develop.

If serve/volley was as important as it was for top players like Edberg/Sampras then top players of 2011 would work to develop that instead and as a result be much better at it and be viewed as more "talented" by big fans of lets say Sampras.

This thread has been hinting at evolution and it is true that the game changes. Maybe if they'd kept Wimbledon as fast and possibly even made it faster since Sampras time Karlovic could be a potential top3 player and multiple slam winner. Would ppl on MTF say: "Wow the past era really sucked. Sampras couldn't serve nearly as well as Karlovic. He was never close to the ace numbers, 1st serve % and service game holds Karlovic put up in his Wimbledon run." Wouldn't be unthinkable if the game evolved in another direction.

Action Jackson
05-22-2011, 09:32 AM
So your point is that the game was more beautiful or what not before and that makes today's players worse? It's not the current "era"s fault that tennis today is basically baseline duels with speed and power. If that is what matters for success it will also be what top players work to develop.

It's very simple and doesn't need really much explanation. The game is more physical, the homogenisation of the surfaces leads to a very similar game style played on all surfaces. Essential difference is movement on the surfaces, unlike previously where there was a greater set of skills required to adapt to the challenges, in addition to the movement. Best players will overcome these in any era.

I remember the horrible ace fests and no rallies very clearly, they have secured the game now and could easily allow for greater surface differential than at present.

Djokovic makes Lendl look like Mecir.

MaxPower
05-22-2011, 09:48 AM
It's very simple and doesn't need really much explanation. The game is more physical, the homogenisation of the surfaces leads to a very similar game style played on all surfaces. Essential difference is movement on the surfaces, unlike previously where there was a greater set of skills required to adapt to the challenges, in addition to the movement. Best players will overcome these in any era.


Alright that i do agree 100% with.

But then the basis of this entire thread is kind of flawed. If physical and surface homogenized tennis is a new chapter it makes comparisons impossible. Logically more hours in the gym is needed to keep up with the physical requirements and movements requirements that means less time to practice actual tennis. Time is limited. So to be fair to modern players they would look a helluva lot better if they didn't have to spend all those hours improving their endurance and lifting weights?

Shirogane
05-22-2011, 10:05 AM
This Agassi is good.What I said.

This is just media whoring and possibly a passive-aggressive jab at Sampras.

Action Jackson
05-22-2011, 10:08 AM
Alright that i do agree 100% with.

But then the basis of this entire thread is kind of flawed. If physical and surface homogenized tennis is a new chapter it makes comparisons impossible. Logically more hours in the gym is needed to keep up with the physical requirements and movements requirements that means less time to practice actual tennis. Time is limited. So to be fair to modern players they would look a helluva lot better if they didn't have to spend all those hours improving their endurance and lifting weights?

Well you can't compare eras, everyone who thinks this is the best era now doesn't even want to entertain the fact that Nadal or Djokovic would be the same if they played in the 90s and vice versa. Can only play in your timeframe.

What Borg and Muster weren't fit.

Ukyo
05-22-2011, 10:11 AM
So your point is that the game was more beautiful or what not before and that makes today's players worse? It's not the current "era"s fault that tennis today is basically baseline duels with speed and power. If that is what matters for success it will also be what top players work to develop.

If serve/volley was as important as it was for top players like Edberg/Sampras then top players of 2011 would work to develop that instead and as a result be much better at it and be viewed as more "talented" by big fans of lets say Sampras.

This thread has been hinting at evolution and it is true that the game changes. Maybe if they'd kept Wimbledon as fast and possibly even made it faster since Sampras time Karlovic could be a potential top3 player and multiple slam winner. Would ppl on MTF say: "Wow the past era really sucked. Sampras couldn't serve nearly as well as Karlovic. He was never close to the ace numbers, 1st serve % and service game holds Karlovic put up in his Wimbledon run." Wouldn't be unthinkable if the game evolved in another direction.

Karlovic'd be the goat easily.

oranges
05-22-2011, 10:14 AM
So your point is that the game was more beautiful or what not before and that makes today's players worse? It's not the current "era"s fault that tennis today is basically baseline duels with speed and power. If that is what matters for success it will also be what top players work to develop.

It's not about being beautiful, it's about versatility, among other things. That is the most blatantly obvious aspect in which today's players are most definitely inferior. And no, I'm not talking strictly about S/V or even volley. The number of players with a decent, let alone great slice is laughable. Variety of serve is miles behind as well. We could go on.

Also, I fail to see how 'what works for success' constitutes any kind of argument that proves how today's generation is better in any way. They are superior by virtue of adapting to current circumstances?

Furthermore, despite the fact that the number of tournaments where S/V as a dominant strategy is feasible can be counted on one hand, it would be highly beneficial for absolutely every player to have Edberg-like volleys. The variety and strategic options it would give to their game would be immense. Yet, the number of players with just very good volleys, not even extraordinary, barely surpasses counting on two hands. If the evolution works as simplistically as now-tards would have us believe, I can't see why they don't. After all, everything progresses for the better, is it not. Can't these superhumans of today at least maintain the level of their predecessors, if not add to it? Or if you want another example, you think the fact that powerful serves are easier to produce today is a good excuse that the oldies could lecture 90% of the tour on strategic serving? Whacking it fewer times in favor of playing with spins and placements would actually make their serves deadlier, yet on average this 'skill' has very clearly been on the decline.


This thread has been hinting at evolution and it is true that the game changes. Maybe if they'd kept Wimbledon as fast and possibly even made it faster since Sampras time Karlovic could be a potential top3 player and multiple slam winner. Would ppl on MTF say: "Wow the past era really sucked. Sampras couldn't serve nearly as well as Karlovic. He was never close to the ace numbers, 1st serve % and service game holds Karlovic put up in his Wimbledon run." Wouldn't be unthinkable if the game evolved in another direction.

What does this even mean? Karlovic wouldn't be winning Wimbledon old grass or not. OTOH, he set a record of serves in a clay match because he both has an excellent serve and serves from a skyscraper. He still lost that match. Finally, on old grass, Sampras (or for that matter Goran, Marc P. and a number of others) serve was as good as Ivo's. Well placed first serve is virtually a point one way or another more often than not. Yet, of around a dozen that would qualify for this group, Goran snatched one, Sampras a bunch and others none. Case closed.

Start da Game
05-22-2011, 01:52 PM
Many have said that Nadal has benefited from a weak clay field to accumulate his 5 RG titles which is reflected by Federer reaching the final at RG 4 times in a row from 2006 to 2009. If you make out Federer to be a weak performer you are confirming that the clay field at RG was weak otherwise Federer would not be reaching the final each year.

2011 has seen total domination of the tour by Djokovic with 1 GS and 4 MS wins while Nadal has only won 1 MS. That is domination not rivalry so far this year. I believe around the end of 2006 Federer had around 90% more ranking points than Nadal in second place. Djokovic could achieve a similar domination of Nadal this year. Between 2005 and 2007 Federer dominated Nadal with 3 GS + YE to 1 GS for Nadal in 2006 and 2007 and in 2005 Nadal often failed to go deep in GS events. The only year Nadal had extreme domination of Federer was in 2010 when he won 3 GS to 1 GS + YE event. The number of weeks at number 1 are much greater for Federer than Nadal for a reason.

your stats based one dimensional preaching is blatantly biased and anyone can see it.......if djokovic goes on to dominate the rest of the year, just think about it who it will have been over......it will be over a 16 slams winner and a 9 slams winner.......

2006 my arse.......absolute joke field with hardly anyone capable of holding a racket and standing firm.......just fed, nadal on clay and the rest of them were pathetic beyond imagination.......

the crappy comparison extends to further nonsense when you start comparing baby nadal's 2005, 2006 years with fully established fed and his fluke domination due to the buffoonish field.......

where have you been when nadal destroyed djokovic and fed in 2008? how about 2009 before he got injured? us open 2010? taking their last 4 matches and concluding that it's not a rivalry but domination is foolish and even you know it......

just face it that nadal-djokovic real rivalry totally outshines the lifeless nadal-fed one sided "rivalry".......

MacTheKnife
05-22-2011, 02:12 PM
Guys like Agassi and McEnroe have designated themselves as ambassadors of the sport in the US. Virtually everything they say is to enhance or build the popularity of the sport in hopes of rejuvenating interest for tennis in the US.

If you live in the US, God knows we need it. I don't mind them pumping the sport with all their promotion driven comments. People that really know the sport simply have to take these comments with a grain of salt.

Sophocles
05-22-2011, 03:37 PM
It's not about being beautiful, it's about versatility, among other things. That is the most blatantly obvious aspect in which today's players are most definitely inferior. And no, I'm not talking strictly about S/V or even volley. The number of players with a decent, let alone great slice is laughable. Variety of serve is miles behind as well. We could go on.

Also, I fail to see how 'what works for success' constitutes any kind of argument that proves how today's generation is better in any way. They are superior by virtue of adapting to current circumstances?

Furthermore, despite the fact that the number of tournaments where S/V as a dominant strategy is feasible can be counted on one hand, it would be highly beneficial for absolutely every player to have Edberg-like volleys. The variety and strategic options it would give to their game would be immense. Yet, the number of players with just very good volleys, not even extraordinary, barely surpasses counting on two hands. If the evolution works as simplistically as now-tards would have us believe, I can't see why they don't. After all, everything progresses for the better, is it not. Can't these superhumans of today at least maintain the level of their predecessors, if not add to it? Or if you want another example, you think the fact that powerful serves are easier to produce today is a good excuse that the oldies could lecture 90% of the tour on strategic serving? Whacking it fewer times in favor of playing with spins and placements would actually make their serves deadlier, yet on average this 'skill' has very clearly been on the decline.



What does this even mean? Karlovic wouldn't be winning Wimbledon old grass or not. OTOH, he set a record of serves in a clay match because he both has an excellent serve and serves from a skyscraper. He still lost that match. Finally, on old grass, Sampras (or for that matter Goran, Marc P. and a number of others) serve was as good as Ivo's. Well placed first serve is virtually a point one way or another more often than not. Yet, of around a dozen that would qualify for this group, Goran snatched one, Sampras a bunch and others none. Case closed.

Great post. Serve placement is worse, volleys are worse, slices are worse, touch is worse. In the 1970s points were routinely won, especially on clay, with drop-&-lob combinations. When do you ever see that now? Djokovic occasionally does it - that's about it. Murray maybe.

fast_clay
05-22-2011, 03:52 PM
Great post. Serve placement is worse, volleys are worse, slices are worse, touch is worse. In the 1970s points were routinely won, especially on clay, with drop-&-lob combinations. When do you ever see that now? Djokovic occasionally does it - that's about it. Murray maybe.

i think today, trends dominate... we are a dumbed down era... less likely to think out of the box... happier to let the instructions be placed in front of us and just follow them... sure, it worked for 'them'... right...?

in eras previous... a trend was merely something to be broken... like a code... serve and volley occurred to stop the trend of men pushing and running marathons at the baseline to win a match - and, as such, serve and volley became a trend itself... ushering in perhaps the most interesting and dynamic clash of styles in all of sport...

i am not sure i have seen such endeavour today... though, i have been thinking for some time that the current era is ripe for an 'alien' style to disarm the colour-by-number robots... something foreign will arrive... history says it is so...

Sophocles
05-22-2011, 04:00 PM
i think today, trends dominate... we are a dumbed down era... less likely to think out of the box... happier to let the instructions be placed in front of us and just follow them... sure, it worked for 'them'... right...?

in eras previous... a trend was merely something to be broken... like a code... serve and volley occurred to stop the trend of men pushing and running marathons at the baseline to win a match - and, as such, serve and volley became a trend itself... ushering in perhaps the most interesting and dynamic clash of styles in all of sport...

i am not sure i have seen such endeavour today... though, i have been thinking for some time that the current era is ripe for an 'alien' style to disarm the colour-by-number robots... something foreign will arrive... history says it is so...

Entirely agree. Whether the next "alien" will be any good to watch is another question. You could probably see Federer as the last real alien": his game was perfectly suited to demolishing the Bolletieri no-frills serve-forehand style exemplified by Roddick, even while being a variation on it.

fast_clay
05-22-2011, 04:13 PM
Entirely agree. Whether the next "alien" will be any good to watch is another question. You could probably see Federer as the last real alien": his game was perfectly suited to demolishing the Bolletieri no-frills serve-forehand style exemplified by Roddick, even while being a variation on it.

indeed... watching him masterfully pick apart del potro for a set and 3/4 in USO Final 2009 with open faced chips, dinks and varied length illustrates exactly what you speak of...

unfortunately for fed fans, it also demonstrated federer's surprising lack of tactical awareness and what can only be described as 'a bizarre desire' to out hit ballsy but cloned ballbashers... but, i digress..

shiaben
05-22-2011, 04:18 PM
I don't know what people have against this era. The Agassi era was all about accuracy. This era took Agassi's accuracy and added power and athleticism to it, now you have players who are sliding and running all over the place hitting ridiculously impossible shots. Agassi and Roddick types have stiff bodies, the same with Sampras, they are not as flexible as this new generation. The new generation has a lot of players with powerful forehands, backhands, quick footwork, flexibility and just about everything else. The only thing that may be missing is S&V.

Sophocles
05-22-2011, 04:21 PM
indeed... watching him masterfully pick apart del potro for a set and 3/4 in USO Final 2009 with open faced chips, dinks and varied length illustrates exactly what you speak of...

unfortunately for fed fans, it also demonstrated federer's surprising lack of tactical awareness and what can only be described as 'a bizarre desire' to out hit ballsy but cloned ballbashers... but, i digress..

Absolutely. I guess Federer's just an instinctive player. He doesn't do a lot of thinking out there. Nadal has frequently out-thought him, & he's not exactly a tactical genius.

fast_clay
05-22-2011, 04:49 PM
Absolutely. I guess Federer's just an instinctive player. He doesn't do a lot of thinking out there. Nadal has frequently out-thought him, & he's not exactly a tactical genius.

yeah, very recent history would suggest he is as dumb as dogshit on his natural surface... guess all that coaching tio toni did was primarily concerned with muscle memory ie; not the brain muscle...

Myrre
05-22-2011, 04:54 PM
I don't know what people have against this era. The Agassi era was all about accuracy. This era took Agassi's accuracy and added power and athleticism to it, now you have players who are sliding and running all over the place hitting ridiculously impossible shots. Agassi and Roddick types have stiff bodies, the same with Sampras, they are not as flexible as this new generation. The new generation has a lot of players with powerful forehands, backhands, quick footwork, flexibility and just about everything else. The only thing that may be missing is S&V.

Sampras had a stiff body? LOL. I read somewhere he could touch his elbows behind his back. Stiff personality though...:)

Start da Game
05-22-2011, 05:34 PM
yeah, very recent history would suggest he is as dumb as dogshit on his natural surface... guess all that coaching tio toni did was primarily concerned with muscle memory ie; not the brain muscle...

nadal is not a natural talent, he needs tons and tons of hitting to play at his best possible tactical level.......now that is tough to keep up with through out the year.......

if somebody throws something different at him, sure he goes down initially but again he takes his time and finds an answer.......he does......he found an answer to everything in his career so far......

you give me a player who he hasn't found an answer to, you give me a surface where he hasn't had success on, he can win even indoors but he is simply too tired by then.......like i said he is not a natural talent and he needs tons of hitting all the time to keep his game together.......

nadal is all about fight.......any top tennis player has four potent weapons: serve, return, forehand, backhand.......nadal will never have a good serve and good return.......he will have to win whatever he can just with his great forehand and backhand, like how he did thus far in his career.......

Bobby
05-22-2011, 05:44 PM
I don't know what people have against this era. The Agassi era was all about accuracy. This era took Agassi's accuracy and added power and athleticism to it, now you have players who are sliding and running all over the place hitting ridiculously impossible shots. Agassi and Roddick types have stiff bodies, the same with Sampras, they are not as flexible as this new generation. The new generation has a lot of players with powerful forehands, backhands, quick footwork, flexibility and just about everything else. The only thing that may be missing is S&V.

The answer here is modern racquet technology. That's what makes it possible to hit those amazing shots from all over the court. The sweet spots used to be much smaller, meaning that the timing and clean hitting was essential. It wasn't possible to go for the big shot often, because the racquet was more or less dead outside the sweet spot.

Singularity
05-22-2011, 05:54 PM
your stats based one dimensional preaching is blatantly biased and anyone can see it.......if djokovic goes on to dominate the rest of the year, just think about it who it will have been over......it will be over a 16 slams winner and a 9 slams winner.......

2006 my arse.......absolute joke field with hardly anyone capable of holding a racket and standing firm.......just fed, nadal on clay and the rest of them were pathetic beyond imagination.......

the crappy comparison extends to further nonsense when you start comparing baby nadal's 2005, 2006 years with fully established fed and his fluke domination due to the buffoonish field.......
If Federer had played worse, more players would have been able to pick up Grand Slams, and the era would be stronger, according to your assessment.

MaxPower
05-22-2011, 05:55 PM
Yes should probably give more attention to the other side of the coin. The defensive game like return of serve, passing shots and how that has developed in the modern game. People said Agassi was one of the best returners of his era but then you see 2011 Djokovic and it's like WTF? Seen him return 200km/h serves right on the line like it's the easiest thing in the world. Sure you could argue that modern players are easy to read, stupid in their tactics or what not. But the RoS has gotten better in general imo and we often see breadstick and bagel matches by the top10 players even vs veteran players with good placement and proven serves. Or is the slowdown of surfaces really that dramatic that it makes up for the entire difference?

Also the strength of modern players often makes them able to hit winners even from what should be defensive positions. Nadal pretty much showed the way from 2005 onwards with speed and good arm strength that you can hit back offensive shots in situations where players just a few years back likely just would have sliced it back to get some time to get back into the rally. That isn't normal either but it shows you that sheer physical strength can open some doors.

US Open final between Fed and Del Potro was a good example where Del Potro often was behind in a duel and then out of nowhere ripped an unreturnable shot from way out. Sure Fed did some tactical errors overall but he pretty much did the solid hardcourt game that had worked so well for him previous years. He was dominating many rallies and played excellent offensive tennis and still lost the point!? It was a freak on the other side of the net. Shouldn't even get in on Fed vs Nadal matches or the recent Fed vs Djokovic matches.

Some people might not like it but it is pretty facinating to see a player getting dominated and pushed around and then out of nowhere send back a stunning winner. There is much skill in the RoS, defensive and counter-game too and just because you have excellent variety/slice/volley/serve placement there will a guy on the other side of the net as well that can even use your offensive game against you. There aren't that many genuinely offensive players in the top10 because it's hard as hell to play that way in the modern game. Federer got all the tools with excellent slice/volley/serve placement. Still often struggles. Players like Soderling/Berdych got amazing power and accuracy (especially taking the pace they hit the ball with into account) and they still struggle vs the best defensive players like Nadal/Djokovic.

The RoS and defensive game is simply so good that it makes certain players offensive game look worse than it really is. It's not like you would do better vs Djokovic or Nadal if you reduced the "ballbashing" or what ppl call hitting with lots of power. In fact it seems like the only way to break down the best defensive players is power and depth combined with good placement. It is that struggle vs the best defense that lead to all the U.E feasts that ppl associate with bad tennis. But if you can't outlast a guy you have to hit through him. And if it was easy to outsmart them why aren't the best players at dropshots/slices and alike doing better vs the top defensive players? Truth is that guys like Djokovic/Nadal/Murray more often than not can rundown a dropshot and counter with their own and make it look easy. Lob them and they smash you unless it's absolutely perfect. Even if it's perfect they could still run it down and force you to another shot. That is the reality of the game today.

LawrenceOfTennis
05-22-2011, 05:56 PM
ATP,retired players are forced to say this and that. He can't be serious. It's obvious that a prime Agasii would whip the court with Djokovic.

Start da Game
05-22-2011, 05:59 PM
If Federer had played worse, more players would have been able to pick up Grand Slams, and the era would be stronger, according to your assessment.

that would have been a total disaster like in 2002 with absolute nobodies winning slams......sampygoat's us open win was the only saving grace of 2002......

juan27
05-22-2011, 05:59 PM
If Federer had played worse, more players would have been able to pick up Grand Slams, and the era would be stronger, according to your assessment.

poor start da fail....

nadulltards never tired of write stupid things and only know that tennis is a sport with a racket and a yellow ball.

nadull`s opposition it`s a joke , only one rival and federer with 30 years old, the rest are mugs.

yeah... mugs like the patetic competition that nadal has in clay!!!!

oranges
05-22-2011, 06:14 PM
I love how MaxPower decided to disregard his arguments being picked apart and post a whole new essay on the glory of today :haha:

MaxPower
05-22-2011, 06:40 PM
I love how MaxPower decided to disregard his arguments being picked apart and post a whole new essay on the glory of today :haha:

haven't you heard about advanced argumentation tactics? Discussion is kinda boring if it's only "todays game is so bad and everyone who thinks otherwise are wrong" More interesting with opposite opinions as well.

Also lots of posters are suffering from selective memory. It's proven that people remember things they like about past times and tend to forget/ignore the bad parts. Nothing strange about that. What people watch are often highlights of the past matches. What they see today are entire matches. Of course it's gonna look damn good when you only watch the best points and the best matches of your favourite past players.

I have no problem with past greats like Borg being inferior to Nadal. He was insanely dominant among his peers but the game got better.

Sampras/Agassi was amazing players in their era. Dunno why they game would stop evolving just because they quit. Even more interesting when they like Agassi said that todays era is amazing and yet MTF experts work so hard to disprove him. He should know a few things about the game one would think but no then its a conspiracy to discredit someone or what not. Makes no sense. If he discredits Sampras he also discredits himself. Would be like Nadal trying to discredit Federer. Would discredit his own accomplishments

oranges
05-22-2011, 10:03 PM
haven't you heard about advanced argumentation tactics?

Oh, what a fancy name for 'no arguments, but keep banging head on the wall' procedure :lol:

sexybeast
05-22-2011, 10:14 PM
2006 is mentioned as a weak year, but you cant really take anything away from Federer if you look at his draws, he got the best possible opponents he could get at that time in grand slams. Maybe 2006 is as good as 2010, but for some reason players didnt show up in grand slams, you just have to take a look at Nadal's Usopen draw 2010.

You say Federer had weak opponents, but just take a look at the opponents he was playing in grand slams at this period and tell me if any player would win these grand slams with ease:

Wimbledon:

Gasquet, Henman, Berdych, Mahut, Ancic and Nadal to win his Wimbledon title. These are very good grasscourt players, Gasquet was playing brilliant grasscourt tennis and nearly beat Federer in Halle and won a grasscourt title just before Wimbledon,

Usopen:

Federer played Blake at his prime in QF, Davydenko in SF and a reborn Andy Roddick in the final. I very much doubt Nadal 2010 would be able to beat them all in the kind of form they were in at this time.

Australian Open 2007:

Youzhny, Djokovic, Roddick and Gonzalez were among the opponents he beat without losing a set to win Australian Open 2007. Gonzalez was flying, he hit 42 winners and 3 UEs against Haas in SF, he destroyed Nadal in straight sets, he looked absolutely unbeatable on his way to the final. Roddick in SF was just humiliated, most probably remember this match. Djokovic was already a very good player 2007 but had no chanse. Federer was playing allcourt tennis like never before, going to the net all the time with great success, playing all angles and dimensions of the court.

He lost 3 sets in these 3 grand slams, I am not even mentioning the master cup 2006 where he could litteraly do whatever he wanted with his backhand. You can say this was a weak era, but does it really matter? Federer was unbeatable and played the strongest opponents he could possibly get on his way to grand slams. I actually belive Rafael Nadal on clay is the only player in history who could beat Federer that year, but I cant really back up such subjective opinions of mine.

I would love to see if Djokovic can get something like 92-5 and win 3 out of 4 grand slams this year, if he could do it I will be the first to aknowledge that it would not really matter if this is not the strongest of eras, when a player dominates like Federer 2006, Mcenroe 84 and so on I dont think it matters much what opponent you throw against them.

abraxas21
05-22-2011, 11:13 PM
he probly does it just to annoy sampras and his fans

it's working

MayerFan
05-22-2011, 11:21 PM
he probly does it just to annoy sampras and his fans

it's working

:lol:

I guess that's true.

juan27
05-23-2011, 03:02 AM
2006 is mentioned as a weak year, but you cant really take anything away from Federer if you look at his draws, he got the best possible opponents he could get at that time in grand slams. Maybe 2006 is as good as 2010, but for some reason players didnt show up in grand slams, you just have to take a look at Nadal's Usopen draw 2010.

You say Federer had weak opponents, but just take a look at the opponents he was playing in grand slams at this period and tell me if any player would win these grand slams with ease:

Wimbledon:

Gasquet, Henman, Berdych, Mahut, Ancic and Nadal to win his Wimbledon title. These are very good grasscourt players, Gasquet was playing brilliant grasscourt tennis and nearly beat Federer in Halle and won a grasscourt title just before Wimbledon,

Usopen:

Federer played Blake at his prime in QF, Davydenko in SF and a reborn Andy Roddick in the final. I very much doubt Nadal 2010 would be able to beat them all in the kind of form they were in at this time.

Australian Open 2007:

Youzhny, Djokovic, Roddick and Gonzalez were among the opponents he beat without losing a set to win Australian Open 2007. Gonzalez was flying, he hit 42 winners and 3 UEs against Haas in SF, he destroyed Nadal in straight sets, he looked absolutely unbeatable on his way to the final. Roddick in SF was just humiliated, most probably remember this match. Djokovic was already a very good player 2007 but had no chanse. Federer was playing allcourt tennis like never before, going to the net all the time with great success, playing all angles and dimensions of the court.

He lost 3 sets in these 3 grand slams, I am not even mentioning the master cup 2006 where he could litteraly do whatever he wanted with his backhand. You can say this was a weak era, but does it really matter? Federer was unbeatable and played the strongest opponents he could possibly get on his way to grand slams. I actually belive Rafael Nadal on clay is the only player in history who could beat Federer that year, but I cant really back up such subjective opinions of mine.

I would love to see if Djokovic can get something like 92-5 and win 3 out of 4 grand slams this year, if he could do it I will be the first to aknowledge that it would not really matter if this is not the strongest of eras, when a player dominates like Federer 2006, Mcenroe 84 and so on I dont think it matters much what opponent you throw against them.

don`t lost your time...

nadulltards never understand nothing about tennis and always tells bullshits..

I never hear a nadulltard talking about the weak opposition that nadal has in clay...

the only players of jerarchy are roger and nole and this players are fast courts specialists!!!!

never a really clay court specialist only almagros,verdascos,ferrers,puertas and more mugs!!!

today , nole has a physicall condition similar and he crushed nadal in clay, the secret of nadal in clays was his physicall and moonballing to the backhand with nole this don`t result anymore and we see the reality becasuse nole has a physicall very very good and nadull tactics not work anymore because nole reaches and returs every balls and nadull is defeated by his own method..

but nadulltards talk about roger and his oponents:rolleyes:

MaxPower
05-23-2011, 04:53 AM
Ok but most tennisfans can agree with the overall expert opinion that Federer and Nadal >> Sampras and Agassi?

I mean this is only a few years back. Easy for most to remember. Look at the way hardcourt tennis was played before Federer. And look at Federers play after his breakthrough. He took players like Roddick/Hewitt to school. His tennis was amazing at his peak.

Look at clay tennis pre-Nadal. Sure it had some interesting players like Kuerten, Ferrero, Coria etc but when Nadal came along he absolutely killed the competition as young guy. I strongly dislike Nadal and the way he plays (yes really) but you can't deny that he is one tough player to beat on clay. Way tougher to beat than any previous player with maybe the exception of Borg but that is waaay back.

So if Federer/Nadal >>> Sampras/Agassi doesn't it make sense it's harder for players behind them to win major titles?

Imagine the following scenario: Federer was as bad on clay as Sampras. Nadal was as bad on hardcourt/grass as he was in the beginning of his career.

How would the top10 look?
1. Federer 13-17 slams somewhere
2. Djokovic 4-5 slams
3. Nadal 6-7 slams
4. Murray 1-2 slams (Yeah he would likely have a slam if Nadal was worse on hardcourt/grass!)
5. Soderling 1 slam (Yes he would have a slam if Federer sucked on clay)
6. Del Potro (The dude already has a slam but hey he'd still get injured i guess)
...
...
...
Looking at that list people might say: WOW THIS ERA IS STRONG!


Instead of:

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 (Clay GOAT only because of weak clay era)
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,665 (Soon back to earth. Was never a big talent)
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,390 (False GOAT, 16 slams because of bad competition)
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,085 (Big mug and choker. Overhyped by british ppl)
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,435 (Fluke. Never close at winning a GS)
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,200 (Big fluke, will lose all his 2010 points)
7 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,060 (fighter but no shot at ever winning anything)
8 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,850 (old and lucky clown)
9 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,465 (athletic clown)
10 Fish, Mardy (USA) 2,395 (clown)

Action Jackson
05-23-2011, 05:06 AM
Got to love marcRD he makes me laugh.

JediFed
05-23-2011, 05:16 AM
the only players of jerarchy are roger and nole and this players are fast courts specialists!!!!

Vilas
Borg
Connors
Lendl
Agassi
Wilander
Federer

He's 6th all time for GS wins on clay. Sure, he's no Vilas, but Federer is hardly a HC specialist. He reaches the QF here, he'll pass Wilander.

MaxPower
05-23-2011, 06:37 AM
Hasn't this thread already taken up surface homogenization? There will be no more true specialists in the modern game. If you got a good claycourt game and grew up on claycourts you will do well on the other surfaces as well. Do well on slow high bouncing hardcourt and why wouldn't you be dangerous on clay?

The top100 is full of spanish players, the dudes who just went 5/5 in RG. The best juniors from all over the world go to tennis academies in Spain to work on clay in hopes of becoming top players.

No reason to expect that this era got worse clay players just because in addition to the long clay season they also play on green, blue and purple "clay". A guy like Federer has always had a great claygame because of his talent and great movement. He is no specialist but a great allrounder that can adapt. Only reason he hasn't more clay titles is spelled Nadal.

Nadal who also happens to be the reigning Wimbledon and US Open champion. That is the only true clay specialist alright? Truth is that the entire tour is like the Association of CLAY Tennis Professionals

Nabster
05-23-2011, 04:01 PM
Doesn't the fact Hewitt was able to dominate for a short period of time kinda proves how weak tennis used to be?

Remember how he put the beat down on Samprass? Sure Samp was not at his prime, but could Hewitt beat any of the big 4 like that if they weren't in their prime?

And one thing we're forgetting is, the technology of the era was different. It's easier for big men like Soderling and Del Potro to exist now days. Back in the day big men always had weaknesses, but string technology allows similar players to be strong of both wings now. So it might just look like the players are better, when in reality the technology is just better.

Remember how Greg Rusedski couldn't play a backhand with top spin, well now with the new string tech he can? I can't remember that one American tennis player that had a back injury for a long time, he is a serve and volley player. Before he was injured he only had a slice, but after returning from many years he had a once handed back ahdn top spin shot.

But the flip side is the fact that players HAVE become bigger and faster. The average height went up something like three inches in the last decade, from what I remember some comentators said. But it could be the technology that allows these biggers players to enter tennis.

oranges
05-23-2011, 06:30 PM
Doesn't the fact Hewitt was able to dominate for a short period of time kinda proves how weak tennis used to be?

Remember how he put the beat down on Samprass? Sure Samp was not at his prime, but could Hewitt beat any of the big 4 like that if they weren't in their prime?



Oh, for the love of God, he was spanking Fed left and right. What kind of a selective memory do you need for some of these posts.

GugaF1
05-23-2011, 06:50 PM
Oh, for the love of God, he was spanking Fed left and right. What kind of a selective memory do you need for some of these posts.

Spanking Federer left and right, talk about selective memory. You don't need me to remind you that there was never any spanking concerning Federer and Hewitt rigtht, even when Federer was far from his peak yet.

Nabster
05-23-2011, 07:00 PM
Oh, for the love of God, he was spanking Fed left and right. What kind of a selective memory do you need for some of these posts.

Are there different kinds of selective memory?

And who was spanking Fed? Your post is completely meaningless since you don't understand how to write clearly.

And if you meant Hewitt was spanking Fed, well he was getting the better of Fed before Fed came on, yes. But that was when Fed wasn't winning slams and dominating, so if this is what you meant, it's an irrelevant thing to say. Especially since 2004, Fed has only lost once to Hewitt, and the Swiss has beaten him a lot of times since then. You have no point.

Sophocles
05-23-2011, 07:09 PM
There's no doubt we had a transitional & relatively weak era between Sampras's & Federer's reigns at No. 1, but it's easy to underrate it. As well as Hewitt, we had Agassi (whose best year came in 1999), Kuerten, Safin, Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Ivanisevic, Rafter, and of course Sampras, all playing at a high level at least intermittently. We shouldn't read too much into Hewitt's owning Sampras: Sampras was well past his peak & Hewitt was a terrible match-up for him, as he was for all serve-volleyers, including the young Federer. But yes, it was a transitional era. That doesn't make this era the best ever. Modern racquet technology allows players to hit powerful shots with far more accuracy than before, even when out of position; it would have done the same for the better players of the past.

oranges
05-23-2011, 08:09 PM
Are there different kinds of selective memory?



Obviously, there are because even after being pointed out, 7:1 or 8:1 lead in the H2H at one point does not seem to jog yours. Since you were proposing he wouldn't be beating current top crop even out of their prime, puling the 'not-in-prime' excuse is beyond clownish. Not that you had any point to begin with. Hewitt has not even retired yet. If he's a part of anything, he's a part of the current generation.