it's not fair to compare the ATP masters of the past with the ones we have now [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

it's not fair to compare the ATP masters of the past with the ones we have now

abraxas21
11-13-2011, 05:55 PM
Regarding the idea that federer/nadal have surpassed agassi in that department, i want to say they haven't.

on top of the fact that today's era sucks, it should also be taken into account 3 very objective factors:

1- when tennis wasnt so muggy, some ATP masters had 5-set finals
2- byes for the top players in their first rounds are also a muggy invention (agassi got them too, though).
3- miami and IW didn't last for 2 bloody weeks each. it actually took a massive phsical and mental effort to win them both; now it's much easier.

i think it's fair to say that both federer and nadal could have less ATP 1000 if the conditions would have been without byes in the first round and with best of 5-set finals in some of the tourneys.

and yes, this point has been raised many times but it's still worthy to bring it again given that many tards are already making improper comparisons.

discuss

GOAT = Fed
11-13-2011, 05:59 PM
Regarding the idea that federer/nadal have surpassed agassi in that department, i want to say they haven't.

on top of the fact that today's era sucks, it should also be taken into account 3 very objective factors:

1- when tennis wasnt so muggy, some ATP masters had 5-set finals
2- byes for the top players in their first rounds are also a muggy invention of the recent years.
3- miami and IW didn't last for 2 bloody weeks each. it actually took a massive phsical and mental effort to win them both; now it's much easier.

i think it's fair to say that both federer and nadal could have less ATP 1000 if the conditions would have been without byes in the first round and with best of 5-set finals in some of the tourneys.

and yes, this point has been raised many times but it's still worthy to bring it again given that many tards are already making improper comparisons.

discuss
A fair bit of Federer's career was spent playing when master's were 5 sets and no byes. The same also applied to Nadal. :wavey:

LawrenceOfTennis
11-13-2011, 05:59 PM
Regarding the idea that federer/nadal have surpassed agassi in that department, i want to say they haven't.

on top of the fact that today's era sucks, it should also be taken into account two objective factors:

1- when tennis wasnt so muggy, some ATP masters had 5-set finals
2- byes for the top players in their first rounds are also a muggy invention of the recent years.

i think it's fair to say that both federer and nadal could have less ATP 1000 if the conditions would have been without byes in the first round and with best of 5-set finals in some of the tourneys.

and yes, this point has been raised many times but it's still worthy to bring it again given that many tards are already making improper comparisons.

discuss

I wish the same. It was definetely better to watch best of 5 finals than these lame 40 minute matches. Many posters think those were of worse quality and lower level but it's not true. The last great final was the Federer-Nalbandian 2005.
The text in bold is true.

fast_clay
11-13-2011, 06:03 PM
I wish the same. It was definetely better to watch best of 5 finals than these lame 40 minute matches. Many posters think those were of worse quality and lower level but it's not true. The last great final was the Federer-Nalbandian 2005.
The text in bold is true.

:spit:

wrong you numpty...

Rome 2006

sexybeast
11-13-2011, 06:03 PM
Well, Federer won 7 master series in best of 5 finals, the same as Agassi! Master series actually had best of 3 format in the beginning of Agassi's career. So it is pretty even. Nadal won 5 master series with best of 5 finals.

fast_clay
11-13-2011, 06:04 PM
but yes, today, masters series is very muggy...

Ben.
11-13-2011, 06:08 PM
It's all more fallout from the slower courts, isn't it? No byes, five set finals, back to back M1000. All potentially brutal on the slow hardcourts.

Jenrios
11-13-2011, 06:35 PM
ah, 5 sets finals! Those were the days! I'd definitely like a return to that.

sexybeast
11-13-2011, 06:37 PM
Once again, Agassi won only 7 finals in best of 5, same as Federer.

Egreen
11-13-2011, 06:42 PM
ah, 5 sets finals! Those were the days! I'd definitely like a return to that.

Ditto.

MaxPower
11-13-2011, 07:29 PM
Technically a best of 5 final usually benefits the best players. It's harder to win a 5 seter vs the likes of Federer/Nadal than to win a 3 seter vs them. It would however drain them of more power and probably lead to more injuries/early losses in later tournaments so fair point.

But I do think the 1st round bye means a lot. Every match is a risk for either a loss or an injury no matter what player. Not to mention the top guys usually gets more rest and can walk into tournaments later when the opponent has an extra match in his legs.

TBkeeper
11-13-2011, 07:37 PM
Then Ljubicic would've won 2 master series titles if it were from back then 2/3 sets not 3/5
BUT I LOVE 3/5 sets ! Like how Davydenko bitched Hrbaty 6/1 6/2 6/2

ossie
11-13-2011, 08:08 PM
the level of competition in the strongest era ever easily makes up for the bys for top players and the lack of 5 set finals for masters.

rocketassist
11-13-2011, 08:11 PM
the level of competition in the strongest era ever easily makes up for the bys for top players and the lack of 5 set finals for masters.

Bullfuckingshit.

Henry Chinaski
11-13-2011, 08:11 PM
5 set finals gimp Mugray would certainly have won fewer but with the extra experience against top players over 5 sets, maybe he'd have a slam.

TennisOnWood
11-13-2011, 08:33 PM
5 set finals gimp Mugray would certainly have won fewer but with the extra experience against top players over 5 sets, maybe he'd have a slam.

Yes, but on the other hand he would have some titles from best of 5 finals.. still none atm and his amount of titles is not small

I think that would help him in Grand Slam finals too.. Rafa gained a lot from two epic Rome finals at such young age

fast_clay
11-13-2011, 08:43 PM
bye to second round is so nice and fluffy

bjurra
11-14-2011, 11:55 AM
Here are some awesome SF draws from the good old days:

Canada 2002:

Novak
Roddick
Haas
Canas (tournament winner)

Madrid 2002:

Santoro
Novak
Grosjean
Agassi (tournament winner)

Monte Carlo 2001

Arazi
Grosjean
Coria
Kuerten (tournament winner)

Stuttgart 2001:

Mirnyi
Kafelnikov
Haas (tournament winner)
Hewitt

Indian Wells 2000:

Corretja (tournament winner)
Lapentti
Philippoussis
Enqvist

Rome 2000

Corretja
Kuerten
Norman (tournament winner)
Hewitt

Miami 99

Grosjean
Clavet
Krajicek (tournament winner)
Enqvist

Hamburg 99

Lapentti
Zabaleta
Rios (tournament winner)
Moya

Clearly Nole, Fed, Rafa and Andy are very lucky to compete in today's mug era, they would not have had many shots at titles back then...

ossie
11-14-2011, 03:25 PM
Bullfuckingshit.why so serious? you know i speak the truth.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-14-2011, 04:07 PM
i agree with this, the past was way different than today game, so we are not sure which game was better because of two decades are very different jus like the women side

SetSampras
11-14-2011, 05:29 PM
It was better before because players didn't have the access to the racket technology and sweet spots the size of serena williams on their racket, thus they had to rely more on precision and strategy.. You actually had to be well rounded before

BIGMARAT
11-15-2011, 02:16 AM
its the same!
It's not players fault that it was only played 3 sets now. Its more athletic now anyways compare to before.
Things changed and players and tournament adjust.

Topspindoctor
11-15-2011, 02:26 AM
abraxas21 slowly becoming a nostalgiatard and upping his ACC game at the same time :bowdown:

It's not like the game has enough injuries, so let's remove BYEs and make finals of masters events BO5! Brilliant stuff.

Mr.Michael
11-15-2011, 03:24 AM
The events were pretty uneven at times. In the 90's many fields were actually quite weak. The Canadian Open had maybe 4-6 top 20 players for some years. Some players skipped events on clay and some skipped indoor events etc.

These "nine" bigger events kinda developed in the 80's and back then some of the draws were almost awful. Also I can't understand how Wikipedia lists some events from the 70's in the list. It has nothing to do with these tournaments anymore.

BlueSwan
11-15-2011, 06:23 AM
3- miami and IW didn't last for 2 bloody weeks each. it actually took a massive phsical and mental effort to win them both; now it's much easier.
What? While my memory might fail me, this has been the case for as long as I can recall.

lucho_coria
11-15-2011, 06:25 AM
I really want a coria vs nadal final, like in Rome 2005.

TennisGrandSlam
11-15-2011, 06:34 AM
Here are some awesome SF draws from the good old days:

Canada 2002:

Novak
Roddick
Haas
Canas (tournament winner)

Madrid 2002:

Santoro
Novak
Grosjean
Agassi (tournament winner)

Monte Carlo 2001

Arazi
Grosjean
Coria
Kuerten (tournament winner)

Stuttgart 2001:

Mirnyi
Kafelnikov
Haas (tournament winner)
Hewitt

Indian Wells 2000:

Corretja (tournament winner)
Lapentti
Philippoussis
Enqvist

Rome 2000

Corretja
Kuerten
Norman (tournament winner)
Hewitt

Miami 99

Grosjean
Clavet
Krajicek (tournament winner)
Enqvist

Hamburg 99

Lapentti
Zabaleta
Rios (tournament winner)
Moya

Clearly Nole, Fed, Rafa and Andy are very lucky to compete in today's mug era, they would not have had many shots at titles back then...



You may say Nole, Rafa and Andy are very lucky but NOT Fed.

Fed has played Masters too longer than another 3 :devil:

sexybeast
11-15-2011, 07:12 AM
Here are some awesome SF draws from the good old days:

Canada 2002:

Novak
Roddick
Haas
Canas (tournament winner)

Madrid 2002:

Santoro
Novak
Grosjean
Agassi (tournament winner)

Monte Carlo 2001

Arazi
Grosjean
Coria
Kuerten (tournament winner)

Stuttgart 2001:

Mirnyi
Kafelnikov
Haas (tournament winner)
Hewitt

Indian Wells 2000:

Corretja (tournament winner)
Lapentti
Philippoussis
Enqvist

Rome 2000

Corretja
Kuerten
Norman (tournament winner)
Hewitt

Miami 99

Grosjean
Clavet
Krajicek (tournament winner)
Enqvist

Hamburg 99

Lapentti
Zabaleta
Rios (tournament winner)
Moya

Clearly Nole, Fed, Rafa and Andy are very lucky to compete in today's mug era, they would not have had many shots at titles back then...

Well, this 2000-2002 is the worst era of all time in tennis. It is unfair to say Agassi won most of his master series in this era. Anyway point is taken, this era has a super strong consistant top 4 that doesnt compare to anything in the 90s or early 00s.

sexybeast
11-15-2011, 07:23 AM
It was better before because players didn't have the access to the racket technology and sweet spots the size of serena williams on their racket, thus they had to rely more on precision and strategy.. You actually had to be well rounded before

Federer's sweet spot is small, but I agree that guys like Djokovic and Nadal just seem to get any kind of ball back swining at full stretch if they only touch the ball the slightest. Impossible to do with olschool raquets.

bjurra
11-15-2011, 01:41 PM
It was better before because players didn't have the access to the racket technology and sweet spots the size of serena williams on their racket, thus they had to rely more on precision and strategy.. You actually had to be well rounded before

Do you play tennis?

I played competitive tennis in the 90s and technology hasn't changed that much in the past 15 years. I would say the biggest difference are the strings which has helped Rafa a lot.

Djokovic, Federer and Murray would be just as good with Heads and Wilsons from 1996.

bjurra
11-15-2011, 01:44 PM
Well, this 2000-2002 is the worst era of all time in tennis. It is unfair to say Agassi won most of his master series in this era. Anyway point is taken, this era has a super strong consistant top 4 that doesnt compare to anything in the 90s or early 00s.

Exactly. I think some people think players like Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga and Berdych are poor challengers just because they look poor compared to the top 4. Ten years ago, these players would have won more and gotten more credit.

rocketassist
11-15-2011, 05:25 PM
Exactly. I think some people think players like Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga and Berdych are poor challengers just because they look poor compared to the top 4. Ten years ago, these players would have won more and gotten more credit.

Ten years ago the surfaces would have suited the latter three far more.

Olderer plus the Three Brick Walls is not that good and the conditions favour the TBWs.

Sophocles
11-15-2011, 06:01 PM
To put matters further in context, McEnroe & Lendl won many more of the equivalent tournaments in their day than Agassi, Federer, or Nadal.

Mr.Michael
11-15-2011, 06:31 PM
To put matters further in context, McEnroe & Lendl won many more of the equivalent tournaments in their day than Agassi, Federer, or Nadal.

Yes but the draws were ridiculous. Players constantly outside top-100 in the earlier rounds. Even in the quarters there were very surprising names.

shiaben
11-15-2011, 07:25 PM
I wish they had the best of 5 set final ones. They really killed it -_-. The same for the WTF. But too bad the season is long and they fear these best of 5 sets can lead to injuries (kind of true depending how slow the matches go, games that go to 5 hour 5 sets could be dangerous on the body).

Mountaindewslave
11-15-2011, 08:25 PM
the level of competition in the strongest era ever easily makes up for the bys for top players and the lack of 5 set finals for masters.

ossie is living in delusions where he thinks this era is a great one, let alone better than anyone before it.... :o