Tennis greats say Federer's competition not impressive [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Tennis greats say Federer's competition not impressive

WhataQT
11-14-2006, 02:24 AM
Nov. 12, 2006, 11:25PM
TENNIS NOTEBOOK
Federer's competition not impressive


By DALE ROBERTSON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle


Rafael Nadal owns six of the 10 victories against 38 losses — the Masters Cup field has cumulatively managed against Roger Federer since the Swiss began his relentless ascent to the top with his breakthrough victory at Wimbledon in 2003.

Against Nadal and David Nalbandian , who defeated him in last year's Masters Cup final, he is only 10-8 (after Sunday's win over Nalbandian). But against the other five, he's 29-2.

And he owns seven-match winning streaks against Andy Roddick and Nikolay Davydenko.

The eight seniors who played at River Oaks for the past week share the utmost respect for Roger Federer's talents and all concede he's one of the greatest players.

But none is ready to pronounce him the greatest. Why? Mostly because they aren't enamored with the quality of Federer's competition. Names such as Nikolay Davydenko, Ivan Ljubicic and Tommy Robredo — all ranked in the top 10 and all part of the elite Masters Cup field in Shanghai this week — don't send too many shivers down their spines.

"When Tommy Robredo makes (the Masters Cup)," the outspoken Goran Ivanisevic said, "something's wrong."

Added Wayne Ferreira, who retired with a 10-6 career record against the Masters Cup participants (and beat Federer in two of their three meetings, all in 2001): "I won't mention any names, but when you see some of the guys at the top and you remember how they played ... it's hard to believe they could have improved so much."

John McEnroe specifically laments Federer's shrinking serve-and-volley game, saying he doesn't use it as much as he once did because there's no need to. He wins easily by just staying at the baseline, a simpler and sufficient tact given the cowed state of the competition, save for Rafael Nadal.

McEnroe is also critical of a rankings system that he says rewards grinding it out week after week over rising to the occasion in big events. Davydenko is No. 3 in the world despite getting as far as the semifinals in just one of the Slams. But he has won 67 matches by entering 31 tournaments, the same number Guillermo Vilas played in 1977 when he won an Open era-record 130. Ljubicic? The world No. 4, has been as far as the semis just once in 29 majors.

Also galling to the Outback Series gang is the disrespect the top players show the Davis Cup competition. Most of them were fervent supporters of their national teams, none more so than McEnroe, who represented the United States for 12 years, winning 59 of 69 matches as the Americans won five championships.

Federer and Nadal have begged off for what could have been a monumental first-round meeting next year between Switzerland and Spain, with Nadal, 20, saying, "I don't usually play the first round."

"He's 20 years old and he doesn't play the first round?" McEnroe said with a smirk.


All OK at RO
Although the crowds weren't nearly as big as Jim Courier would have liked for the Stanford Cup at River Oaks last week, he insists the event exceeded expectations in every other way.

"Just a perfect venue, a beautiful club," Courier said of River Oaks. This was the first seniors event here and it won't be the last.

The Outback Champions Tour has a contract to return for the next two autumns and nothing happened to jeopardize that, all parties contend.

"The best marketing is always word of mouth," Courier said. "We hope the people who came and enjoyed themselves will come back and bring their friends next year."

Van Barry, the tennis director at River Oaks, said the club was delighted to have Courier and friends on site.

"They brought different faces and a different feel from our spring tournament," Barry said. "We're very pleased with how everything worked out."

InsideOut Sports & Entertainment, a company co-owned by Courier and Jon Vennison, staged a trial run at Westside Tennis Club here last fall and grew into a full five-tournament circuit this year. No easy task, to be sure, but the River Oaks stop went off remarkably gliche-free for what Courier said was "for all practical purposes a new event."

The only "negative," Courier conceded, was his not winning the championship.


Tiger-Federer redux
Tiger Woods attended the U.S. Open final as Roger Federer's guest, watching his host defeat defeat Andy Roddick.

Last week, Federer repaid the favor in Shanghai, where he was preparing for the Masters Cup and Woods was playing in the HSBC Championships.

Federer tagged along for most of Tiger's first round, after which Woods said: "Obviously he's getting ready for his tournament, so for him to take some time out to watch me slash it around a little bit was very nice."

dale.robertson@chron.com

General Suburbia
11-14-2006, 02:33 AM
"When Tommy Robredo makes (the Masters Cup)," the outspoken Goran Ivanisevic said, "something's wrong."

nice quote.

JW10S
11-14-2006, 02:39 AM
I think there is a little bit of the 'the older I get, the better I used to be' mentality going on here. But you gotta Goran--subtlety was never his forte.

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 02:55 AM
I have mixed feelings about this. Whilst I do think that the powergame of today would eclipse players of the past eras, this has quite a bit to do with equipment as much as better fitness and training. Some of the winners being hit today from the back of the court would have been impossible with the wooden and early graphite rackets.

However, being able to play a more powerful game of tennis is hardly the same as being better than the players of previous generations especially when it comes down to determining who is the greater talent. I do believe that there have been more talented crops of players in the past. The years between 1985 and 1995 saw a juxtaposition of some pretty fine tennis talents from 2 sometimes 3 different generations. The top 10 in 1985

1 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
2 McEnroe, John (USA)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE)
4 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
6 Becker, Boris (GER)
7 Noah, Yannick (FRA)
8 Järryd, Anders (SWE)
9 Mecir, Miloslav (TCH)
10 Curren, Kevin (USA)

That's a pretty strong list. Connors from the 70s stioll going strong. Mac and Lendl from the current generation at the top of their game. Wilander, Edberg and Becker as the rising teenage stars. All arguably top 10 greats of the open era. And in amongst that you had guys like Mecir/Curren/Noah who would go on to make GS finals or win 1.

Or look at 1995

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 AGASSI, ANDRE
3 MUSTER, THOMAS
4 BECKER, BORIS
5 CHANG, MICHAEL
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
8 COURIER, JIM
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN

Again u see multiple GS winners and the rest being made of single slam winners and guys who reached GS finals.

Fast forward to 2005

1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Roddick, Andy
4 Hewitt, Lleyton
5 Davydenko, Nikolay
6 Nalbandian, David
7 Agassi, Andre
8 Coria, Guillermo
9 Ljubicic, Ivan
10 Gaudio, Gaston

Still a very talented bunch of players but the number of multiple slam winners is less. And far fewer would make the top 10 of the open era list. Whether this is due in part to Federer's outstanding talent or whether it is because the guys are less talented then the crop of years past is a question that can never be answered.

FWIW, the dominance of Pete and Roger have made lists like the 2005 one the norm and it's because of this that they sit at the very top of all time greats lists. I think it is facetious for the same commentators to call Pete and Roger amongst the greatest ever and then to say but it's because of the lack of talent.

JW10S
11-14-2006, 03:01 AM
What you see on those earlier top 10 lists is a mix of serve and volleyers and baseliners. That mix made in harder for one player to dominate the year from beginning to end. Now everyone plays pretty much from the baseline all the time. If you are a baseliner and not as good as the baseliners ranked ahead of you there's not much you can do.

PamV
11-14-2006, 03:08 AM
"When Tommy Robredo makes (the Masters Cup)," the outspoken Goran Ivanisevic said, "something's wrong."

Goran had a very incomplete game and he was a head case......and he's going to pick on Robredo. :confused: :confused: :confused:

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 03:08 AM
What you see on those earlier top 10 lists is a mix of serve and volleyers and baseliners. That mix made in harder for one player to dominate the year from beginning to end. Now everyone plays pretty much from the baseline all the time. If you are a baseliner and not as good as the baseliners ranked ahead of you there's not much you can do.

I think S&V is dying as a result of the modern power game. It's just so much easier to hit passing shots unless the approach is impeccable. Anything less than that and u are playing your first volley off your shoelaces and if u do make that, you can bet that the pass is come and gone. The margins for error on S&V are much less than in years past.

aussie12
11-14-2006, 03:19 AM
i dont get this, why some of the modern players arent multiple slam winners is because roger wins all of them. people expect roger to win 20 slams to be great but his competition need to win 5 each as well. there is only 4 slams a year, if hes dominating its a bit hard for the other players to win slams. takeaway roger and all most of those players would have multiple slams.

PamV
11-14-2006, 03:22 AM
I have mixed feelings about this. Whilst I do think that the powergame of today would eclipse players of the past eras, this has quite a bit to do with equipment as much as better fitness and training. Some of the winners being hit today from the back of the court would have been impossible with the wooden and early graphite rackets.



When you're looking at the early era you are looking at the best of a 10 year span. That's not the same as looking at a random slice in time of one particular year.

Even when you picked Sampras' '95 ....

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 AGASSI, ANDRE
3 MUSTER, THOMAS
4 BECKER, BORIS
5 CHANG, MICHAEL
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
8 COURIER, JIM
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN


you happened to pick the year when Agassi was in the mix, but there was a time when Agassi had dropped to the 300's during Sampras era. Likewise, Becker was not in his prime in '95. That list of '95 does not seem to be greater than the list we have today.

aussie12
11-14-2006, 03:24 AM
and Wayne Ferreira wtf? you won two masters events and that is it, and you were in the top 10. if you played federer in his prime he would of killed you.

ezekiel
11-14-2006, 03:28 AM
lots of bitterness in that article :rolleyes:

as far as serve & volley, well players are far more athletic and faster now so before you get to the net you will be passed up

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 03:30 AM
When you're looking at the early era you are looking at the best of a 10 year span. That's not the same as looking at a random slice in time of one particular year.

Even when you picked Sampras' '95 ....

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 AGASSI, ANDRE
3 MUSTER, THOMAS
4 BECKER, BORIS
5 CHANG, MICHAEL
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
8 COURIER, JIM
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN


you happened to pick the year when Agassi was in the mix, but there was a time when Agassi had dropped to the 300's during Sampras era. Likewise, Becker was not in his prime in '95. That list of '95 does not seem to be greater than the list we have today.

actually I suspect what the commentators are saying is exactly that - becker in 1995 is better than robredo in 2006. and in that they may have a case.

becker reached the final of wimby that year (losing to Pete). he also reached the US open SF (losing to Agassi). on top of that he reached two masters series final in monte carlo (on clay losting to Muster!!) and paris (losing to Pete again). and he did go on to win the yec (ironically losing to Pete in the RR but winning the whole shebang beating Kafelnikov/Ferreira/Muster and Chang). that seems like a pretty fine year to me ;)

aussie12
11-14-2006, 03:31 AM
players are way fitter then they were even 10 years ago, there wasnt many players who had the athletic ability or were built like nadal or monfils

WhirlyballDerek
11-14-2006, 03:41 AM
J Mac used to walk to the tennis court in the snow uphill both ways.

PamV
11-14-2006, 03:43 AM
Still a very talented bunch of players but the number of multiple slam winners is less. And far fewer would make the top 10 of the open era list. Whether this is due in part to Federer's outstanding talent or whether it is because the guys are less talented then the crop of years past is a question that can never be answered.

FWIW, the dominance of Pete and Roger have made lists like the 2005 one the norm and it's because of this that they sit at the very top of all time greats lists. I think it is facetious for the same commentators to call Pete and Roger amongst the greatest ever and then to say but it's because of the lack of talent.

I haven't heard any commentators say there is a lack of talent. Whom are you listening to? What do you mean saying that far fewer from today would make it to the top 10 of the Open Era???? We are in the Open Era now and they are in top of the list. The Open Era began in 1968.

Here's what has happened currently. We have Federer who is dominante like Sampras but he is more driven and has more energy than Sampras. He also can't simply win two majors a year and still stay #1. We also have a very dominant #2 player on clay who has won all the big clay tournaments. In effect they have shut everyone else out. I really don't know if it's fair to look solely at who is top 10 in a given week. It's always changing and now a days one big factor is so many injuries. We have someone like Safin for example that is one of the most talented players of all times. He just never made full use of his talent due to injuries.

If you really compare the talent of our top 10 then I think you see that they are as talented or more so than other eras.

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 03:44 AM
It's interesting that in the women's game right now what separates the two most successful women of the year (JHH and Mauresmo) from the rest is precisely their capacity to be more than just power baseliners. Their Wimbledon final and YEC final were great to watch specifically for this reason.

As for Goran, whatever. :yawn:

yes but the magnitude of power in the women's game is far less. S&V still is feasible because of the ladies just don't have the brute force to pass u at will on either wing yet.

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 03:47 AM
I haven't heard any commentators say there is a lack of talent. Whom are you listening to? What do you mean saying that far fewer from today would make it to the top 10 of the Open Era???? We are in the Open Era now and they are in top of the list. The Open Era began in 1968.

Here's what has happened currently. We have Federer who is dominante like Sampras but he is more driven and has more energy than Sampras. He also can't simply win two majors a year and still stay #1. We also have a very dominant #2 player on clay who has won all the big clay tournaments. In effect they have shut everyone else out. I really don't know if it's fair to look solely at who is top 10 in a given week. It's always changing and now a days one big factor is so many injuries. We have someone like Safin for example that is one of the most talented players of all times. He just never made full use of his talent due to injuries.

If you really compare the talent of our top 10 then I think you see that they are as talented or more so than other eras.

as I said previously, comparing talent between generations is a futile argument. u simply are agreeing with me as I have stated previously. it is facetious for the commentators to call Pete and Sampras the GOAT and then rubbish his opposition. u cannot have your cake and eat it. all I am providing are some snapshots of top 10 players at 10 year gaps. the data can be interpreted several different ways and it's validity simply depends on your viewpoint. however I suspect the younger generation will always be inclined to think they are better :). that is not to say they are wrong.

Sunset of Age
11-14-2006, 03:48 AM
As said so often before...
Where is that PUKE SMILEY when you really need it?

MisterQ
11-14-2006, 03:48 AM
you happened to pick the year when Agassi was in the mix, but there was a time when Agassi had dropped to the 300's during Sampras era. Likewise, Becker was not in his prime in '95. That list of '95 does not seem to be greater than the list we have today.

Andre dropped to 141 at his lowest. :)

PamV
11-14-2006, 03:54 AM
and Wayne Ferreira wtf? you won two masters events and that is it, and you were in the top 10. if you played federer in his prime he would of killed you.

And Enqvist ? What big tournament did he win? In 1995 Ivaniesvic won only one tournament. Ivaniesvic had potential but his game had a lot of flaws. He also couldn't move very well. I can't see that he was better than Ancic is today.

Chang had a fluke 1989 win of the French Open but after that never won a major and he was easy pickins' for Sampras. I think Hewitt and Chang are comparable in style and size...... and Hewitt did everything just a little better.

Courier won 4 majors but talent wise I don't think he was any better than Gonzalez. Certainly as a clay court players go Nadal is far better than Courier on clay.

PamV
11-14-2006, 03:58 AM
Andre dropped to 141 at his lowest. :)

I you sure? I remember them saying he had to go back to playing challenger events. In any case, the point is the same. Andre went away for a while and tennis wasn't always his priority.

When someone posts a list with big names, the assumption from people who don't know, is that all those big names were in their prime at the same time......I am just saying that it wasn't like that.

Johnny Groove
11-14-2006, 04:00 AM
Is there anything else to talk about? :rolleyes:

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 04:01 AM
Courier won 4 majors but talent wise I don't think he was any better than Gonzalez.

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

JustmeUK
11-14-2006, 04:13 AM
Actually, I still saw JHH and Mauresmo making fantastic passing shots against each other during both finals. There might be some difference in power, but the fact is that the women are committing to the strategy even at the risk of getting passed. If the discrepancy in power is such that it makes it more feasible there than in the men's tour, one wonders why we only see the top players bothering with it.

fair point and I could simply say the ladies' have a much smaller pool of talent!

however I'd put it this way. for the ladies at this point in time, the likes of JHH and Mauresmo are winning matches because of their ability to play s&v well. for the men's, I'd have to say Roger won the match despite playing s&v on occasion.

we need only look at blake v nadal today as an example. james came to the net on quite a few occasions and was made to look very silly - often inspite of hitting a deep approach shot that required rafa to hit a pass on the run. however, I do think that there was value in the changeup and in the end the points he did win on volleys made have helped to create uncertainty in rafa's mind as to which shot to play.

federated
11-14-2006, 04:45 AM
sour grapes from aging Type A personalities. Fewer talents today than back whenever? Bitch, please. There is much more depth in the game today than there ever has been. Let's compare top 50s, not just top 10s, people.

MisterQ
11-14-2006, 05:03 AM
I remember reading a chapter by Stephen Jay Gould asking why no one can bat .400 any more in baseball. He also asked why the small nations of Germany and Austria were able to produce Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Strauss, etc... and yet in the whole world today we hardly produce any composers who reach their stature and almost-universally acknowledged excellence.

Gould's answer was that as fields become deeper with talent and skill level, the top performers cannot separate themselves from the pack as easily and seem less remarkable. (The fact that Federer is setting himself apart from the pack shows how truly remarkable he is...)

R.Federer
11-14-2006, 05:23 AM
I have said this before- when Mac opens his mouth about the competition being weak and ineffective, he is explicitly saying that (among others) players like Blake and Roddick are not good. Can't have it both ways. Either they are very good players and Fed just dominates them, or Fed dominates them because they suck.

Nice, badmouthing his own country's premier players!

aussie12
11-14-2006, 05:32 AM
when you think of all the players that arent in the top 10 at the moment there are alot of slams in there, like hewitt, safin, JCF. i think the top 50 has great depth at the moment especially when you think of youngsters like baghdatis, murray, djokovic, berdych, monfils

guga2120
11-14-2006, 05:37 AM
Goran had a very incomplete game and he was a head case......and he's going to pick on Robredo. :confused: :confused: :confused:


i agree, he, Goran was entertaining in interviews, but talk about one-dimensional, on the court,

i do think the mid 90's had more depth, but its so easy for these old men to say this, there not out there playing. If Fed had played when Sampras,Agassi, and Becker, were all young, i do think he would have won less, but he would still be the best, b/c like Agassi he can play everywhere.

kokket
11-14-2006, 06:00 AM
what a crap article

so Roger need to loos some games to make other player "better"
cmon pls

and the comparisons ... "(and beat Federer in two of their three meetings, all in 2001):" :mad:

2001 wtf

lshdure
11-14-2006, 06:08 AM
It's interesting that in the women's game right now what separates the two most successful women of the year (JHH and Mauresmo) from the rest is precisely their capacity to be more than just power baseliners. Their Wimbledon final and YEC final were great to watch specifically for this reason.

As for Goran, whatever. :yawn:

Totally agree! Sticking near baseline for men is not because of modern racket. Women's game counter-proves it.

nkhera1
11-14-2006, 06:18 AM
players are way fitter then they were even 10 years ago, there wasnt many players who had the athletic ability or were built like nadal or monfils

Its all relative when you think about how training has helped everyone not just the top players and the evolution of tennis equipment and the science behind the game.

The only thing I find amusing is how many of the people here who bash players like Roddick and Nadal and Ljubicic and Davydenko are now saying there are legitimate competition. That doesn't mean I agree with either side but it is interesting to note.

lshdure
11-14-2006, 06:33 AM
yes but the magnitude of power in the women's game is far less. S&V still is feasible because of the ladies just don't have the brute force to pass u at will on either wing yet.

If both men and women's game are in the evolution process, and if we presuppose that today's women's game is more powerful than 80's and 90's owing to modern racket, s/v game should be disappeared.

Women's game proves a TMF's dominant theory - "men's trend of stick-near-the-baseline-game is because of modern racket technology" - is wrong.

Fed-Express
11-14-2006, 06:34 AM
Lol, Ivanisevic and especially Ferreira are "Tennis Greats"? :lol: I mean, whatever, some say he is great, some say he is the greatest, some say, wait, he isn't THAT great...
Let's decide on that question when he's done, not now,

alias
11-14-2006, 06:49 AM
QUOTE=ezekiel;4448520]lots of bitterness in that article :rolleyes:

as far as serve & volley, well players are far more athletic and faster now so before you get to the net you will be passed up[/QUOTE]

These older players do seem threatened and very bitter....:o

General Suburbia
11-14-2006, 06:58 AM
If both men and women's game are in the evolution process, and if we presuppose that today's women's game is more powerful than 80's and 90's owing to modern racket, s/v game should be disappeared.

Women's game proves a TMF's dominant theory - "men's trend of stick-near-the-baseline-game is because of modern racket technology" - is wrong.

How does that work? In the end, the woman's game still isn't powerful enough to fully dismantle S/V players. More powerful than before, yes, but still not enough.

Myrre
11-14-2006, 08:35 AM
The "no competition" today statement is crap. As if Federer wouldn't wipe the floor with Wilander, Chang, Ferreira, Ivanisevic, etc. Let's not forget that Roddick (who's appararently no good) has a winning record against (2-1) Sampras, so he can't be all that bad.

And for the demise of S&V this has all to do with the players being MUCH better on return og serve than before. People like Krickstein and Wilander would have a hard time winning service games these days.

Polikarpov
11-14-2006, 08:40 AM
Bitter Bitter Bitter...

They can't find anything wrong about Roger's game so they take it out on his competition/other players.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
11-14-2006, 08:51 AM
The title of this thread is very misleading. I love Goran but he is not a "tennis great." Ferreira is nothing of the sort.

FluffyYellowBall
11-14-2006, 08:58 AM
How can he critisize rogers game? Sports isnt all about tactics. If he feelscomfortable voleying he'll do it,if he doesnt then y go for it? As long as hes not puttind him selfin danger (ie volleying ALL the time against nadal passing shots) then his results just prove it. Anyonne can beat anyone on paper and thats what mcenroes doing. Talking crap

nanoman
11-14-2006, 10:35 AM
Lol, they have no room to talk,
-when Malivai freaking Washington manage to reach a wimby final
-when Agassi almost made a consecutive slam when he finally get serious, at age 29 no less !
-when Pat Rafter, a journeyman player for years, can suddenly win slams a become nr.1, ("you remember how he played during his early years ... it's hard to believe he could have improved so much.")
-when a joke player like wayne ferreira can occupy the top10......
-.......

Talk about weak eras...

Monteque
11-14-2006, 11:03 AM
I remember reading a chapter by Stephen Jay Gould asking why no one can bat .400 any more in baseball. He also asked why the small nations of Germany and Austria were able to produce Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Strauss, etc... and yet in the whole world today we hardly produce any composers who reach their stature and almost-universally acknowledged excellence.

Gould's answer was that as fields become deeper with talent and skill level, the top performers cannot separate themselves from the pack as easily and seem less remarkable. (The fact that Federer is setting himself apart from the pack shows how truly remarkable he is...)

Completely agree.

Why the circuit looks very vulnerable this day......THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THE PLAYERS ARE WEAK BUT BECAUSE THERE IS FEDERER ON IT. So blame Federer for all the things happen now.

TennisOz
11-14-2006, 12:26 PM
Basketballers weren't impressive when Michael Jordan was playing, golfers don't look too impressive other than Tiger, 400 metre hurdlers were poor when Moses was on his winning streak, Margaret Court's opposition was poor , Schumacher didn't have much opposition etc - 'tennis greats say Federer's competition not impressive'.

I agree too with the 'older I get the better I was' comment. Occasionally a person will come along and transcend a sport so much that those trailing in their wake appear to look ordinary but if you dropped them into another era they would be winning GS's.

TennisOz :)

BlueSwan
11-14-2006, 01:32 PM
Let's compare top 50s, not just top 10s, people.
Exactly! Arguably, in the 80's the top players didn't have to bring their A game until the latter stages of the big tournaments, because every player outside the top 20 basically sucked - at least compared to a given top 50 player today. In this day, if you're not focused you could go out to the #214 ranked player in the second round - it almost happened to the mighty Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon. Instead he escaped and eventually made the final.

sawan66278
11-14-2006, 01:59 PM
I believe, unfortunately for Federer fans (and Rafa fans like myself) that there is validity to the points made by these former players. What has happened in the men's game is two things:

1. The racquets and, more importantly, the strings allow players with average talent to hit with great deal of power. Now, rather than seeing variety and skill, you are seeing players who simply hit hard from the baseline, and use the racquets to keep the points going if in trouble (ex. you could never hit defensive slice forehands like you can today). The perfect example of this type of player is Robby Ginepri. Mediocre talent, but pretty good results. Remind me: how many serve and volleyers are there today? Or power servers who can actually volley? I was watching a clip that someone posted here from Youtube showing Goran playing Richard Krajicek. Both these players would probably kill most of the top five (except Roger and Rafa once in while). They had huge serves, but could volley as well. Have you seen Marat volley lately? Let's not even talk about Roddick.:mad:

2. The amount of prize money, as I have mentioned before, lets players who could be true challengers to Roger's ranking go along without putting forth their best ever. Marat, Fat Dave, Ivan...Robredo, on and on...these players do not fight when the going gets tough...and I'm not talking about their matches against Roger...but against others...Look at Fat Dave against Roger this week...out of gas after one set...look at Roddick, blowing three match points against Federer...look at Ivan in the slams...one semi in 29. Part of this is lack of nerves, but also, improving one's game is really not that much of desire when you can make as much by making it to the quarters of a tourney as one did back in the day for winning the whole thing!!!:mad: :mad:

This is all not Roger's fault...just the sad reality of the game today...

Kip
11-14-2006, 02:06 PM
I believe, unfortunately for Federer fans (and Rafa fans like myself) that there is validity to the points made by these former players. What has happened in the men's game is two things:

1. The racquets and, more importantly, the strings allow players with average talent to hit with great deal of power. Now, rather than seeing variety and skill, you are seeing players who simply hit hard from the baseline, and use the racquets to keep the points going if in trouble (ex. you could never hit defensive slice forehands like you can today). The perfect example of this type of player is Robby Ginepri. Mediocre talent, but pretty good results. Remind me: how many serve and volleyers are there today? Or power servers who can actually volley? I was watching a clip that someone posted here from Youtube showing Goran playing Richard Krajicek. Both these players would probably kill most of the top five (except Roger and Rafa once in while). They had huge serves, but could volley as well. Have you seen Marat volley lately? Let's not even talk about Roddick.:mad:

2. The amount of prize money, as I have mentioned before, lets players who could be true challengers to Roger's ranking go along without putting forth their best ever. Marat, Fat Dave, Ivan...Robredo, on and on...these players do not fight when the going gets tough...and I'm not talking about their matches against Roger...but against others...Look at Fat Dave against Roger this week...out of gas after one set...look at Roddick, blowing three match points against Federer...look at Ivan in the slams...one semi in 29. Part of this is lack of nerves, but also, improving one's game is really not that much of desire when you can make as much by making it to the quarters of a tourney as one did back in the day for winning the whole thing!!!:mad: :mad:

This is all not Roger's fault...just the sad reality of the game today...

It's not unfortunate for me!

I don't care how much whimpering past players
and "experts" bemoan Roger in any facit because
nothing they can say will diminish all he has done
and his destiny in this sport, which will eventually
end with him having the most Slam Titles in the men's
game and so much more, of that I have no doubt.

Everyone is entitles to his or her opinion
and it is just that, an opinion.

oz_boz
11-14-2006, 02:10 PM
top 10 in 1985

1 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
2 McEnroe, John (USA)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE)
4 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
6 Becker, Boris (GER)
7 Noah, Yannick (FRA)
8 Järryd, Anders (SWE)
9 Mecir, Miloslav (TCH)
10 Curren, Kevin (USA)


:yeah: Seems pretty strong to me. Look at top 6...everyone won at least 6 slams :eek: But on the other hand, how many slams had they won before1985?

Connors 8
McEnroe 6
Lendl, Wilander, Edberg ca 3 each
Becker, Noah 1

Still pretty impressive, but only McEnroe and Connors were at the time greats of the game.


Or look at 1995

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 AGASSI, ANDRE
3 MUSTER, THOMAS
4 BECKER, BORIS
5 CHANG, MICHAEL
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
8 COURIER, JIM
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN

Again u see multiple GS winners and the rest being made of single slam winners and guys who reached GS finals.


But how many had they won before the time the list was computed? Becker 6, Courier 4, Sampras 4, Agassi 2, Muster&Chang 1, Kafel&Goran 0.

Becker 1 great, Sampras and Courier semi-greats.



Fast forward to 2005

1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Roddick, Andy
4 Hewitt, Lleyton
5 Davydenko, Nikolay
6 Nalbandian, David
7 Agassi, Andre
8 Coria, Guillermo
9 Ljubicic, Ivan
10 Gaudio, Gaston


Agassi 8, Federer 7, Hewitt 2, Nadal, Roddick&Gaudio 1. Two greats of the game. And possibly more slams to be taken by the other guys in the future, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET. And even if other youngsters take more slams, it is possible that the 2007 list will be more impressive and hence used in future arguments making a case for the mid2000's being the toughest era of them all. ;)

We'll see.

TennisOz
11-14-2006, 02:24 PM
I disagree with much of what you say but will tackle a couple of points:

If you've watched Roddick recently which I suspect you haven't by your comments, his volleying is now considerably better, as is his backhand (his 2 main weaknesses in the past). Alas, despite what I would quantify as a 20% improvement in his game, it is still not good enough to beat Federer.

Every generation has had it's fair share of 'ordinary' players who have achieved a reasonable ranking. Ginepri is not a new phenomenon.

Krajicek and Ivanisevic were best suited to faster courts. Both had noticeable weaknesses on slower surfaces and so on. The modern player would have a field day passing and lobbing the 2 lumbering giants on most surfaces. I'm surprised you don't mention say Rafter, Cash or Sampras when you talk of volleyers. Federer is not shabby when he comes to net - which he does often when he gets bored winning from the back.

Racquet technology has not improved markedly since the original breakthroughs many years ago. Sampras and Federer did reasonably well with 80's technology Wilson Pro Staff.

Strings I'll concede have improved - a high proportion of the modern players use Luxilon Big Banger strings (and according to a Wimbledon stringer, a lot of the players contracted to other manufacturers use their strings on the sly).

You say average players are using the strings to boost their game, I say exceptionally good players, are using the strings to boost their power. It takes exceptional talent to keep the ball in play at the level of speed of the current game. This by definition changes the nature of the game and makes serve and volley more difficult but not impossible. What do you want to do, go back to wooden racquets and poorer strings so that the players who would be most advantaged by this can prosper?

I've said it elsewhere, in nearly every form of human endeavour where you can use a tape measure or a stopwatch mankind is continually improving. In fields of human endeavour where you cannot quantify you have scope for some to claim the player of yesteryear was better. Played differently or maybe more pleasing to the eye I'll grant you but never better.

TennisOz :)

I believe, unfortunately for Federer fans (and Rafa fans like myself) that there is validity to the points made by these former players. What has happened in the men's game is two things:

1. The racquets and, more importantly, the strings allow players with average talent to hit with great deal of power. Now, rather than seeing variety and skill, you are seeing players who simply hit hard from the baseline, and use the racquets to keep the points going if in trouble (ex. you could never hit defensive slice forehands like you can today). The perfect example of this type of player is Robby Ginepri. Mediocre talent, but pretty good results. Remind me: how many serve and volleyers are there today? Or power servers who can actually volley? I was watching a clip that someone posted here from Youtube showing Goran playing Richard Krajicek. Both these players would probably kill most of the top five (except Roger and Rafa once in while). They had huge serves, but could volley as well. Have you seen Marat volley lately? Let's not even talk about Roddick.:mad:

2. The amount of prize money, as I have mentioned before, lets players who could be true challengers to Roger's ranking go along without putting forth their best ever. Marat, Fat Dave, Ivan...Robredo, on and on...these players do not fight when the going gets tough...and I'm not talking about their matches against Roger...but against others...Look at Fat Dave against Roger this week...out of gas after one set...look at Roddick, blowing three match points against Federer...look at Ivan in the slams...one semi in 29. Part of this is lack of nerves, but also, improving one's game is really not that much of desire when you can make as much by making it to the quarters of a tourney as one did back in the day for winning the whole thing!!!:mad: :mad:

This is all not Roger's fault...just the sad reality of the game today...

Beforehand
11-14-2006, 02:45 PM
i dont get this, why some of the modern players arent multiple slam winners is because roger wins all of them. people expect roger to win 20 slams to be great but his competition need to win 5 each as well. there is only 4 slams a year, if hes dominating its a bit hard for the other players to win slams. takeaway roger and all most of those players would have multiple slams.
This is the root of the problem for me. I don't understand saying other eras had multiple slam winners, so they were better. I mean, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, and Safin woudl all have more slams if Roger wasn't busy winning them all.

At the same time, should Federer not win 14 and others win slams...He's not catching up to Pete. You can't have it both ways.

thrust
11-14-2006, 02:49 PM
Seriously though, what has Robredo ever won? Goran isn^t totally crazy-lol!! None of the older players are doubting Roger^s greatness, just his lack of great competition, physically and mentally. If Nadal doesn^t get out of his slump, Roger will have no real competition on any surface.

TennisOz
11-14-2006, 03:03 PM
Seriously though, what has Robredo ever won? Goran isn^t totally crazy-lol!! None of the older players are doubting Roger^s greatness, just his lack of great competition, physically and mentally. If Nadal doesn^t get out of his slump, Roger will have no real competition on any surface.

Take your point but I just watched Roddick get to 3 MP's vs Federer. Didn't win them (Federer did) but I don't call that 'no real competition' to Federer.

TennisOz:)

marcRD
11-14-2006, 03:03 PM
Federer makes them look very avarage. It is totaly impossible to compare them with other eras. Personaly I think Roddick 2006 is better than Becker 1996 and Nadal 2006 is better than Agassi 1996, Ljubicic is probably on equal term with Ivanisevic, Nalbandian is much better than Chang ever was, Davydenko is praticaly a Kafelnikov clone. Just personal opinion ofcourse.

It is very hard for these players to show their true qualities when they are dominated so hard by a player like Federer. Would a player like Davydenko have won AO 2006 if not having faced Federer?

Would Roddick have won 3 wimbledons and 2 USOPENS?
Hewitt maybe would have won another wimbledon and another 2 USOPENS? Safin atleast AO 2005? Maybe Nalby would have won one grand slam aswell?

All these would probably be alltime greats if not Federer would be in their way. It is impossible to in a rational way conclude if Federer makes them look bad or if they are simply not up to the other greats.

lshdure
11-14-2006, 03:09 PM
I believe, unfortunately for Federer fans (and Rafa fans like myself) that there is validity to the points made by these former players. What has happened in the men's game is two things:

1. The racquets and, more importantly, the strings allow players with average talent to hit with great deal of power. Now, rather than seeing variety and skill, you are seeing players who simply hit hard from the baseline, and use the racquets to keep the points going if in trouble (ex. you could never hit defensive slice forehands like you can today). The perfect example of this type of player is Robby Ginepri. Mediocre talent, but pretty good results. Remind me: how many serve and volleyers are there today? Or power servers who can actually volley? I was watching a clip that someone posted here from Youtube showing Goran playing Richard Krajicek. Both these players would probably kill most of the top five (except Roger and Rafa once in while). They had huge serves, but could volley as well. Have you seen Marat volley lately? Let's not even talk about Roddick.:mad:

2. The amount of prize money, as I have mentioned before, lets players who could be true challengers to Roger's ranking go along without putting forth their best ever. Marat, Fat Dave, Ivan...Robredo, on and on...these players do not fight when the going gets tough...and I'm not talking about their matches against Roger...but against others...Look at Fat Dave against Roger this week...out of gas after one set...look at Roddick, blowing three match points against Federer...look at Ivan in the slams...one semi in 29. Part of this is lack of nerves, but also, improving one's game is really not that much of desire when you can make as much by making it to the quarters of a tourney as one did back in the day for winning the whole thing!!!:mad: :mad:

This is all not Roger's fault...just the sad reality of the game today...

Good point.

spencercarlos
11-14-2006, 03:12 PM
Goran had a very incomplete game and he was a head case......and he's going to pick on Robredo. :confused: :confused: :confused:
Well some spanish players have been able to make it and have done nothing (winning no matches) many times, eg Bruguera 93, 97 , Berasategui 94 oh my bad 93. 94 and 97 is part of Sampras peak prime period :) My bad i thought competition then was brutal.

vogus
11-14-2006, 03:19 PM
Nov. 12, 2006, 11:25PM

"When Tommy Robredo makes (the Masters Cup)," the outspoken Goran Ivanisevic said, "something's wrong."




Robredo vs Ivanisevic H2H (1-0)

Milan 2004 (carpet) Robredo d. Ivanisevic 64 57 76(4)

trickcy
11-14-2006, 03:29 PM
It's like no win situation for Roger.

To be called the greatest, he must be have good competition.
Good competition = Nadal, Safin, Hewitt,etc beating him.
Therefore, all Fed has to do is lose to them.

O wait a minute, he's already lost to them, and guess what? He wasn't called the greatest then either! In fact, they were too busy proclaiming the end of Federer era, and some even went as far as to say that he was a transitional #1 b/w the Sampras era and the Nadal era. :rolleyes: So, now that he's winning, it's back to the no-competition talk again.

In the 90s, people were saying that Sampras didn't face any strong competition. Jimmy Connors' run at the 1991 U.S. Open was trotted out as evidence of this. Jim Courier dispatched a 39-year-old Jimmy Connors in the 1991 U.S. Open semi-final. Some people used it as evidence that this was a "weak" era

Connors dispatched a 39-year-old Ken Rosewall in 1974 at the U.S. Open final. Some people used it as evidence that this was a "weak" era.

Roger Federer dispatched a 35-year-old Andre Agassi in the 2005 U.S. Open final. Some people are now using it as evidence that this is a "weak" era.

MisterQ
11-14-2006, 03:38 PM
But how many had they won before the time the list was computed? Becker 6, Courier 4, Sampras 4, Agassi 2, Muster&Chang 1, Kafel&Goran 0.

Becker 1 great, Sampras and Courier semi-greats.



Since the list dates from the END of 1995, the numbers would actually be:

Sampras 7, Becker 6, Courier 4, Agassi 3, Muster&Chang 1, Kafelnikov&Goran 0

lunahielo
11-14-2006, 03:41 PM
J Mac used to walk to the tennis court in the snow uphill both ways.

:haha: :haha: Good one!

radics
11-14-2006, 03:46 PM
So what? Is that Federers fault? No. Has he a chance to change that by himself? No. I think Roger makes the best he can do out of "hes" situation.

sawan66278
11-14-2006, 05:39 PM
Oz...you are right about Rafter, Becker, and Edberg being superior volleyers...the reason I brought up Goran and Richard was because of the fact that they WERE superior fast court players...Like I've said in a previous post, I'm a huge Rafa fan...but even if the courts at Wimbledon are much slower, Rafa would have most likely lost to those players there...in straight sets even...Look what Kendrick did this year...and Roger would have a great deal of trouble with them as well...Let's not even mention Stefan Edberg ...I actually believe those he would pose more problems than almost any player (including Sampras) simply because of his serve and volley game....

My point is that the game itself is suffering because of the lack of variety, and Roger, as his dominance continues, will be viewed in the light of mediocre players with similiar games...I agree with Johnny Mac...Roger's is probably being stunted by the fact that he DOESN"T have to serve and volley...He said he was going to do that this year, and failed to do so...

I think what really irks former players and those who have watched tennis over the last thirty years is seeing players like Fat Dave, Ivan, Robredo and the like losing time and time again (as well as Roddick who could not even cash in on three match points) to Roger...remembering the times when Lendl, Sampras and the like had to test their mettle on a consistant basis against Hall of Famers like Boris, Andre, Stefan, and the like...I know, Noah is in the Hall of Fame...but does anyone really think that Fat Dave, Ivan, Robredo, Davydenko,etc. is headed there? Its a shame for non-Roger worshippers too...because we may never see the player who COULD HAVE become...we are stuck with who he is (which is not really that bad, right;) )

Pigpen Stinks
11-14-2006, 05:54 PM
Goran is the tennis version of Charles Barkley. Big mouth, small brain. Both are very quotable, media friendly, and pleasant enough, but little of what they say makes sense.

Mac's criticism of Davydenko's ranking is nonsense. Only 5 rinky dink tournaments count towards a top player's ranking. How many other players reached more than one slam semi this year? I don't know off the top of my head, but I bet it's not much more than Roger and Rafa. Just because there's more depth in today's game doesn't mean you need to trash the guy that earned the #3 ranking, or the system that supports it.

sawan66278
11-14-2006, 06:01 PM
I agree: the Davy criticism is not that valid....particularly when you realize that the poor guy plays so much because he doesn't have the luxery (to my knowledge) of having any major endorsements...The comment about Nadal was a tad unfair too because we don't know what Rafa plans to do next year...one thing is true though: Mac is consistant in his criticisms...he used to jump on Pete and Andre too for the same reasons.

Pigpen Stinks
11-14-2006, 06:02 PM
Ok, I guess Bavis and Nalby did upon checking, so I suppose they should be 3 and 4 in the rankings according to Mac, even though Bavis regularly has really bad losses and Nalby hardly ever plays.

wally1
11-14-2006, 06:06 PM
It's interesting that in the women's game right now what separates the two most successful women of the year (JHH and Mauresmo) from the rest is precisely their capacity to be more than just power baseliners. Their Wimbledon final and YEC final were great to watch specifically for this reason.That's a very fair point. Watching Sharapova's loss to JHH at the YEC was ridiculously frustrating. Time and again Sharapova would hit a huge shot to the corner resulting in a weak reply that would have been an easy put-away for a semi-competent volleyer. Where was Sharapova? - stood rooted to the baseline.

Pigpen Stinks
11-14-2006, 06:13 PM
That's a very fair point. Watching Sharapova's loss to JHH at the YEC was ridiculously frustrating. Time and again Sharapova would hit a huge shot to the corner resulting in a weak reply that would have been an easy put-away for a semi-competent volleyer. Where was Sharapova? - stood rooted to the baseline.

She shrieks louder from the baseline. Once she learns to overcome these vocal issues closer to the net, she'll be the champion we'll all be proud of.

oz_boz
11-15-2006, 11:02 AM
Since the list dates from the END of 1995, the numbers would actually be:

Sampras 7, Becker 6, Courier 4, Agassi 3, Muster&Chang 1, Kafelnikov&Goran 0

OK. Still, the difference is not as big as it might seem at first.

As I tried to point out, the thing is that we already know how great the top 10 of 1985 and 1995 turned out to be, but we haven't seen the final slam tally of Roddick, Nalby, Nadal etc.

(BTW, calling Ferreira a "tennis great" is :haha:)

Rommella
11-15-2006, 12:22 PM
A few things --

One, something has to be said about hindsight -- Edberg, Becker et al were elected Hall-of-Famers a number of years after their reign. The same will be said of the current crop -- we have to let a number of years pass before we can realistically size them up.

Because a number of years have already passed since Edberg's and Sampras's cohorts, naturally a number of them have already been elected to the Hall-of-Fame. Federer's cohort still does not have Hall-of-Famers precisely because they are in the current time and we still have to let a number of years pass after they're done with the game before they are considered for the honor. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Nadal -- to mention a few -- are shoo-ins for the Hall-of-Fame, believe you me. In a number of years, people will see the current generation in a different light.

Second, it's counter-intuitive to say that Federer's competition is not impressive just because few are winning outside of Roger. Take Roger out and we'd be looking at a multi-slam Roddick and additional slams for Hewitt, Marat et al which would all make them mighty impressive. It is really because Roger is just so dominant that only a few can win.

JustmeUK
11-15-2006, 01:21 PM
She shrieks louder from the baseline. Once she learns to overcome these vocal issues closer to the net, she'll be the champion we'll all be proud of.

you have this wrong. she needs to learn to shriek louder closer to the net. once she does this she'll be able to put her opponents off such that their shot making abilities fail in the presence of such a voice.

sharapova = top 10
sharapova + shrieking = top 3
sharpaova + improved shrieking at net = no 1

JustmeUK
11-15-2006, 01:25 PM
Because a number of years have already passed since Edberg's and Sampras's cohorts, naturally a number of them have already been elected to the Hall-of-Fame. Federer's cohort still does not have Hall-of-Famers precisely because they are in the current time and we still have to let a number of years pass after they're done with the game before they are considered for the honor. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Nadal -- to mention a few -- are shoo-ins for the Hall-of-Fame, believe you me. In a number of years, people will see the current generation in a different light.



yes but in 100 years time when we look back at 2005 and we see that folk like hewitt/safin have made the hof, people will still be able to say but they weren't that great. they ONLY won 2 GS titles whereas they will look at Boris/Stefan and say now these were players of the highest quality BECAUSE they won 6 GS titles.

oz_boz
11-15-2006, 01:36 PM
yes but in 100 years time when we look back at 2005 and we see that folk like hewitt/safin have made the hof, people will still be able to say but they weren't that great. they ONLY won 2 GS titles whereas they will look at Boris/Stefan and say now these were players of the highest quality BECAUSE they won 6 GS titles.

That will only be true if none of the current top 10 wins more than 2 GS titles THROUGH THEIR WHOLE CAREER. But we don't know that yet, and that will probably not happen. Nadal can easily win another 2-3, Roddick/Nalby the same, Safin? could happen, Ljuby/Blake maybe not likely but still TOO EARLY TO TELL.

DDrago2
11-16-2006, 12:18 AM
Federer makes them look very avarage. It is totaly impossible to compare them with other eras. Personaly I think Roddick 2006 is better than Becker 1996 and Nadal 2006 is better than Agassi 1996, Ljubicic is probably on equal term with Ivanisevic, Nalbandian is much better than Chang ever was, Davydenko is praticaly a Kafelnikov clone. Just personal opinion ofcourse.

It is very hard for these players to show their true qualities when they are dominated so hard by a player like Federer. Would a player like Davydenko have won AO 2006 if not having faced Federer?

Would Roddick have won 3 wimbledons and 2 USOPENS?
Hewitt maybe would have won another wimbledon and another 2 USOPENS? Safin atleast AO 2005? Maybe Nalby would have won one grand slam aswell?

All these would probably be alltime greats if not Federer would be in their way. It is impossible to in a rational way conclude if Federer makes them look bad or if they are simply not up to the other greats.

Excellent.

HOwever, I do have the impression still that yesterday it was 5-10 top players and the rest was pushover, while today it's only 2-3 top players but the rest are quite solid. So it's more grinding out tourney after tourney then big match-ups, and that goes for Federer as well.
But it is not his fault and you can't say that he wouldn't be able to cope with more direct rivals. His records are not diminished buy anything

Fed=ATPTourkilla
11-16-2006, 12:41 AM
Excellent.

HOwever, I do have the impression still that yesterday it was 5-10 top players and the rest was pushover, while today it's only 2-3 top players but the rest are quite solid.

But there isn't really a way of telling this - whether the rest of the top 10 are unusually bad, or Federer is unusually good. From watching Federer, I'd say it's the latter. People were hailing him as the strongest player ever even in 2004, before his total domination started.

In any event, if you compare the results of the 1990s players against the 2000s players (say Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin) the 2000s players come off much better, especially Hewitt.

guy in sf
11-16-2006, 04:38 AM
That is just BS and jealousy from the greats! I think the competition is there for Fed, it's just that he's so good that he makes his competition look weak. I don't think the competition is any weaker now for Fed than it was for any other great when he or she was dominating. I think the only great player who benefited from poor competition was Steffi Graf, when Navratilova was getting older, Seles got stabbed and her only competition a DISTANT second Aranxcha Sanches Vicario, the bumblebee from Barcelona.

sawan66278
11-16-2006, 05:34 AM
Again, the problem invariably is that people say that the competition is not great because Roger and Rafa win everything...My point is that when playing players other than the big 2, they choke, fade, give up, tank...you name it...Sure, Roger and Rafa win all the big tourneys...but watching players like Fat Dave, Davy, Robredo, etc. in other tourneys against other players reveals how poor they really are...

In 1987, Lendl was in the finals of every slam that year...but players #2 through #6, etc. were always right there at the ENDS of tourneys...So they didn't beat Lendl...at least they were there!!!! Fat Dave, for example, couldn't even face Roger because he was too busy losing to Wawrinka...and don't even get me on Marat and Ivan...:mad:

R.Federer
11-16-2006, 05:39 AM
Robredo vs Ivanisevic H2H (1-0)

Milan 2004 (carpet) Robredo d. Ivanisevic 64 57 76(4)

:haha:

I love Goran, but he needn't have said that.... especially with a losing H2H against Tommy

Peacemaster
11-16-2006, 06:12 AM
i dont get this, why some of the modern players arent multiple slam winners is because roger wins all of them. people expect roger to win 20 slams to be great but his competition need to win 5 each as well. there is only 4 slams a year, if hes dominating its a bit hard for the other players to win slams. takeaway roger and all most of those players would have multiple slams.

:yeah:

angiel
11-21-2006, 04:52 PM
When you're looking at the early era you are looking at the best of a 10 year span. That's not the same as looking at a random slice in time of one particular year.

Even when you picked Sampras' '95 ....

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 AGASSI, ANDRE
3 MUSTER, THOMAS
4 BECKER, BORIS
5 CHANG, MICHAEL
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
8 COURIER, JIM
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN


you happened to pick the year when Agassi was in the mix, but there was a time when Agassi had dropped to the 300's during Sampras era. Likewise, Becker was not in his prime in '95. That list of '95 does not seem to be greater than the list we have today.


You know PamV you really need a looking glass, the list of '95 with all that you have said is still greater than the current list today.:eek: :sad:

Lee
11-21-2006, 05:06 PM
Robredo vs Ivanisevic H2H (1-0)

Milan 2004 (carpet) Robredo d. Ivanisevic 64 57 76(4)

Sorry, I like Robredo but this is another stupid way to proof your point with a one match h2h.

How many surgeries Goran had already in 2004? He hardly played after his Wimbly title in 2001. He played 4 tournaments (one is a challenger) in 2003. Retired from 2 and lost in 1st round in the other 2.