Which decade did you prefer? Nineties or Noughties [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which decade did you prefer? Nineties or Noughties

laurie-1
03-19-2010, 01:46 PM
A simple question, not which decade was better but which decade did you enjoy more for watching Tennis and the names who participated in those decades. Of course, some players overlap decades but that's normal - in the main which decade did you prefer and why.

Just to help you along, some protagonists from the 1990s:

Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter, Henman, Correta, Brugera, Ivanesivic, Krajicek, Stich, Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Korda, Rios, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Philippouisis, Muster, Costa, Moya, Todd Martin and others

The 2000s:
Ferrero, Gaudio, Henman, Moya, Federer, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Verdasco, Nadal, Karlovic, Djokovic, Murray, Blake, Robredo, Del Potro, Agassi, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Haas, Soderling and others

ossie
03-19-2010, 01:53 PM
i like federer, delpo, nadal, murray so i prefer noughties lol

rocketassist
03-19-2010, 02:23 PM
Impossible poll really, there have been parts of the 00s that were good and parts of the 00s that were shit, same with the 90s as well.

abraxas21
03-19-2010, 02:28 PM
hard to compare but i guess the noughties simply because i never really liked sampras or the prevalent serve and volley stuff of the nineties and thus i didn't like the game that much back then. still, there were some great players i enjoyed... ríos, agassi, chang, kafelnikov, kuerten, etc.

duong
03-19-2010, 02:56 PM
A simple question, not which decade was better but which decade did you enjoy more for watching Tennis and the names who participated in those decades. Of course, some players overlap decades but that's normal - in the main which decade did you prefer and why.

Just to help you along, some protagonists from the 1990s:

Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter, Henman, Correta, Brugera, Ivanesivic, Krajicek, Stich, Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Korda, Rios, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Philippouisis, Muster, Costa, Moya, Todd Martin and others

The 2000s:
Ferrero, Gaudio, Henman, Moya, Federer, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Verdasco, Nadal, Karlovic, Djokovic, Murray, Blake, Robredo, Del Potro, Agassi, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Haas, Soderling and others

you shouldn't put a list of players : if people are not able to remember they should just not vote :shrug:

Esp as some choices are highly debatable : for instance, if Lendl is a player of the 90s, then Sampras is also a player of the 00s :shrug:

In my opinion, none of them are players of these decades, but of course if you write "Lendl" inside the 90s and not Sampras in the 00s, you let people think of memories ... of the 80s to give a value to the 90s.

And more generally when you write players' names to remember of a decade, and some of these players have played in other decades (like Becker and Edberg), you suggest some memories to people which just didn't belong to this decade. That's why writing names as you did is clearly misleading. For instance, I appreciated a lot Becker in the 80s, much less in the 90s (for instance he didn't do anything on clay in the 90s contrary to what he did in the 80s).

I preferred 80s > 00s > 90s, didn't know 70s

Impossible poll really, there have been parts of the 00s that were good and parts of the 00s that were shit, same with the 90s as well.

exactly :shrug:

-Valhalla-
03-19-2010, 03:22 PM
Lendl definitely belongs in the '80s and Becker and Edberg broke thru in '85 so the decades don't fit neatly as you suggest. Nevertheless, here’s how I’d classify the players you listed ...

1990s:
Highly entertaining/enjoyable to watch: Becker, Sampras, Chang, Agassi, Kuerten, Rios

Moderately entertaining/enjoyable to watch: Lendl, Courier, Korda, Ivanisevic, Muster

http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/zzzz.gifhttp://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/zzzz.gifhttp://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/zzzz.gif: Rafter, Edberg, Krajicek, Philippousis, Stich, Henman, Correjta, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Costa, Moya, Martin


2000s:
High: Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Djokovic, Del Potro, Nalbandian

Moderate: Soderling, Murray, Ferrero, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Ljubicic, Gonzo, Tsonga, Verdasco

http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/zzzz.gifhttp://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/zzzz.gifhttp://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/zzzz.gif: Roddick, Henman, Gaudio, Moya, Karlovic, Blake, Haas, Robredo

... Far less sleep-inducing tennis matches overall in the 2000s and with the EPIC, COLOSSUS Naderer Rivalry [which EASILY trumps Sampras-Agassi], the Noughties wins handily IMO.

rocketassist
03-19-2010, 04:09 PM
Del Potro entertaining, Edberg and Henman boring... :spit:

Persimmon
03-19-2010, 04:26 PM
The Noughties.

-Valhalla-
03-19-2010, 06:27 PM
Del Potro entertaining, Edberg and Henman boring... :spit:

A large part of my negative bias toward Edberg is due to the fact that there were soo many S&V'ers during his era. What resulted was highly predictable, highly boring matches in which you could count the number of 5+ stroke rallies on one hand. Oftentimes, the ONLY strategy on fast surfaces was who could get to net first.

When he did play solid baseliners like Lendl, Wilander, Courier, Chang et al, things were not much better because he knew he couldn't hang with them from the baseline so he'd bum rush the net on 1st AND 2nd serves, and then when he did stay back, he'd hit 2-6 groundies and then slice and come to net. It could be very tedious to watch over the course of a decade against S&V practioners like Becker [his chief rival], Stich, Cash, Annacone, Sampras etc.

Lleyton_
03-19-2010, 06:36 PM
Edberg boring? :banghead: You must retire from this forum immediately.

-Valhalla-
03-19-2010, 06:51 PM
Edberg boring? :banghead: You must retire from this forum immediately.

:lol: yes, painfully boring to watch. :zzz:

Andi-M
03-19-2010, 06:52 PM
I can't make a unbiased judgement as I only really started watching tennis towards the end of the 90's. But I have to say 20 aces per set and 3 shot rallies dosen't really do it for me so I went with noughties.

Vaskalainen
03-19-2010, 07:05 PM
i prefer Frosties... and Weetabix...

laurie-1
03-19-2010, 07:15 PM
you shouldn't put a list of players : if people are not able to remember they should just not vote :shrug:

Esp as some choices are highly debatable : for instance, if Lendl is a player of the 90s, then Sampras is also a player of the 00s :shrug:

In my opinion, none of them are players of these decades, but of course if you write "Lendl" inside the 90s and not Sampras in the 00s, you let people think of memories ... of the 80s to give a value to the 90s.

And more generally when you write players' names to remember of a decade, and some of these players have played in other decades (like Becker and Edberg), you suggest some memories to people which just didn't belong to this decade. That's why writing names as you did is clearly misleading. For instance, I appreciated a lot Becker in the 80s, much less in the 90s (for instance he didn't do anything on clay in the 90s contrary to what he did in the 80s).

I preferred 80s > 00s > 90s, didn't know 70s

exactly :shrug:


I know, that's why I said its normal for players to overlap decades. Lendl was competive up to 1994 (quarterfinal of Aussie Open and finalist in Sydney) so that's why I mentioned him. Sampras of course early 2000s but didn't play after that (he should have, he was still competitive and only 31 years old at the time). But I was just throwing names out there, I wasn't trying to be profound.

Echoes
03-19-2010, 07:22 PM
For instance, I appreciated a lot Becker in the 80s, much less in the 90s (for instance he didn't do anything on clay in the 90s contrary to what he did in the 80s).

:confused:

I remember Becker doing very well on clay in his very last years when he retired from Slams. Not playing Wimbledon, he decided to play Gstaad and Mercedes Cup and reached the final in Gstaad, if I remember well.

Arkulari
03-19-2010, 07:26 PM
I prefer the Noughties because I didn't like the SERVE and volley played in most of the late 90's by people like Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, etc

n8
03-19-2010, 09:55 PM
A simple question, not which decade was better but which decade did you enjoy more for watching Tennis and the names who participated in those decades. Of course, some players overlap decades but that's normal - in the main which decade did you prefer and why.

Just to help you along, some protagonists from the 1990s:

Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter, Henman, Correta, Brugera, Ivanesivic, Krajicek, Stich, Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Korda, Rios, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Philippouisis, Muster, Costa, Moya, Todd Martin and others

The 2000s:
Ferrero, Gaudio, Henman, Moya, Federer, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Verdasco, Nadal, Karlovic, Djokovic, Murray, Blake, Robredo, Del Potro, Agassi, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Haas, Soderling and others

Moya is the only one in both lists :). I can only remember from 1997 onwards so I'll skip saying anything more.

laurie-1
03-19-2010, 10:10 PM
Moya is the only one in both lists :). I can only remember from 1997 onwards so I'll skip saying anything more.

Moya got to the final of the Aussie Open in 1997, won Roland Garros and the year end ATP World Championships in 1998 and got to World Number 1 in 1999.

Sorry, you were saying??

laurie-1
03-19-2010, 10:12 PM
Moya is the only one in both lists :). I can only remember from 1997 onwards so I'll skip saying anything more.

It may have escaped your attention that Agassi is also on both lists.

tea
03-19-2010, 10:34 PM
I prefer the Federer decade.

Ouragan
03-20-2010, 12:28 AM
A decade dominated by bland Pete has to be bland. '00s for me.

Ouragan
03-20-2010, 12:30 AM
And why hasn't anyone yet trolled about the naughties not yet being over, starting in 2011, gna gna gna...

Jimnik
03-20-2010, 12:39 AM
Both shit decades dominated by Sampbot and Fedbot.

rocketassist
03-20-2010, 02:38 AM
A decade dominated by bland Pete has to be bland. '00s for me.

A Simontard calling Sampras bland? :spit:

n8
03-20-2010, 02:58 AM
Moya got to the final of the Aussie Open in 1997, won Roland Garros and the year end ATP World Championships in 1998 and got to World Number 1 in 1999.

Sorry, you were saying??

He finished in the top 7 from 2002-2004. He also won more Masters Series and made more Grand Slam quarter-finals in the naughties.

It may have escaped your attention that Agassi is also on both lists.

Damn, you're right. Theoretically lots more players should be on both lists before Moya but it gives me a smile nevertheless.

mark73
03-20-2010, 04:13 AM
Its subjective of course, however many people have similar taste. Sampras matches at wimbledon were literally 1,2,3 shot "rallies" almost exclusively. The guy was a great athlete but personally he was one of the most boring players to watch. Federer on the other hand can do it all. I certainly prefer the noughties and i'm ancient enough to remember befere the 90's. Its a good thing in my opinion that surfaces have becoming slower. The 90's were out of control with the power.

Sunset of Age
03-20-2010, 04:46 AM
My choice is obvious. :angel:

Haelfix
03-20-2010, 06:02 AM
Tough to judge. There were extreme low points in the 00s that didn't have an analog in the 90s, otoh there were high points in the 00s that even the best tennis of the 90s couldn't match.

I mantain that the quality of tennis played in 05 was some of the best i'd ever seen played. Mostly young unproven players with just an insane amount of talent. The only downside was that some of the veterans (Kuerten, Rafter, Rios and others) had injury problems and retired early. Otoh 2002 was a pretty horrendous year for tennis, and it felt like all the old champions had gone leaving a huge talent vacuum in the game.

The early 90s were also a bit of a letdown, b/c you had a young generation playing a new type of game but werent necessarily super consistent. People forget that Sampras and Agassi often would dazzle one day, and then dissappear for long stretches of time and get beaten by the old guard (like Lendl), and that was somewhat dissappointing but it was nice that the vets were still present. It turns around in 93, and prolly reaches a high point say around 98, tennis wise.

Action Jackson
03-20-2010, 10:36 AM
Neither.

Echoes
03-20-2010, 12:38 PM
Its subjective of course, however many people have similar taste. Sampras matches at wimbledon were literally 1,2,3 shot "rallies" almost exclusively. The guy was a great athlete but personally he was one of the most boring players to watch. Federer on the other hand can do it all. I certainly prefer the noughties and i'm ancient enough to remember befere the 90's. Its a good thing in my opinion that surfaces have becoming slower. The 90's were out of control with the power.

Do you, guys, here, realise that Federer's serve (1st serve, I mean) is more powerful, more efficient and considerably faster than Sampras' was on an average, on lower surfaces. Even Krajicek and Goran never hit 50 aces in one match.

Meaning Sampras was a complete player. Sampras' 1st serve was the last of his weapon.

mark73
03-21-2010, 11:27 AM
Do you, guys, here, realise that Federer's serve (1st serve, I mean) is more powerful, more efficient and considerably faster than Sampras' was on an average, on lower surfaces. Even Krajicek and Goran never hit 50 aces in one match.

Meaning Sampras was a complete player. Sampras' 1st serve was the last of his weapon.

Thats not the point, points are longer today on fast courts, especially at wimbledon.

oranges
03-21-2010, 12:36 PM
Thats not the point, points are longer today on fast courts, especially at wimbledon.

Yes, often painfully long with not much interesting to see, including one very famous final.

This stereotype about serve-only 90's (it should be late 90s anyway, but who cares, right), is the most tiresome one I've ever seen. Why not call a spade a spade and say you don't like serve and volley because in reality with really big servers points are often short even today and there are still those around. Me, I don't like sleep-inducing mugathon rallies and watching them at Wimbledon is a travesty of the highest order. Those 1-2-3 strike points mean each serve, return, volley and passing shot is immensely important. That's exciting.

As for OP, hard to call. I'd probably go with 90s overall for more variety and more competitiveness at the top, plus I just loved early 90s.

Start da Game
03-21-2010, 05:54 PM
Yes, often painfully long with not much interesting to see, including one very famous final.

This stereotype about serve-only 90's (it should be late 90s anyway, but who cares, right), is the most tiresome one I've ever seen. Why not call a spade a spade and say you don't like serve and volley because in reality with really big servers points are often short even today and there are still those around. Me, I don't like sleep-inducing mugathon rallies and watching them at Wimbledon is a travesty of the highest order. Those 1-2-3 strike points mean each serve, return, volley and passing shot is immensely important. That's exciting.

As for OP, hard to call. I'd probably go with 90s overall for more variety and more competitiveness at the top, plus I just loved early 90s.

great post! exactly my thoughts too........i just loved the 90s for its overall variety and the early 90s - mid 90s was one exciting period with some ultimate all time greats fighting hard for every slam.......

crude oil
03-21-2010, 06:58 PM
i loved those servefests between sampras and goran. Give me target practice any day of the week over wimbledon finals in 07 and 08.

what wonderful finals at wimbledon we had in the 90s.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-21-2010, 07:14 PM
Noughties. Better standard of play and we don't have the Wimbledon serve-fests any more. The best three Wimbledon finals were all in the noughties, i.e. 01, 07 and 08.

rocketassist
03-21-2010, 07:39 PM
Noughties. Better standard of play and we don't have the Wimbledon serve-fests any more. The best three Wimbledon finals were all in the noughties, i.e. 01, 07 and 08.

Apart from Federer, that is very, very debatable.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-21-2010, 08:06 PM
Apart from Federer, that is very, very debatable.

Oh no. I'd better stop there before SetSampras puts in an appearance. :(

TennisLurker
03-21-2010, 08:17 PM
Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times

Can anyone remember a classic match from Sampras from any of those 7 slams? Like Borg Mac wimbledon 80, Mc Lendl 84 french open final, Lendl Wilander 88 Us Open? Or the great matches Federer and Nadal have given us this decade?

No one can because it doesn't exist.

The 1999 final is an overrated match, a normal match between a big server in his best surface against a baseliner without a big serve, who did not play particularly well that day.


Perhaps it doesn't exist because Sampras was too good to allow classic matches to happen, but no matter the reason, the short points of 90's tennis ended up increasing the popularity of women tennis.
People prefered to watch Steffi and Sanchez Vicario playing rallies over Sampras and Ivanisevic hitting aces.

The surfaces were slowed down for a reason.

oranges
03-21-2010, 09:17 PM
Who on earth preferred to watch Sanchez Vicario? :haha:

TennisLurker
03-21-2010, 09:29 PM
That is the point exactly, Sampras was so boring that he single handedly increased the popularity of women tennis.

The issue is that some people don't remember all the articles that floated around in the 90's about grass being an outdated surface,

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2516&dat=19950626&id=8q81AAAAIBAJ&sjid=vyYMAAAAIBAJ&pg=872,1813673

poor Pete got asked himself by a journalist right after the horrible 1994 Wimbledon final if he thought the match was entertaining. :D

oranges
03-21-2010, 09:35 PM
Yeah, watching Nadal hammer Federer's BH again and again and again for hours is far more entertaining. :yeah: Those first two sets of the 2008 final were as gripping as a typical Sanchez Vicario match

Echoes
03-21-2010, 09:36 PM
In which period could we see a guy hitting 78 aces in one match? And on clay, on top of all that?

The amount of aces hit in the noughties were on the whole considerably higher in the noughties than in the nineties. Does that make the points longer?

You love serve-fest. Then you'll love the noughties.

As Oranges puts it, just say you don't like serve & volley.


I insist on the fact that Federer's average 1st serve speed is considerably higher than Sampras' was. How on earth is Sampras remembered as a big server? Funny. :D

TennisLurker
03-21-2010, 09:47 PM
If you liked the 1994 wimbledon final, you might as well give a try to darts, archery and shooting ducks.

oranges
03-21-2010, 09:50 PM
I did far more than the example given. If you like that, you might as well watch the paint dry or Sanchez Vicario, whatever you prefer.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-21-2010, 09:50 PM
I insist on the fact that Federer's average 1st serve speed is considerably higher than Sampras' was. How on earth is Sampras remembered as a big server? Funny. :D

Today's players don't look like they are all serve because they have stronger all-round games. Soderling was hitting 140mph aces against Murray but he's known more as an aggressive baseliner than as a server.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-21-2010, 09:52 PM
For what it's worth, I much preferred watching Sampras and Ivanisevic to moonballer Sanchez Vicario. The game is better now but that's no reason to slate the 1990s players.

Brick Top
03-21-2010, 09:52 PM
everything before 2007 sucks ;)

rocketassist
03-21-2010, 09:52 PM
If you liked the 1994 wimbledon final, you might as well give a try to darts, archery and shooting ducks.

1999 and 2000 finals were both excellent quality. Pete played some awesome matches and some great tennis throughout, yet still current-era-tards continue to dismiss him as all-serve :lol:

Sanchez Vicario :haha: A cure for insomnia.

rocketassist
03-21-2010, 09:55 PM
Compared to ASV, Nadal and even Boredo are clean ball strikers.

oranges
03-21-2010, 10:01 PM
Today's players don't look like they are all serve because they have stronger all-round games. Soderling was hitting 140mph aces against Murray but he's known more as an aggressive baseliner than as a server.

So Soderling is more of an all-around player than Sampras. Go figure.

TennisLurker
03-21-2010, 10:45 PM
This was a high quality match!

The great Ramón Delgado was walking on water!! :D

Roland Garros 1998
R64 Delgado, Ramon df Sampras, Pete
7-6(6), 6-3, 6-4


And the 1995 wta wimbledon final >>>> Any Sampras wimbledon final

Poor Pete had to cry or vomit to make his matches interesting :rolleyes:

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-21-2010, 11:24 PM
This was a high quality match!

The great Ramón Delgado was walking on water!! :D

Roland Garros 1998
R64 Delgado, Ramon df Sampras, Pete
7-6(6), 6-3, 6-4


And the 1995 wta wimbledon final >>>> Any Sampras wimbledon final

Poor Pete had to cry or vomit to make his matches interesting :rolleyes:

There's no need to slag the guy off. He wasn't the greatest on clay. So what? He won 7 Wimbledons.

TennisLurker
03-22-2010, 12:34 AM
I was trolling

Sincerely, I do think that grass court tennis in the 90's was very dull for the casual tennis fan, and it is true that women tennis increased in popularity in the 90's, because you could find more rallies in it.

In the 90s it was common to read articles about how boring grass court tennis was, that tennis was losing popularity because of the extremely short points, and clown journalists would make suggestions like changing the tennis balls, rackets, strings, surface speed, court size, service box, or even changin rules, only for making tennis slower and less serve dependent.

I also believe that the Agassi Sampras rivalry failed to deliver great matches. And that the federer dominated period has produced by far more classic matches than the Sampras dominated period 93-97/98

The best slam of the 90's was probably the 1992 Us Open, which had the 5 setters Lendl Becker, Lendl Edberg, and Edberg Chang. But it was more like the last glory of the 80s than proper 90s tennis.

I am not a huge fan of this era, my favorite Era is the second half of the 80s, Lendl, Wilander, Mecir, Becker and Edberg.

Arkulari
03-22-2010, 12:45 AM
the 2000 Wimbledon final wasn't good, but nothing compares to the 1996 one, crappiest GS final I've ever seen :o

Echoes
03-22-2010, 01:52 AM
You, guys, discuss taste. No one answers my FACTS.


Sampras' ace record in one match is 37 (and against Agassi, which says it all)
Federer's ace record in one match is 50 (against Roddick and on a slow Wimbledon grass !)
Federer's second ace record in one match is 39 (against Tipsarevic)
Karlovic's ace record in one match is 78 (against Stepanek ... on clay)
Krajicek's ace record in one match is 49 (against Kafelnikov, and he lost, which shows when he wins, it's not due to his serve)

Sampras has 4 matches above 30 aces
Krajicek has 9
Ivanisevic has 34

Fed has 2 (to be continued)
Ljubicic has 12
Roddick has 11
Karlovic has 44
Johansson has 6 (in a much shorter period of time)
Isner has 8 (to be continued)

(copyright Voo de Mar :p;))


Tell me if Krajicek and Sampras really are such ace-machines as you suggest ???

Now I've kept some facts from Fed=ATPTourkilla (on an old thread)

Compare Sampras' average serve speed in some of his most memorable matches to present-day players average speed:

US Open

Isner (vs Roddick 2009)
Fastest serve 140mph
Average 1st serve speed 122mph
Average 2nd serve speed 109mph

Roddick (vs Isner 2009)
Fastest serve 139mph
Average 1st serve speed 122mph
Average 2nd serve speed 100mph

Federer (vs Del Potro 2009)
Fastest serve 129mph
Average 1st serve speed 116mph
Average 2nd serve speed 95mph

Del Potro (vs Federer 2009)
Fastest serve 138mph
Average 1st serve speed 116mph
Average 2nd serve speed 91mph

Sampras (vs Agassi 2002)
Fastest serve 132mph
Average 1st serve speed 115mph
Average 2nd serve speed 103mph

Federer (vs Djokovic 2009)
Fastest serve 132mph
Average 1st serve speed 119mph
Average 2nd serve speed 95mph

Djokovic (vs Federer 2009)
Fastest serve 125mph
Average 1st serve speed 114mph
Average 2nd serve speed 88mph

Del Potro (vs Nadal 2009)
Fastest serve 134mph
Average 1st serve speed 116mph
Average 2nd serve speed 95mph

Del Potro (vs Cilic 2009)
Fastest serve 135mph
Average 1st serve speed 122mph
Average 2nd serve speed 90mph

Cilic (vs Del Potro 2009)
Fastest serve 128mph
Average 1st serve speed 119mph
Average 2nd serve speed 92mph

Federer (vs Söderling 2009)
Fastest serve 130mph
Average 1st serve speed 117mph
Average 2nd serve speed 96mph

Söderling (vs Federer 2009)
Fastest serve 134mph
Average 1st serve speed 121mph
Average 2nd serve speed 99mph



Australian Open

Federer (vs Djokovic 2008)
Fastest serve 130.5mph
Average 1st serve speed 119mph
Average 2nd serve speed 98mph

Wimbledon

Sampras (vs Courier 1993)
Fastest serve 123mph
Average 1st serve speed 110mph
Average 2nd serve speed 97mph

Federer (vs Roddick 2009)
Fastest Serve Speed 135MPH
Average 1st Serve Speed 118MPH
Average 2nd Serve Speed 98MPH

Roddick (vs Federer 2009)
Fastest Serve Speed 143 MPH
Average 1st Serve Speed 127 MPH
Average 2nd Serve Speed 105 MPH

Start da Game
03-22-2010, 05:19 AM
i don't blame the casual fans who cannot enjoy every style of play........it's basically the fault of the tennis administrators who project tennis as a baseline game........such fans cannot enjoy other styles because they are so used to hearing the sound of the ball banging the racket........

that is the reason why i opened a thread called 'has tennis become too commercial?' and raised a point - are the tennis rulers drawing some sheep to the sport or genuine tennis followers, by arranging baseline bashfests everywhere?

just look at the clip below, how beautifully edberg finishes the points........

2gZ-K0GQDHA

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 08:03 AM
Throughout the 90s, tennis was one-dimensional where it mattered most – Wimbledon, the crown jewel of tournaments. With the exception of Agassi in '92 and '99, it was serve & volley and chip & charge all the time. There was no variety, there was no deviation from the script -- it was a crapshoot on grass [albeit a highly skilled one] and one-dimensional tennis at its nadir.

Watch this entire match and let me know what you think ...

c4Lvqs2vfWk&feature=PlayList&p=[/url]

^This were par for the course for the decade, and for me, it does not recall fond memories. The problem is that there’s absolutely no sense of drama within each point because they all end so quickly! [aka ‘wham, bam, thank you mam’ tennis.] And yes, we could be awed by their dexterity and power, but the tension is never allowed to build so the overall effect is staccato and emotionally unsatisifying. And as in music, movies, and the arts, in SPORT ALSO, it’s the emotion we’re after!

Thank you AELTC for making this type of grass court tennis a relic of the past ;)

oranges
03-22-2010, 09:21 AM
Are we supposed to prefer mugahton rallies to Edberg-Stich match?

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 10:17 AM
Are we supposed to prefer mugahton rallies to Edberg-Stich match?

To answer your question, yes. But what exactly are ‘mugathon’ rallies? And do you really find Wimbledon to be boring these days? Also, which final from the 90s do you prefer over ’07 and ’08?

I really enjoy the present style and I think it lends itself to more drama with each rally unfolding to a climax [esp. with the likes of Federer and Nadal].

Regardless, this is a very subjective topic so all opinions are valid. To each his/her own ;)

oranges
03-22-2010, 11:23 AM
To answer your question, yes. But what exactly are ‘mugathon’ rallies? And do you really find Wimbledon to be boring these days? Also, which final from the 90s do you prefer over ’07 and ’08?


To answer your question, yes. It used to be my very favorite slam, now it's slightly above RG and only because of odd chance to actually see grass court tennis. But even if I did not find it boring in comparison, I'd still want Wimbledon to be different as it was. Never for the life of me will I understand people whining about what they didn't like about old Wimbledon, as if it's the only tournament on tour and if they don't get what they want in those two weeks, they might just as well stop watching the sport altogether. It's a rather strange phenomenon if you ask me. I was never much of a fan of claycourt tennis and players who make it interesting for me are rare indeed, yet it never occurred to me that RG should change to foster S/V or attacking, power baseline tennis.

Mughaton rally is self-explanatory, long rally with nothing much worth seeing. Contrary to obviously popular belief, the length of the point has nothing to do with fun factor one way or the other.

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 12:03 PM
Never for the life of me will I understand people whining about what they didn't like about old Wimbledon, as if it's the only tournament on tour and if they don't get what they want in those two weeks, they might just as well stop watching the sport altogether.

Yes, for us die-hards, Wimbledon is only two weeks out of the year. But to the general sports fan and sports media, Wimbledon has been and always will be the most prestigious tournament and with the most media coverage.

I think the AELTC did the right thing by listening to the fans and slowing the game down. And certainly, there's no backlash to take it back to the S&V era.

Good discussion.

oranges
03-22-2010, 12:46 PM
No backlash? I'm hardly the only fan who's been watching it because there's nothing else on offer, but it's gone down the drain. Who are these casual fans they attracted, I'm most curious. Most of all, though irrelevant for this discussion, I absolutely despise them for still retaining the special seed system, not to mention the empty tradition talk. Clowns.

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 01:08 PM
No backlash?

Correct. With the exception of some purists who believe that S&V tennis is the truest form of the game, the majority of fans are quite happy with Wimbledon as it is today. I’m not aware of any movement to take it back the the S&V era.


Most of all, though irrelevant for this discussion, I absolutely despise them for still retaining the special seed system, not to mention the empty tradition talk. Clowns.

I actually like the special seeding system and I hope Wimbledon always retains it's uniqueness [eg. no playing on the middle Sunday which has Christian, Biblical roots as God rested on the 7th day.]

oranges
03-22-2010, 01:12 PM
I actually like the special seeding system and I hope Wimbledon always retains it's uniqueness [eg. no playing on the middle Sunday which has Christian, Biblical roots as God rested on the 7th day.]

You're taking a piss now. The uniqueness is gone and there is no need any more for a special seeding system. It's a charade.

As for opposition, you're living in a bubble if oyu think it's just an odd purist, not to mention I'm not sure I'd call myself a purist.

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 01:13 PM
You're taking a piss now. The uniqueness is gone and there is no need any more for a special seeding system. It's a charade.

:lol:

laurie-1
03-22-2010, 01:26 PM
Throughout the 90s, tennis was one-dimensional where it mattered most – Wimbledon, the crown jewel of tournaments. With the exception of Agassi in '92 and '99, it was serve & volley and chip & charge all the time. There was no variety, there was no deviation from the script -- it was a crapshoot on grass [albeit a highly skilled one] and one-dimensional tennis at its nadir.

Watch this entire match and let me know what you think ...

c4Lvqs2vfWk&feature=PlayList&p=[/url]

^This were par for the course for the decade, and for me, it does not recall fond memories. The problem is that there’s absolutely no sense of drama within each point because they all end so quickly! [aka ‘wham, bam, thank you mam’ tennis.] And yes, we could be awed by their dexterity and power, but the tension is never allowed to build so the overall effect is staccato and emotionally unsatisifying. And as in music, movies, and the arts, in SPORT ALSO, it’s the emotion we’re after!

Thank you AELTC for making this type of grass court tennis a relic of the past ;)

I have to admit I was not a big fan of some of the Wimbledon matches during the 1990s. But there were some great matches as well, when there was a contrast of styles, like Becker v Pioline and Pioline v Stich, Rafter v Agassi, Agassi v Becker and Courier v Edberg.

But lets not forget as well, Wimbledon and the grass season is only 3 weeks out of 11 months of Tennis, so I wouldn't want to make an assessment of a whole year's worth of Tennis on one tournament, even if its considered the most prestigious.

Some of the best matches of that decade took place on the hardcourts of North America and the rebound ace of Australia, and certainly indoor carpet in Europe. During that period, most of the attacking players mixed up their game on other surfaces, combining baseline play with attacking play, its only on grass they attacked relentlessly.

Most attacking players of that era tended to become out all attacking players towards the end of their career, where as in their primes they were very much all court players.

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 01:43 PM
I have to admit I was not a big fan of some of the Wimbledon matches during the 1990s. But there were some great matches as well, when there was a contrast of styles, like Becker v Pioline and Pioline v Stich, Rafter v Agassi, Agassi v Becker and Courier v Edberg.

Yes, Courier in '93 and Pioline in '97 also brought some diversity and interesting matches to Wimbledon.

And I'm not saying it was all bad in the 90s because even despite my issues with all S&V, I watched as much Wimbledon as humanly possible back then too! ;)

Some of the best matches of that decade took place on the hardcourts of North America and the rebound ace of Australia, and certainly indoor carpet in Europe. During that period, most of the attacking players mixed up their game on other surfaces, combining baseline play with attacking play, its only on grass they attacked relentlessly.

Most attacking players of that era tended to become out all attacking players towards the end of their career, where as in their primes they were very much all court players.

All great points! However, on super-slick indoor carpets, matchups featuring two S&V merchants like Sampras vs. Rafter, Becker vs. Stich, Krajicek vs. Ivanisevic, etc, etc, could also dissolve into highly predictable, monotonous S&V affairs.

Start da Game
03-22-2010, 02:35 PM
valhalla, you have to take the whole tour(players and events) into consideration, not one particular event........wimbledon's beauty lied in tennis played at a tremendous pace........french open's beauty lied in its marathon rallies and battles and there was a great mix of slow and fast hardcourts on the tour as well........on the whole, the tour was a great mix of several different surfaces and players........

i personally like all styles of play, i even enjoy pushing tennis if it's executed cleverly........i enjoyed sampras' all out attacking grass court tennis and enjoy nadal's invincible defense at roland garros........i also enjoyed kuerten's and edberg's games a lot.......

wimbledon was not a tournament of serving contests.........that is just selective memory picking a few odd matches........don't we have karlovic blasting aces everywhere now? in the 90s, especially at wimbledon, besides serve & volley and aces there were many points which followed this pattern too: [player1]serve - [player2]return - [1]volley - [2]lob - [1]running back and retrieving it - short rally - [1]low slice & net rushing - [2]passing winner or [1]finishing volley........all that at a great pace........i really enjoyed wimbledon of the old.......

Echoes
03-22-2010, 03:08 PM
Serve & volley is not a matter of power, it's the exact opposite. If it was, then it would be the norm for today's tennis. The Edberg/Stich match proposed here above is the evidence of this.

The advent of power tennis in the mid-eighties (with players like Becker or Curren)favoured by the new equipment/graphite racket meant the gradual disappearance of serve & volley. Sampras', Edberg, Henman, Rafter or even Krajicek were the last representative of that species. Their games were basically characterized by finesse and variety (effects, different strokes, etc). How can you rush to the net if your strokes are that powerful? Tell me why Philippoussis and Goran never had such a great volley? How can s&v be what characterized 90's tennis while it was fading out. S&V was invented by Kramer in the late 40's and accompanied its rise in popularity for 3 decades.

Today's players, with the exception of Federer, are all baby-Becker and Curren.


Points based on S&V were a bit shorter than baseline points on an average. Classic S&V points consist of 5/7 strokes but can sometimes reach 10 strokes. And with the old wooden rackets, 20 strokes based on an S&V weren't so rare.

The points are shorter but more intense. You have to rush to the net. I remember that in an edition of a US tournament - Cincinnati, I think - players' running speeds were calculated. Rafter was always the fastest. In order to cover the net you have to bend your knees much more than on the baseline. All that makes the drama. I can't imagine someone who likes defence and calculation. In cycling I like attacking riders. In tennis I like attacking players. S&V is the ultimate attacking style. It's a do or die thing. You can't cheat. If you don't play well it's over, if you play well you win. No calculation. It's a question of temperament.

To me it's much harder than staying backwards. I've rarely been able to s&v.

If you wanna see long points based on s&v's in the 1997, then watch the Sampras/Rafter match from DC '97:

72YCTKmgCRw

At 3.14 > 10 strokes

iAILTL-oKtI&feature=related

At 6.22

duong
03-22-2010, 03:15 PM
:confused:

I remember Becker doing very well on clay in his very last years when he retired from Slams. Not playing Wimbledon, he decided to play Gstaad and Mercedes Cup and reached the final in Gstaad, if I remember well.

in big tournaments, Becker had his peak on clay between 1989 and 1991.

He gave a lot of hope in that time, for instance with a wonderful tournament in Monte-Carlo 89 (beaten by Mancini in 5 sets in the final). In that time and esp in that tournament, he could display great tennis with variety and all sorts of attacks all week.

Some important experts really believed he could win Roland-Garros : they thought him more than Edberg who had less variety on clay, always went to the net on serve for instance.

Becker was a major hope on clay for these people. He reached the semifinal in RG three times in 1987, 1989 and 1991, also 3 MS1000 finals in 89-90-91. Edberg only played one of these two (SF in RG and MS final) ... but he won them :lol:

After that, he clearly wasn't able to play as well on that surface for long : often injured and never better than 3rd round in RG, and only two MS1000 finals (lost again :lol: ). Anyway, he wasn't a force to reckon on that surface again, apart from MM tournaments of course.

duong
03-22-2010, 03:24 PM
I know, that's why I said its normal for players to overlap decades. Lendl was competive up to 1994 (quarterfinal of Aussie Open and finalist in Sydney) so that's why I mentioned him. Sampras of course early 2000s but didn't play after that (he should have, he was still competitive and only 31 years old at the time). But I was just throwing names out there, I wasn't trying to be profound.

Lendl won his final slam in the beginning of 1990, then his last final in the beginning of 1991.

Sampras was still number 1 in november 2000 and won one slam in 2000 and one in 2002, and reached another final in both 2000 and 2001.

Sampras was also two years younger in 2000 than Lendl was in 1990.

I mean who cares about a Lendl who was only able of reaching the QF in slams, and who could not win any MS1000 tournaments ? When you have known the huge dominant Lendl :shrug:

zeleni
03-22-2010, 03:47 PM
The points are shorter but more intense. You have to rush to the net. I remember that in an edition of a US tournament - Cincinnati, I think - players' running speeds were calculated. Rafter was always the fastest. In order to cover the net you have to bend your knees much more than on the baseline. All that makes the drama. I can't imagine someone who likes defence and calculation. In cycling I like attacking riders. In tennis I like attacking players. S&V is the ultimate attacking style. It's a do or die thing. You can't cheat. If you don't play well it's over, if you play well you win. No calculation. It's a question of temperament.

How can you cheat by winning points from baseline?

There is no "braver" playing style imo. Baseliners are also taking risks.

To me it's much harder than staying backwards. I've rarely been able to s&v.
What is harder depends on personal preferences/talents or as you wrote in previous paragraph "It's a question of temperament".

duong
03-22-2010, 03:51 PM
In which period could we see a guy hitting 78 aces in one match? And on clay, on top of all that?

The amount of aces hit in the noughties were on the whole considerably higher in the noughties than in the nineties. Does that make the points longer?

You love serve-fest. Then you'll love the noughties.

As Oranges puts it, just say you don't like serve & volley.


I insist on the fact that Federer's average 1st serve speed is considerably higher than Sampras' was. How on earth is Sampras remembered as a big server? Funny. :D

that's nonsense

Anyway, I always think that aces are not the interesting point : it's unreturned serve which count

I don't know if you're right about the ace statistics (apart from the few examples you naughtily pick :devil: ), but about the unreturned serves, I'm certain there were more in big matches on fast surfaces in the 90s than in the 00s.

As for the volley, I can really like serve-and-volley although I'm not a huge fan, I prefer when players go to the net inside a point

... and more precisely because that's really the point : I prefer I prefer when a player has to play a hard volley, not a very easy one.

Sorry Ivanisevic's or Forget's volley were not interesting at all : they had made nearly everything with their serve :shrug:

I loved when Noah or Leconte prepared a point then went to the net ... but hadn't made everything at this point (because it's also the problem sometimes nowadays that players go to the net only when they have made everything and only have to finish it ... although it's not often : usually their volley is not easy to do and they have to play it well, otherwise they get a passing-shot).

When you have a player with a very unaesthetic volley taking advantage of a huge serve like Forget or Ivanisevic, no please I don't like it.

As for Edberg (or Sampras in a lesser extent, who is between the Forget-Ivanisevic category and the Edberg category), the point will be different : McEnroe's or Cash's or Leconte's, even Noah's volleys were played with a lot of originality and touch.

Edberg's volleying game was quite mechanic : he took full advantage of his great legs : speed and ability to flex. But he had little originality for his gestures. At least that was my impression as a pure "amateur".

Not a joy to watch like McEnroe of course, or even for me worse players like Leconte, even Becker had more originality in his volleys than Edberg imo :shrug:

My preferrence is when players go to the volley ... but really have something difficult to do there, not only finish the point.

I had it in the 80s, not in the 90s (watch Borg-MCEnroe's final in 1980 in Wimbledon : when both players -even Borg- went to the net, they were not in as easy conditions as Sampras or Ivanisevic at all ;) ).

The matter for me is not really the combination "serve-and-volley", it's what I've just said.

If "serve-and-volley" means "making a good serve (not esp powerful, you're right, a good serve-and-volley requires a special serve) then finishing with a volley", no it's not my cup of tea.

If the main point is volley, whether or not it's after a serve, as it was for McEnroe, then yes I like it.

Serve-volleys with 5-7 strokes with lobs, passings and so on were more the norm in the 80s than in the 90s from what I remember.

And the problem to me was not only on grass but also indoors.

Haelfix
03-22-2010, 04:09 PM
It is not true that a match is on the racquet of a S&Ver. In general the idea is to make it as hard as possible for the defending player, but if he comes up with the great return or pass then he's too good. Statistically, in the old days, you would have an advantage by S/Ving b/c it was very hard to play great counterpunching tennis, but that is not the case anymore.

The problem is in this era of tennis, almost all the returns are hard to hit for a netrusher and almost everyone has ridiculously good passing shots.

Watch the Sampras/Rafter match above and watch where there returns are going. Notice how most of them are floaters that lead to easy volleys. Now watch when Federer tries to S/V for instance, and is up against Nadal. He has to retrieve a shoestring dipping high topspin ball just about every time.. The resulting half volley sits up on him, and Nadal then has an easy pass. You see the same thing in the 90s, it just only happened once out of every 4 or 5 returns. Now every other point is like that. The whole point of S/V, was to get easy points and to take time away from the adversary. Now, the reverse happens, you have harder points to deal with and often you end up taking time away from yourself.

This isn't about the quality of S/Vers in this era, it was already becoming apparent at the end of the 90s and beginning of the 2ks, where you had guys like Hewitt absolutely making a mockery of the tactic.

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 04:10 PM
valhalla, you have to take the whole tour(players and events) into consideration, not one particular event........wimbledon's beauty lied in tennis played at a tremendous pace........french open's beauty lied in its marathon rallies and battles and there was a great mix of slow and fast hardcourts on the tour as well........on the whole, the tour was a great mix of several different surfaces and players........

Yes, but even when taking the whole tour into consideration, I still prefer the 00s. I highlighted Wimbledon because it’s the premier tennis event, and in my view [and I know I wasn't alone in this], it degenerated into a mind-numbingly, one-dimensional affair. And when taking the whole tour into account, there's presently far more depth in the game which makes early round matches much more competitive and enjoyable to watch [even despite 32 vs. 16 seeds at the majors.]

By no means am I suggesting that all 90s tennis was poor or unwatchable. The topic here is which do you PREFER, and on that count, I definitely prefer the Noughties.

i personally like all styles of play, i even enjoy pushing tennis if it's executed cleverly........i enjoyed sampras' all out attacking grass court tennis and enjoy nadal's invincible defense at roland garros........i also enjoyed kuerten's and edberg's games a lot.......

As do I ... in fact, John McEnroe is my all-time favorite player. And while there was diversity of style in the 90s, the overriding theme of the decade was SV tennis from Sampras, Edberg, Rafter [et al] with these three alone capturing 16 out of the 20 US Opens and Wimbledons of the decade. Yes, Federer alone almost matches this, but I simply prefer the present tour style over the SV merchants of the 90s.


wimbledon was not a tournament of serving contests.........that is just selective memory picking a few odd matches........don't we have karlovic blasting aces everywhere now? in the 90s, especially at wimbledon, besides serve & volley and aces there were many points which followed this pattern too: [player1]serve - [player2]return - [1]volley - [2]lob - [1]running back and retrieving it - short rally - [1]low slice & net rushing - [2]passing winner or [1]finishing volley........all that at a great pace........i really enjoyed wimbledon of the old.......

It’s not selective memory. I remember the decade well and yes, for the most part, it WAS a SV contest. Here, let's take a look at the Wimbledon champions of the 90s: Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Stich, and Krajicek. Only Agassi wasn't an exclusive SV'er on grass. And as for Karlovic, I don't see how he's relevant here as he's not reached [nor will he reach] any Wimbledon finals.

Finally, while I'm a huge admirer of Sampras, let’s face it, he wasn't exactly Mr. Charisma or Mr. Excitement. Pete was a fucking insidious killing machine who's sole mission in life was to win majors - and on that he succeeded, wildly. But he simply didn’t bring the same level of excitement, charisma, or cross-over appeal to the game in the way Federer and Nadal have. Even with Agassi, Edberg, Rafter and the rest, they all fall way short in terms of overall appeal.

You make very persuasive arguments, but still I'm not swayed ...

00s > > 90s

rocketassist
03-22-2010, 04:15 PM
i don't blame the casual fans who cannot enjoy every style of play........it's basically the fault of the tennis administrators who project tennis as a baseline game........such fans cannot enjoy other styles because they are so used to hearing the sound of the ball banging the racket........

that is the reason why i opened a thread called 'has tennis become too commercial?' and raised a point - are the tennis rulers drawing some sheep to the sport or genuine tennis followers, by arranging baseline bashfests everywhere?

just look at the clip below, how beautifully edberg finishes the points........

2gZ-K0GQDHA

Fantastic. :D

green25814
03-22-2010, 04:24 PM
I'll never understand the attitude some fans today have towards Sampras. The man was just as much an 'all-round' player as Federer, as far as I'm concerned.

duong
03-22-2010, 04:32 PM
The points are shorter but more intense. You have to rush to the net. I remember that in an edition of a US tournament - Cincinnati, I think - players' running speeds were calculated. Rafter was always the fastest. In order to cover the net you have to bend your knees much more than on the baseline. All that makes the drama. I can't imagine someone who likes defence and calculation. In cycling I like attacking riders. In tennis I like attacking players. S&V is the ultimate attacking style. It's a do or die thing. You can't cheat. If you don't play well it's over, if you play well you win. No calculation. It's a question of temperament.

Actually there can be drama in many ways : some people love nothing more than when Nadal gives everything he has to reach a running passing-shot and hit as hard as he can to pass the poor volleyer :lol: (I hate that because it destroys an attacking game ... and also becauyse it's sos systematic that there's no surprise to be dramatic as when Ljubicic does it for instance :lol: )

Anyway, I like calculation in tennis. When it's not only about being very very fast, but also about preparing and geometry.

Actually there's some calculation in serve-and-volley ;) : that's precisely why a "serve-and-volley player will hit a serve accordingly to where he wants to hit his volley".

But I have no time -and probably no tennistic ability, for instance to appreciate the effects on serve- to appreciate it : it's so short :shrug:

I love the geometry of this game : when I can see "yes he does it because yes, I see it, yes, after that, he will do that :that's great !", and also taking time from the other.

Of course I also love touch and originality, I love great shots.

But I also love this geometry.

That's why I like attacking players (because if the point of baseline game is mostly about not making errors, no it's not for me : I like when players create game) but I don't like much much serve and volley.

I told you my first tennis idol was Yannick Noah. When he went old, he had a very big serve and was often awful to watch on fast surfaces. But before that, he had a great time on clay.

And when a player prepares a point to attack on clay, there's nothing I prefer than that.

Leconte could also be a joy to watch on clay for the same reason.

Mecir was a joy to watch for his geometry, I can feel a little bit the same today with Davydenko imo, also sometimes with Djokovic.

zeleni
03-22-2010, 04:37 PM
I share view with most posters.:) Decade that ends with on-going year was better. :cool:

Start da Game
03-22-2010, 04:44 PM
Yes, but even when taking the whole tour into consideration, I still prefer the 00s. I highlighted Wimbledon because it’s the premier tennis event, and in my view [and I know I wasn't alone in this], it degenerated into a mind-numbingly, one-dimensional affair. And when taking the whole tour into account, there's presently far more depth in the game which makes early round matches much more competitive and enjoyable to watch [even despite 32 vs. 16 seeds at the majors.]

By no means am I suggesting that all 90s tennis was poor or unwatchable. The topic here is which do you PREFER, and on that count, I definitely prefer the Noughties.



As do I ... in fact, John McEnroe is my all-time favorite player. And while there was diversity of style in the 90s, the overriding theme of the decade was SV tennis from Sampras, Edberg, Rafter [et al] with these three alone capturing 16 out of the 20 US Opens and Wimbledons of the decade. Yes, Federer alone almost matches this, but I simply prefer the present tour style over the SV merchants of the 90s.




It’s not selective memory. I remember the decade well and yes, for the most part, it WAS a SV contest. Here, let's take a look at the Wimbledon champions of the 90s: Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Stich, and Krajicek. Only Agassi wasn't an exclusive SV'er on grass. And as for Karlovic, I don't see how he's relevant here as he's not reached [nor will he reach] any Wimbledon finals.

Finally, while I'm a huge admirer of Sampras, let’s face it, he wasn't exactly Mr. Charisma or Mr. Excitement. Pete was a fucking insidious killing machine who's sole mission in life was to win majors - and on that he succeeded, wildly. But he simply didn’t bring the same level of excitement, charisma, or cross-over appeal to the game in the way Federer and Nadal have. Even with Agassi, Edberg, Rafter and the rest, they all fall way short in terms of overall appeal.

You make very persuasive arguments, but still I'm not swayed ...

00s > > 90s

i will respect your preferences but i will tell you about mine as well........

watching sampras at wimbledon was such joy and excitement........aggressive tennis at its very best.......

pete played like a man compared to federer who plays like a clever woman drawing errors cleverly from the opponent........fed's tennis puts me to sleep........there's no real excitement because his tennis is defense based semi offense, always conservative tactics.......

sampras was more of an adventurer and a rugged player, more to my liking........blasting 120 mph second serves, breathtaking jump smashes, stunning running forehands........his half volley pick ups at the net are second to none, ever........

when he could do that much on a tennis court, that's already enough entertainment.......pete's true charisma lied in his tennis, he din't need to walk out onto center court in james bond suit and a pistol in his hand.......

Start da Game
03-22-2010, 04:59 PM
I'll never understand the attitude some fans today have towards Sampras. The man was just as much an 'all-round' player as Federer, as far as I'm concerned.

he was more all-round than federer and he beat a pool of players with far more variety, unlike fed who just keeps beating the one dimensional ball machines who cannot move their ass one inch forward from the baseline........the only thing which fed does slightly better than pete is defend well from the back.......pete preferred turning defense into offense in one shot than engaging in long rallies and at his peak he was really a solid baseliner........

what actually fools so many tennis fans is his incredible serve........it was so very good that it actually overshadowed the rest of his game........there are quite a few matches where he blasted all of becker, kafelnikov, agassi, courier from the baseline........he just preferred being a serve and volleyer, not that he couldn't play from the back........