The Age of No Competition (2002-2006) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Age of No Competition (2002-2006)

Eden
10-29-2006, 05:51 PM
October 25th, 2006

The Age of No Competition (2002-2006)

by Sean Randall

In a post few weeks ago, I basically took offense to those that hammered Pete Samprasís rightful place in history. Part of my argument was that the game back then was just as strong when Pete played as it is now.
Well, after thinking a bit more on it, reading some comments, eating a few more nachos, Iíve changed my stance. And I actually think history will ultimately look upon the current, 2002-2006 ATP years as one of the weaker periods, if not the weakest, in terms of overall competition and strength in the modern era.

Letís face it, the fact that Pete Sampras won the US Open in 2002 is quite remarkable and often overlooked. The dude could barely win a match all summer and then he somehow flipped the switched, hit the gas, and took that title. Amazing, really.

Along the way to that win he beat Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Schalken and Agassi in his last career match. Schalken was a cup cake, but the other four wins were pretty impressive, and at that time, no one saw that Pete run coming. So how the hell did that happen. WellÖ
Just look what happened earlier in 2002. Thomas Johansson wins the Aussie, Albert Costa wins the French and we had that time capsule of a Wimbledon final between Hewitt and Nalbandian. The stage is set, anyone can win a Slam. And Pete just took what he could. Heck, Jiri Novak finished No. 7 that year!

A year later, Roddick wins the US Open and finishes the year No. 1. Thatís right, in case you forgot, Andy finished No. 1, year-end. Quite an accomplishment. So much of one that you know how many different players have finished the year No. 1 since the start of the Ranks in 1973? By my count 15. Fifteen folks, thatís it.
Roddick finished No. 1 more than Becker ever did, more than Stich ever did, more than Muster, more than Rafter, more than Kafelnikov. Even more than Safin.
He finished No. 1 one less time than Borg did. One less time than one of the bonafied all-time greats. And who knows, maybe heíll do it again?
And heís equal to Wilander, Agassi, Kuerten and Courier in the history books on that page. Thatís right, equal. Andy Roddick is in that conversation, like it or not. But is he a better player than those guys? Or, did he finish No. 1 that year because of weak-ass competition? You be the judge.

Over the next few years weíve enjoyed such improbable eyebrow-raising Slas runs like Tim Henman getting to a French semifinal, Martin Verkerk reaching the French final, Rainer Schuettler advancing to the Australian Open final and Gaston Gaudio winning the French title.

But since Roger and Rafael hit their stride, they have quickly turned the tour into their own personal playground. But what has really changed since 2002? Roger and Rafa. Thatís really it as far as the ďstronger competitionĒ goes.
And you can still see it in the results. Two veteran serve/volley players both pulled wins yesterday over top 20 players. The 35-year-old Wayne Arthurs beat world No. 8 and Shanghai contender Tommy Robredo, and Max Mirnyi, 29, beats Dmitry Tursunov. And today Tommy Haas needs three sets to beat a doubles specialist in Nenad Zimonjic.

Seriously, if you are going to make the argument that tennis is so much stronger now than say 10 years ago, and guys back then wouldnít be able to compete now, then how the hell do those results happen?? I mean Nenad is 30 and heís a doubles specialist. And Wayne Arthurs was strongly considering retiring what, like three years ago (maybe he did?).

And hereís a good one. Remember Dick Norman. The big guy turns 36 next March. Guess when he reached his highest career singles ranking? Just guess?? How about this week. Thatís right, big Dick hit No. 90 this past Monday, a new career high for the Belgian. Well done.
Maybe all this guys really are peaking or in their prime. Or maybe not.
What also troubles me is that so many current players in the game today lack belief in big matches, be it at Slams or D-Cup or even late in a Masters tournament.

Just ask yourself, how many big matches has Nalbandian ever won? Robredo? Davydenko? Haas? Blake? Ljubicic (he came through in D-Cup, but little else since)? Gonzalez? Ancic? Stepanek? And on and on. Collectively, aside from Roddick/Safin/Hewitt, itís very few. And itís not just about beating Roger and Rafa, itís about beating the lesser players in big moments.

I really think Andre Agassi kept playing as long as he did because he saw that the level of competition outside of Roger wasnít very strong. He also knew that most players nowadays play the same strategy: hit it hard, if that doesnít work hit it harder, and if that doesnít work go to the gym more. (From my playing experience, Iíve always found it easier to return harder ground strokes than the groundies with lesser pace. But maybe thatís just me!)
And it almost paid off for Andre. At age 35, playing well past his prime and as the older Slam finalist in 31 years, he still reached the US Open final last year and gave Fed a heck of a fright. Amazing.
So was Andre just that good, or was everyone else just that bad? A little of both I think. Andre probably saw the draw and said okay, no Roger in my section and I got a bunch of guys that crush groundies but donít really know how to win big matches. Sign me up. Pete did it a few years earlier, and if Roger gets upset, maybe I can get a bonus US Open title.
Andre didnít get the fairy tale ending like Pete, but he sure was close.
But now with players like Gasquet, Murray, Monfils, Baghdatis, Djokovic, Del Potro, Koralev and others coming up, I think the game going forward will be played at a higher level than it has been. And thankfully some of these guys already have shown that they can close out big matches.

Murray of course is the last guy to beat Federer, and privately Iím sure heís completely baffled a guy like Roddick ever finished No. 1. Baghdatis had good crack at Federer at the Aussie final this year, and has proven he can compete on the big stage. So too has the charismatic Monfils, who his heart and mental toughness with his three consecutive five set victories in front of his home crowd at the French this year.

Monfilsí countryman Gasquet is already more accomplished than Federer ever was at age 20, and heís arguably just as talented as the Swiss. And Djokovic has an excellent chance at finishing among the Top 15 this year after winning a couple tough three setters over Gasquet and Murray just last week in Madrid.

So things really do look promising for the next few years. Letís just hope these guys pan out, because tennis is gonna need them and the Fed man really needs some legit competition.

Source: http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2006-10-25/104.php

Fed-Express
10-29-2006, 06:03 PM
Yeah, Koralev is a huge talent :lol: :rolleyes:
This article is total crap, another american journalist who tries to downplay Roger's achievements, ridiculous.

robinhood
10-29-2006, 06:10 PM
If the writer changed his stance, he might as well just eat his words and stay silent.
Don't write another article so long and boring for anyone to finish.
Geez.

shotgun
10-29-2006, 06:28 PM
Not meaning to overlook Federer's achievements or anything, but he's definitely got a point.

Ernham
10-29-2006, 06:33 PM
Every sentence left me gasping in amazement that the next one would be even more moronic yet.

Apemant
10-29-2006, 06:56 PM
Over the next few years weíve enjoyed such improbable eyebrow-raising Slas runs like Tim Henman getting to a French semifinal, Martin Verkerk reaching the French final, Rainer Schuettler advancing to the Australian Open final and Gaston Gaudio winning the French title.

As opposed to '96, Sampras' prime, when MaliVai freaking Washington made the Wimbledon final. ;)
The guy obviously didn't read hitchhiker's guide to tennis clowns. (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78615)

KaxMisha
10-29-2006, 06:58 PM
Every sentence left me gasping in amazement that the next one would be even more moronic yet.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA! Word.

Johnny Groove
10-29-2006, 07:21 PM
I love Gael, but this guy thinks he has more talent that Federer? :retard:

guga2120
10-29-2006, 07:28 PM
there was more comp in the mid 90's no question, but Federer is so good he would have been number 1 with young Sampras,Agassi,Rafter,Becker too.

Ernham
10-29-2006, 07:32 PM
I love Gael, but this guy thinks he has more talent that Federer? :retard:

He's black. That's all that matters in the trashy American media. Black = charisma, if ya didnt know.

jacobhiggins
10-29-2006, 07:34 PM
It's true when people say there is no competition in this era, but there is no competition relative to Federer. Put Federer into any era and he might still be number 1, even in Sampras's era!

I don't buy the players have diminished in talent, I actually think they are more talented then ever and if the era was that weak, Sampras would have never retired when he did!

shotgun
10-29-2006, 07:35 PM
there was more comp in the mid 90's no question, but Federer is so good he would have been number 1 with young Sampras,Agassi,Rafter,Becker too.

My opinion as well. I just have a hard time picturing him losing only 4 or 5 matches a year playing against Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Stich, etc.

World Beater
10-29-2006, 07:38 PM
I love Gael, but this guy thinks he has more talent that Federer? :retard:

er...i think you need to read it carefully...it says monfils' countryman gasquet.:)

wimbledonfan
10-29-2006, 07:51 PM
There is no way Federer only loses 5 or 6 times in the Sampras era .

I think Pete himself would given him just as many defeats .

Imo , If Pete played classic serve and volley tennis with todays baseline players , he would have won 9 wimbledons . You have Jonas Bkorkman for gods sake making it to the semifinals !!

vincayou
10-29-2006, 07:59 PM
He might have a point. The point (obvious) that Federer has no competition. That said, I don't think that 90s were better than now in term of overall level.

Federer would be have been as dominant in the 90s IMO. He would have lost from time to time to Sampras, and even that, I'm not that sure.

I'm not qualified enough anyway to speak about Sampras, my main souvenir are of the clay tournaments (the only ones I was watching at that time) and of a davis cup match against France where he was dispatched by an old Leconte in straight on indoor.

KaxMisha
10-29-2006, 08:06 PM
There is no way Federer only loses 5 or 6 times in the Sampras era .

I think Pete himself would given him just as many defeats .

Imo , If Pete played classic serve and volley tennis with todays baseline players , he would have won 9 wimbledons . You have Jonas Bkorkman for gods sake making it to the semifinals !!

More fanboyism with no logics to back it up. As has been said, WASHINGTON reached the final in Sampras's era. So what?

R.Federer
10-29-2006, 08:22 PM
Ouch, Steve Randall perhaps does not realize that he is effectively saying that players like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. -- that they're no good. He can't have it both ways, either Roger is truly an awesome player or he is good but not great, and succeeds only because Lleyton, Andy, etc. suck.

It will be interesting to see how history judges this era, but no one thinks of the Laver two calendar slams era (another dominant phase) as one of weak competition, but rather one of Laver's ultra dominance. But it is too early to tell.

maskedmuffin
10-29-2006, 08:24 PM
federer woulda smoked guys like stich, becker, krajieck, etc


He mighta had some entertaining tennis matches with sampras, but woulda pulled most of em out

Federer of 2004-2006 loves the ball-pounding players...His eye hand coordination is the best of all time, his racquet speed is the best of all time, and his movement around teh court to be at right place at right time is the best of all time


Those have nothing to do with the actual technology, just natrual gifts that can be translated to any era. Give him the wilson pro staff whatever in the mid 90's, with the skills he has now and he would still be out thinking his oppenents, playing the point out in his mind 5 steps ahead...again those are his intrinsic talents.

World Beater
10-29-2006, 08:28 PM
More fanboyism with no logics to back it up. As has been said, WASHINGTON reached the final in Sampras's era. So what?

no no...pioline, martin, washington are demigods compared to ljubicic, and nalbandian.;)

sampras giving federer 5 or 6 defeats....what a joke.:lol:

World Beater
10-29-2006, 08:31 PM
federer woulda smoked guys like stich, becker, krajieck, etc


He mighta had some entertaining tennis matches with sampras, but woulda pulled most of em out

Federer of 2004-2006 loves the ball-pounding players...His eye hand coordination is the best of all time, his racquet speed is the best of all time, and his movement around teh court to be at right place at right time is the best of all time


Those have nothing to do with the actual technology, just natrual gifts that can be translated to any era. Give him the wilson pro staff whatever in the mid 90's, with the skills he has now and he would still be out thinking his oppenents, playing the point out in his mind 5 steps ahead...again those are his intrinsic talents.


fed has smoked krajicek and goran.

World Beater
10-29-2006, 08:32 PM
There is no way Federer only loses 5 or 6 times in the Sampras era .

I think Pete himself would given him just as many defeats .

Imo , If Pete played classic serve and volley tennis with todays baseline players , he would have won 9 wimbledons . You have Jonas Bkorkman for gods sake making it to the semifinals !!

all i have to say is :

federer df sampras in wimbledon...deal with it.

federer was as far away from his peak as pete was his.

KaxMisha
10-29-2006, 08:33 PM
no no...pioline, martin, washington are demigods compared to ljubicic, and nalbandian.;)

sampras giving federer 5 or 6 defeats....what a joke.:lol:

You're right. How could anyone not see Martin is much more talented than Fat Dave? ;)

NYCtennisfan
10-29-2006, 08:37 PM
The competition at the top is not as great because many of the most talented players are headcases or are inconsistent.

But as someone who has watched tennis for a long time, the week in, week out competition from players #1-50 is better now than it has ever been. The players are bigger, faster, stronger, hit harder, the game is more physical, and on and on.

Blake mentioned this a few months back. He basically said that on any given day, someone in the top 50 can be on fire that day and beat anyone especially if it is on a surface they like. Getting deep into the draw at TMS events is an achievement in of itself because of this. Therefore, it is very difficult for the top players to have consistently win week in and week out. There is going to be some talented guy who will beat you when you have a bad day.

If anyone doubts this, go to so practice sessions and you will not see much difference between the players. Only the greats can bring it every match, every surface, every tournament. Actually, only a few select greats can say that. If you go to a practice session and watch someone like Verdasco, PHM, Acasuso, Djokovic, Korolev, and on and on hit, you will not say that there isn't any talent or competition out there.

EVERYONE on tour (with the exception of Federer and Nadal on clay) who has a bad day, has a bad cold, has a little sprain, is more than likely out of the tournament if the other guy plays his game. Go back to McEnroe's prime of Connors' prime...there were only a few guys who could even hit with them let alone run them around the court.

Black Adam
10-29-2006, 08:40 PM
A year later, Roddick wins the US Open and finishes the year No. 1. That’s right, in case you forgot, Andy finished No. 1, year-end. Quite an accomplishment. So much of one that you know how many different players have finished the year No. 1 since the start of the Ranks in 1973? By my count 15. Fifteen folks, that’s it.
Roddick finished No. 1 more than Becker ever did, more than Stich ever did, more than Muster, more than Rafter, more than Kafelnikov. Even more than Safin.
He finished No. 1 one less time than Borg did. One less time than one of the bonafied all-time greats. And who knows, maybe he’ll do it again?
And he’s equal to Wilander, Agassi, Kuerten and Courier in the history books on that page. That’s right, equal. Andy Roddick is in that conversation, like it or not. But is he a better player than those guys? Or, did he finish No. 1 that year because of weak-ass competition? You be the judge.


No kidding dude :rolleyes: Had Roddick played in that period he would have blown those guys of the court and would have more successes than today because, even though today is a one man show, that one man is Federer something those guys are lucky not to have faced in their days. The competion is the same except that Roger just manages to seperate himself from the lot, which would have been hard in the "strong competition period" seeing that there were many top guns who equaled each other. Today the top gun can't find his equal except on clay.


EVERYONE on tour (with the exception of Federer and Nadal on clay) who has a bad day, has a bad cold, has a little sprain, is more than likely out of the tournament if the other guy plays his game. Go back to McEnroe's prime of Connors' prime...there were only a few guys who could even hit with them let alone run them around the court.

Exactly that's my point :yeah:

kokket
10-29-2006, 08:42 PM
haha no surprise that this article come from tennis-x.com
best source for stupid tennis statements

thats a comment from a guy that watch only the US Opens and perhaps wimbledon in Television an read the results on paper

NYCtennisfan
10-29-2006, 08:43 PM
There is no way Federer only loses 5 or 6 times in the Sampras era .

I think Pete himself would given him just as many defeats .

Imo , If Pete played classic serve and volley tennis with todays baseline players , he would have won 9 wimbledons . You have Jonas Bkorkman for gods sake making it to the semifinals !!

Sampras would not defeat Federer 5 or 6 times in one season. Sampras would have a good shot a Fed on grass with the old conditions prevailing, but Fed would get the better of him on hardcourts with better bounces.

BTW, Sampras, though not in his prime, was already struggling to beat players who can absorb power on the return i.e. Hewitt. The game has changed and S/V would not get Pete the same success today that it did in the past.

What makes Federer so good is that he wins his serve games easily most of the time and then can win games on the return. He has an uncanny ability of absorbing power. I can't remember the last time he was overpowered in a match. (Someone might mention Safin at the AO 2005 SF at this point, but Fed hit more winners, won more points, hit more aces, won a higher % of the points on his first serve so he definitely was not overpowered). Every other player would have a match where they were overpowered. Sampras was overpowered by Becker a few times (while Sampras was in his prime and Becker was not), Goran, Krajicek, and others.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
10-29-2006, 08:43 PM
Oh man, not this again. Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

A 19 yr old Federer beat the #1 seeded Sampras on Centre Court. You'd think Pete's fans would have got over this by now.

Jimena
10-29-2006, 08:51 PM
My question is, why is this guy making such a big deal of Roddick finishing as the year end #1 in 2003? The way I see it, being the year end #1 really just means that he happened to be #1 at the end of the year, just like Becker was #1 at another time during the year. Roddick was number 1 for 11 weeks, or something like that, which included the so-called off season. IMO, that doesn't mean that much. It certainly does not mean that Roddick was the dominant player of the year, specially when Federer and Ferrero were so close to him.

WF4EVER
10-29-2006, 09:00 PM
So according to this guy, 2002-2003 sucked because "anyone" could win a major, while from then to the present tennis sucked because only two people were dominating? Call me when he makes up his mind.
I mean, whether it was a half a joke or not a joke at all, that fact that a second helping of nachos changed this guy's mind should give you a good idea of his analytical process.

LMAO. That's exactly what I thought when I started reading the article. So I really don't know which determines what.

Can't say I finished the article in its entirety; it's bullshit.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
10-29-2006, 09:07 PM
Just to back that up: look at the rubbishy claims the writer of that article makes...

Dick Norman just reached his highest ranking at the age of 36, therefore this is a weak era. Erm, who cares about the world #90? What about Moya, who was #4 in the 90s and is nowhere now? Isn't that a better example? (and he's still only 30) How does one of the 1990s champions get beaten so easily today? "Time capsule of a Wimbledon final between Hewitt and Nalbandian"...erm, would that be the same Hewitt who regularly handed out beatings to Pete? Even bagelled him in the 2000 year-end tournament? How can you make Pete out to be a legend but then claim that someone who bagelled him is a pushover? Especially when that someone was still a teenager when it happened - and didn't really peak until around 2004? And I remember Safin, another "weak era" player, hammering Pete at the USO at a time when Pete was considered to be playing at the top of his game. How did that happen? :eek:

The serves have got faster, the groundstrokes have got bigger, the players are more athletic but apparently the era is weaker. :devil: If I post on one of these lame ass threads again...someone please shoot me!

Ernham
10-29-2006, 09:11 PM
My question is, why is this guy making such a big deal of Roddick finishing as the year end #1 in 2003? The way I see it, being the year end #1 really just means that he happened to be #1 at the end of the year, just like Becker was #1 at another time during the year. Roddick was number 1 for 11 weeks, or something like that, which included the so-called off season. IMO, that doesn't mean that much. It certainly does not mean that Roddick was the dominant player of the year, specially when Federer and Ferrero were so close to him.

The silly thing is that Roddick is on many levels a carbon copy of Sampras. I'd say his serve, especially the first serve , is actually better than Sampras's, but nonetheless very comparable(and for both of them, that serve is 75%-90% of their game, depending on court surface). The classic running cross court forehand is the only thing missing from Roddick's arsenal that Sampras had. It's really, really funny when you think about it.

General Suburbia
10-29-2006, 09:12 PM
There is no way Federer only loses 5 or 6 times in the Sampras era .

I think Pete himself would given him just as many defeats .

Imo , If Pete played classic serve and volley tennis with todays baseline players , he would have won 9 wimbledons . You have Jonas Bkorkman for gods sake making it to the semifinals !!
Pete knew by the last few years of his career that serve and volley tactics weren't as great. You can even see it in his Wimbledon results - statistically, the guy S&V less and less each year and chose to get into more groundstroke rallies.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
10-29-2006, 09:20 PM
The silly thing is that Roddick is on many levels a carbon copy of Sampras. I'd say his serve, especially the first serve , is actually better than Sampras's, but nonetheless very comparable(and for both of them, that serve is 75%-90% of their game, depending on court surface). The classic running cross court forehand is the only thing missing from Roddick's arsenal that Sampras had. It's really, really funny when you think about it.

Pete's 1-2 was the big serve and then kill off the volley. Roddick's "2" is a forehand winner instead. The change of "step 2" was necessary because serve-volleying doesn't work as well any more: the returns are better and, when the ball does come back at you, you don't have as long to react.

And Pete's backhand, although good on passing shots, was a vulnerability in rallies - just like Andy's.

I think the Roddick-Sampras comparison is interesting, because before the 2003 Wimbledon semi against Roger, a lot of people (including, to my shame, me!) thought Roddick was going to be the next Sampras, only with an even bigger game. Including also, I'm pretty sure, a lot of the people who now decry this era as "weak." After Roddick beat Rusedski in one of the earlier rounds, I thought he was near-invincible on grass. How was anyone supposed to beat someone with a 150mph serve, on a grass court? I was amazed at the way Roger stopped him and I'm extremely happy that Roger, rather than Andy or some other power-hitter, is the guy who's taking all the Wimbledon titles.

Ernham
10-29-2006, 09:24 PM
Pete's 1-2 was the big serve and then kill off the volley. Roddick's "2" is a forehand winner instead. The change of "step 2" was necessary because serve-volleying doesn't work as well any more: the returns are better and, when the ball does come back at you, you don't have as long to react.

And Pete's backhand, although good on passing shots, was a vulnerability in rallies - just like Andy's.

Roddick would serve and volley just like sampras did -- if that worked any more.

Jimena
10-29-2006, 09:45 PM
The silly thing is that Roddick is on many levels a carbon copy of Sampras. I'd say his serve, especially the first serve , is actually better than Sampras's, but nonetheless very comparable(and for both of them, that serve is 75%-90% of their game, depending on court surface). The classic running cross court forehand is the only thing missing from Roddick's arsenal that Sampras had.
I disagree with this. i think Sampras had a great game that he barely had to use because his serve was so dominant. But when he actually was forced to play with his complete arsenal, he was an incredible talent. There's no comparison to Roddick. Yes, the serve was a huge part of both of their games. But Sampras was far above Roddick in terms of groundstrokes, volleys, movement and anticipation.

That tennis kid
10-29-2006, 09:45 PM
Roddick would serve and volley just like sampras did -- if that worked any more.

Or if he could volley like Sampras did.

KaxMisha
10-29-2006, 09:46 PM
Pete's 1-2 was the big serve and then kill off the volley. Roddick's "2" is a forehand winner instead. The change of "step 2" was necessary because serve-volleying doesn't work as well any more: the returns are better and, when the ball does come back at you, you don't have as long to react.

And Pete's backhand, although good on passing shots, was a vulnerability in rallies - just like Andy's.

I think the Roddick-Sampras comparison is interesting, because before the 2003 Wimbledon semi against Roger, a lot of people (including, to my shame, me!) thought Roddick was going to be the next Sampras, only with an even bigger game. Including also, I'm pretty sure, a lot of the people who now decry this era as "weak." After Roddick beat Rusedski in one of the earlier rounds, I thought he was near-invincible on grass. How was anyone supposed to beat someone with a 150mph serve, on a grass court? I was amazed at the way Roger stopped him and I'm extremely happy that Roger, rather than Andy or some other power-hitter, is the guy who's taking all the Wimbledon titles.

Are you implying Federer isn't a power hitter? I never understood that. Just because that's not the only thing he is doesn't mean he isn't one. Roddick's forehand was never as good as Federer's.

NYCtennisfan
10-29-2006, 09:50 PM
Or if he could volley like Sampras did.

Exactly. Pete was a very, very good volleyer who would often show off his skills on half-volleys. Pete dominated a lot of serve games with the serve game of course, but he would not have won 7 Wimbledon titles without very good volleying off of 2nd serves in big situations.

wimbledonfan
10-29-2006, 11:58 PM
A retired Pete beat Roddick not too long ago which happened after the us open finals . Even now , I'd give Sampras the edge over Roddick on grass .

Pete also said that if he trained for next years Wimbledon then he thinks he would be able to beat Nadal . He mentioned in an old interview that he would be licking his chops if he was playing Wimbledon in this era . The only way you can beat Pete is if you play his game better than he can . Nobody in Petes era prevailed .

General Suburbia
10-30-2006, 12:07 AM
Are you implying Federer isn't a power hitter? I never understood that. Just because that's not the only thing he is doesn't mean he isn't one. Roddick's forehand was never as good as Federer's.
Compared to the rest of the big hitters, Fed isn't really a power player. He's athletic and can be powerful at times, that's for sure, but he plays more with precision than with power. Kinda explains how the harder-hitting players fare a better chance with Nadal, while Federer is left to struggle quite a bit.

LCeh
10-30-2006, 12:10 AM
A retired Pete beat Roddick not too long ago which happened after the us open finals . Even now , I'd give Sampras the edge over Roddick on grass .

Pete also said that if he trained for next years Wimbledon then he thinks he would be able to beat Nadal . He mentioned in an old interview that he would be licking his chops if he was playing Wimbledon in this era . The only way you can beat Pete is if you play his game better than he can . Nobody in Petes era prevailed .

Except he lost to Bastl at Wimbledon 02 while licking his chops. So what if he thinks he can win? Doesn't a competitor always think he can win? Do you really think if he trained he can beat Nadal on grass next year? I don't think so, not with the way grass plays nowadays.

KaxMisha
10-30-2006, 12:18 AM
Compared to the rest of the big hitters, Fed isn't really a power player. He's athletic and can be powerful at times, that's for sure, but he plays more with precision than with power. Kinda explains how the harder-hitting players fare a better chance with Nadal, while Federer is left to struggle quite a bit.

He isn't a power player because that's not his sole approach. He doesn't try to rip balls when there's no apparant reason to. However, once he decides to, his forehand is as powerful as anyone's. John McEnroe kept referring to it as "the biggest shot in the game" throughout the US Open final.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
10-30-2006, 12:23 AM
A retired Pete beat Roddick not too long ago which happened after the us open finals

Heh, I think you should quote the context, namely an Elton John charity match played on a rainbow coloured court. :) Unlikely that this was taken at all seriously by either player. I don't believe he could beat Roddick in a serious match, given that Roddick had a winning record against him when Pete was training, match sharp and 4-6 years younger.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Sampras%2C+Pete&player2=Roddick%2C+Andy&playernum2=R485

Sjengster
10-30-2006, 12:40 AM
I'm not buying the argument. It would be one thing if Federer were winning the biggest titles against unaccomplished opposition, but in 9 Slam victories he's beaten a former Slam champion in the final 7 times (interestingly enough, the other 2 men have a Greek connection in common). And was the men's Top 10 of 2004, Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Coria, Moya, Agassi, Henman, Nalbandian, Gaudio, the Top 10 against whom Federer went unbeaten for that entire year, one of no class or competition? Rubbish.

The one thing I can agree with is that the younger generation coming through play by and large the more attractive tennis, but there's a difference between disliking a player's style and disrespecting his abilities. I may not care for, say, Davydenko, but I can't deny that he's a talented ball-striker who has completely earned the success he's had in the last couple of years. Ljubicic and Nalbandian have weaknesses in key areas, but are both gifted players with the results to prove it.

I remember this year Jimmy Connors said something to the effect of, "Either you're a hard-court specialist, or a clay-court specialist, or you're Roger Federer", trying to put down the people he beat at Wimbledon. Well, who were these surface specialists, these one-trick ponies? Gasquet? Henman? Berdych? Ancic? Nadal? Oh and by the way, Jonas friggin' Bjorkman even managed to reach a Slam SF back in Sampras' prime, how astonishing!

You can look at the limited resumes of Federer's competitors and judge simply from the numbers, or you can look at the tennis that he's having to play to win against them and make a more informed judgement. Just this week he had to win a 16-14 tiebreak against a player who had never won more than 4 games in a set off him, then was two points from defeat against another opponent who'd never beaten him before. In Halle and Toronto he had to win 4 consecutive three-set matches in the last 4 rounds to claim the title. The AO win this year was his toughest ever Slam, despite not facing a single Slam champion in the draw for the one and only time.

KaxMisha
10-30-2006, 12:52 AM
I'm not buying the argument. It would be one thing if Federer were winning the biggest titles against unaccomplished opposition, but in 9 Slam victories he's beaten a former Slam champion in the final 7 times (interestingly enough, the other 2 men have a Greek connection in common). And was the men's Top 10 of 2004, Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Coria, Moya, Agassi, Henman, Nalbandian, Gaudio, the Top 10 against whom Federer went unbeaten for that entire year, one of no class or competition? Rubbish.

The one thing I can agree with is that the younger generation coming through play by and large the more attractive tennis, but there's a difference between disliking a player's style and disrespecting his abilities. I may not care for, say, Davydenko, but I can't deny that he's a talented ball-striker who has completely earned the success he's had in the last couple of years. Ljubicic and Nalbandian have weaknesses in key areas, but are both gifted players with the results to prove it.

I remember this year Jimmy Connors said something to the effect of, "Either you're a hard-court specialist, or a clay-court specialist, or you're Roger Federer", trying to put down the people he beat at Wimbledon. Well, who were these surface specialists, these one-trick ponies? Gasquet? Henman? Berdych? Ancic? Nadal? Oh and by the way, Jonas friggin' Bjorkman even managed to reach a Slam SF back in Sampras' prime, how astonishing!

You can look at the limited resumes of Federer's competitors and judge simply from the numbers, or you can look at the tennis that he's having to play to win against them and make a more informed judgement. Just this week he had to win a 16-14 tiebreak against a player who had never won more than 4 games in a set off him, then was two points from defeat against another opponent who'd never beaten him before. In Halle and Toronto he had to win 4 consecutive three-set matches in the last 4 rounds to claim the title. The AO win this year was his toughest ever Slam, despite not facing a single Slam champion in the draw for the one and only time.

Fantastic post. :worship:

World Beater
10-30-2006, 12:56 AM
roddick sucks. hewitt, moya, agassi, henman wayy past prime. safin, nalbo is a headcase.

there its easy to debunk federer's competition. its becoming rather trendy these days.

in fact you could group every player into one of the three categories...

cmurray
10-30-2006, 12:58 AM
Yeah, Koralev is a huge talent :lol: :rolleyes:
This article is total crap, another american journalist who tries to downplay Roger's achievements, ridiculous.

I bet Roger could beat Jesus himself at tennis! :angel: :D :D

Bloodletting
10-30-2006, 01:09 AM
haha no surprise that this article come from tennis-x.com
best source for stupid tennis statements

thats a comment from a guy that watch only the US Opens and perhaps wimbledon in Television an read the results on paper

yep, I hate that american stance of "Tennis only exists from july to september". Strangely enough, this comes much more from American media than U.S. fans.

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:11 AM
Just to back that up: look at the rubbishy claims the writer of that article makes...

Dick Norman just reached his highest ranking at the age of 36, therefore this is a weak era. Erm, who cares about the world #90? What about Moya, who was #4 in the 90s and is nowhere now? Isn't that a better example? (and he's still only 30) Slight emendation of the Moya stats: Moya was #4 as late as 2004.

Btw, we cared about the world #90 in June. ;)

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:12 AM
I bet Roger could beat Jesus himself at tennis! :angel: :D :DRoger is Jesus at tennis. :p

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:16 AM
Roger is Jesus at tennis. :p

He's the TENNIS MESSIAH!


but.....what exactly does that make rafa?

LLeytonRules
10-30-2006, 01:16 AM
The courts have slowed down somewhat.I can only imagine what Fed would do on fast grass.This piece is garbage, i always thought the 90s eras was very overrated, Becker was not doing much in the late 90s.Federer loves playing big servers.

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:21 AM
He's the TENNIS MESSIAH!


but.....what exactly does that make rafa?What he's always been: the Antichrist. :devil: You know there's a reason Nike dressed him up in red and Federer in angelic blue at the US Open.

Who? :angel:You know, the guy with the harem of twelve.

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:24 AM
Who? :angel:

:smooch:

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:26 AM
:haha::haha::haha:

Great, now I'm imagining Rogi with a harem of 12. I suppose the harem consists of the others in the Top 13? :tape:Hasi just makes the cut. :angel:

Wow, totally hijacked this thread. :lol:

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:28 AM
What he's always been: the Antichrist. :devil: You know there's a reason Nike dressed him up in red and Federer in angelic blue at the US Open.

You know, the guy with the harem of twelve.

Rafa is the ANTI-CHRIST????? All this time, I've been cheering for the wrong GUY! :bigcry:

LONG LIVE THE MESSIAH!

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:31 AM
:haha::haha::haha:

Great, now I'm imagining Rogi with a harem of 12. I suppose the harem consists of the others in the Top 13? :tape:

Please. Roger would never stoop to adding Davydenko to his harem. Give him some credit for taste. Dima would be a MUCH better addition, don't you think?

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:32 AM
Hasi just makes the cut. :angel:

Wow, totally hijacked this thread. :lol:

I can't help it. Hijacked threads are FAR more interesting, don't you think?

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:33 AM
Rafa is the ANTI-CHRIST????? All this time, I've been cheering for the wrong GUY! :bigcry:

LONG LIVE THE MESSIAH!Another infidel converted! Another soul saved! PRAISE THE LORD! :bowdown:
I wonder if Rogi is relieved that Radek is no longer eligible. :tape:

And good! Our topic > this writer's "article." :DYes, now if only he could swap Ivan for David F. :lick:

Too true. We have to think of it as a mercy killing.

azinna
10-30-2006, 01:35 AM
The only half decent point the writer made was to mention the palpable lack of mental toughness among the #3-10 players. There have been a lot of mini- (or full-out) chokes among the best this generation has to offer....

darrinbaker00
10-30-2006, 01:35 AM
He's black. That's all that matters in the trashy American media. Black = charisma, if ya didnt know.
Could you be just a little more racist, please?

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:35 AM
Aww, Kolya isn't as bad as advertised! It's just poor marketing and a lack of flattering hats. :angel:

Besides, Rogi needs variety in his harem. :devil:

But I agree, Dima would be great in the harem - especially if he blogged about it. :DYeah, poor Kolya's underrented...you're going to bump that thread again now, aren't you?

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:39 AM
:haha: It's either that or "Pro Lockerroom"!!!!!!!To continue the biblical references, I wash my hands of you.

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:43 AM
Aww, Kolya isn't as bad as advertised! It's just poor marketing and a lack of flattering hats. :angel:

Besides, Rogi needs variety in his harem. :devil:

But I agree, Dima would be great in the harem - especially if he blogged about it. :D

Nope. The only way Kolya's getting into that harem is as Rafa or Andy's gofer. You gotta know that Rafa and Andy are Roger's favorites - because sometimes a guy wants to dominate and sometimes he wants to be dominated. It's the perfect threesome.

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:44 AM
:haha: Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? :sobbing:Verily I say unto you, the nakedness of Kolya thou shalt not uncover.

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:48 AM
:eek: Does this mean that Rogi is always the filling in their sandwiches?

well...not always. Sometimes he likes to watch too.

:tape:

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:49 AM
:sobbing: I hate all these Levitican laws! Shrimp, polyester, and now Kolyabutt! :mad:

J'torian....it's for your OWN GOOD. Don't you know that?

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:52 AM
:eek: How does he keep from getting jealous? :devil:Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:55 AM
:eek: How does he keep from getting jealous? :devil:

You are a bad influence on me. I'm used to be an :angel: but now I'm a :devil:


:awww: :sobbing:

cmurray
10-30-2006, 01:57 AM
...underrented property? :D

OMG :haha: :haha: :haha: :rolls: :rolls:

That's the best one yet! ahahahahhahaaha

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:57 AM
You are a bad influence on me. I'm used to be an :angel: but now I'm a :devil:


:awww: :sobbing:It happens to us all in the fullness of time. Embrace this side of yourself. :hug:

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:57 AM
...underrented property? :DThou shalt not commit...

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 01:59 AM
Have I led thee into temptation? :devil:Deliver us from boring halos and harps. For thine is the humor and the wit and the slashiness.

Btw, in this garden, there are no apples. Only bananas.

cmurray
10-30-2006, 02:03 AM
Have I led thee into temptation? :devil:

Yes. In fact, I'm going to start calling you Darth Vader.

"Luke....come to the dark side of the force.....hoooo.ahhhhh"

cmurray
10-30-2006, 02:07 AM
In that case, Moya should be the serpent, as it was he who first gaveth of this fruit to the innocent Rafa Eve. :angel:

Freaking Moya. Why couldn't he keep his banana to himself? Poor little Rafi.

cmurray
10-30-2006, 02:14 AM
Moya used to be a highly ranked angel, but he has since fallen from grace. :sad:

But he's still giving out his banana generously. There are just fewer takers now than there used to be.:o

cmurray
10-30-2006, 02:20 AM
Either that or Flavia's just hogging them all. :o

Then why is she auctioning them off on e-bay? She's certainly not paying for her party clothes with her tennis income. :eek: :o :p

atheneglaukopis
10-30-2006, 02:21 AM
No, this is the true translation.

And the LORD Carlos commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of clay and grass, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely choke.
...
1 Now the LaLo was more subtil than any player of any field which the LORD Carlos had played. And he said unto the innocent Rafa, Yea, hath Carol's Mayo said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the innocent Rafa said unto the LaLo, we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the banana tree which is in the midst of the garden, LORD Carlos hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye choke.

4 And the LaLo said unto the innocent Rafa, ye shall not surely choke:

5 For Carol's Mayo doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing clay and grass.

6 And when the innocent Rafa saw that the banana was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a banana to be desired to make one strong and mighty, he took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto his doubles partner Nando with him; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed towels together, and made themselves mantowelskirts.

zicofirol
10-30-2006, 02:22 AM
The silly thing is that Roddick is on many levels a carbon copy of Sampras. I'd say his serve, especially the first serve , is actually better than Sampras's, but nonetheless very comparable(and for both of them, that serve is 75%-90% of their game, depending on court surface). The classic running cross court forehand is the only thing missing from Roddick's arsenal that Sampras had. It's really, really funny when you think about it.

This has to be one of the stupidest post in this thread.
Roddick does not have the variety and placement that Sampras had, Sampras backhand was much better, the Sampras forehand is way better, Sampras is a much better mover, and roddick is a hack when it comes to volleying compared to Sampras. Please refrain from saying more stupid statements.

I think the article has a point, I have always said that this is a very very weak top 20. Basically the same styles, lack of mental toughness and limited game variety.

cmurray
10-30-2006, 02:29 AM
No, this is the true translation.

And the LORD Carlos commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of clay and grass, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely choke.
...
1 Now the LaLo was more subtil than any player of any field which the LORD Carols had played. And he said unto the innocent Rafa, Yea, hath Carol's Mayo said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the innocent Rafa said unto the LaLo, we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the banana tree which is in the midst of the garden, Lord Carlos hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye choke.

4 And the LaLo said unto the innocent Rafa, ye shall not surely choke:

5 For Carol's Mayo doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing clay and grass.

6 And when the innocent Rafa saw that the banana was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a banana to be desired to make one strong and mighty, he took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto his doubles partner Nando with him; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed towels together, and made themselves mantowelskirts.



Wow. Carol's bananas DO get around. Maybe they really ARE the best tasting bananas in the world (that's what Flavia says in her e-bay ads). I wonder how much one goes for????

World Beater
10-30-2006, 02:47 AM
This has to be one of the stupidest post in this thread.
Roddick does not have the variety and placement that Sampras had, Sampras backhand was much better, the Sampras forehand is way better, Sampras is a much better mover, and roddick is a hack when it comes to volleying compared to Sampras. Please refrain from saying more stupid statements.

I think the article has a point, I have always said that this is a very very weak top 20. Basically the same styles, lack of mental toughness and limited game variety.

here's the problem with the article. The article assumes inherently that because pete played with great players, it translated into better competition. this isnt true. we can look at it today, and see there are a lot of talented players but they just were inconsistent/ didnt peak at the same time etc.

thats why we have safin, hewitt, roddick all going through the motions,...dave not caring...

agassi dropped off the map into 100's for a while...becker also was on/off at times...edberg was waning.

styles are very different...the surface was much quicker in the past. nobody in top 10 plays like rich k,goran, rusedski, becker, rafter...

its also very difficult to judge the roddick serve against the pete serve. Yes pete had better placement, but his % was lower and he didnt have the same heat. This works well against certain types of players, and not others. Guys with large wingspan, and/or good anticipation returned well against sampras. hewitt returned pete's serve better than he does roddick's serve. safin also has less trouble with pete's serve than roddick's serve. i do think pete's serve would be more effective against federer, but i think a guy like nalbandian would make mince meat out of pete's 2nd serve, and federer would chip that return low to pete's feet all the time.

TennisGrandSlam
10-30-2006, 03:38 AM
Yeah, Koralev is a huge talent :lol: :rolleyes:
This article is total crap, another american journalist who tries to downplay Roger's achievements, ridiculous.


Because Roger is not a American. :devil:

R.Federer
10-30-2006, 05:16 AM
I think the article has a point, I have always said that this is a very very weak top 20.
Aside from beating Roger and Rafa consistently, what would you need to see to believe that the current top 20 is not weak?

If tomorrow Lleyton, Andy, Marat, Nalbandian and Ljubicic were to start getting an occasional win over Roger / Rafa in the slams and T.M.S, would that be sufficient to say that suddenly the competition of this era is not bad?

TennisGrandSlam
10-30-2006, 05:27 AM
If Roddick is NOW Federer,

American must say Roddick is better than Sampras! :o

World Beater
10-30-2006, 05:38 AM
this thread is becoming XXX rated.

:scared:

oz_boz
10-30-2006, 08:00 AM
Sampras would not have dominated with S&V today, for many reasons.

Federer would probably have had a harder time winning everything in the mid 90's than today, for equally many reasons.

Many top guys of today are headcases. But the top 100 is way better than 10 years ago.

The players born in the mid 70's failed to deliver on the big stage, making way for Agassi's late run, Sampras longevity at the top, and Hewitt's domination.

And, as hitchhiker put it: Every era was full of clowns.

NyGeL
10-30-2006, 09:10 PM
this guy is a moron...

stebs
10-30-2006, 09:21 PM
Judging the stregth of any competition by success makes absolutely no sense. The only thing that success of competition can prove is that the guys probably weren't chokers. Anyway, I would still agree that the top 10 of today is weak in comparison with the top 10 of ten years ago. However, 20-50 of today is leaps and bounds ahead of those guys 10 years ago.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 09:33 PM
Judging the stregth of any competition by success makes absolutely no sense. The only thing that success of competition can prove is that the guys probably weren't chokers. Anyway, I would still agree that the top 10 of today is weak in comparison with the top 10 of ten years ago. However, 20-50 of today is leaps and bounds ahead of those guys 10 years ago.

I doubt it. It just seems that way. Because the top ten/five "back then" could easily carve up 90% of the field with no trouble, they always did well at the tournaments. As we have seen in many sports, as time goes on all things start to become more equal in terms of training/physical traits and whatnot, and it's that one person that has those one or two genetic advantages in some given sports that give them a huge advantage over the field, even though the advanatage is very small by itself. Example: a tenth of a second is now the difference between gold and no medal in the olympics now, when it used to be several seconds!

tangerine_dream
11-14-2006, 12:15 AM
Some support for the Clown Era theory:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4329691.html
TENNIS NOTEBOOK
Federer's competition not impressive

By DALE ROBERTSON
Houston Chronicle
Nov. 12, 2006

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 ó all ranked in the top 10 and all part of the elite Masters Cup field in Shanghai this week ó 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.

Masters Cup Mismatch?
Rafael Nadal owns six of the 10 victories against 38 losses ó 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.

TennisGrandSlam
11-14-2006, 04:40 AM
Sampras would not have dominated with S&V today, for many reasons.

Federer would probably have had a harder time winning everything in the mid 90's than today, for equally many reasons.

Many top guys of today are headcases. But the top 100 is way better than 10 years ago.

The players born in the mid 70's failed to deliver on the big stage, making way for Agassi's late run, Sampras longevity at the top, and Hewitt's domination.

And, as hitchhiker put it: Every era was full of clowns.



Sampras is awesome!

But how about Sampras go to 1980s? (assume Sapras was born in 1960s)

Early (Connors-McEnroe-Lendl-Wilander Era)

Late (Lendl-Becker-Edberg-Wilander Era)

Boris Franz Ecker
11-14-2006, 09:43 AM
"When Tommy Robredo makes (the Masters Cup)," the outspoken Goran Ivanisevic said, "something's wrong."


There were worse players at the Cup in the 90ies. And there were better players.
Nothing is wrong.
Robredo is underestimated.
He's better than Berasategui, Gaudio and these guys.
He can play on other surfaces than clay.

Purple Rainbow
11-14-2006, 02:25 PM
"When Tommy Robredo makes (the Masters Cup)," the outspoken Goran Ivanisevic said, "something's wrong."


There were worse players at the Cup in the 90ies. And there were better players.
Nothing is wrong.
Robredo is underestimated.
He's better than Berasategui, Gaudio and these guys.
He can play on other surfaces than clay.

During Sampras' years, Alex Corretja not only made it to the TMC, he actually won the whole thing beating Moya in the final.

spencercarlos
11-14-2006, 02:53 PM
October 25th, 2006

The Age of No Competition (2002-2006)

by Sean Randall


Letís face it, the fact that Pete Sampras won the US Open in 2002 is quite remarkable and often overlooked. The dude could barely win a match all summer and then he somehow flipped the switched, hit the gas, and took that title. Amazing, really.

Along the way to that win he beat Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Schalken and Agassi in his last career match. Schalken was a cup cake, but the other four wins were pretty impressive, and at that time, no one saw that Pete run coming. So how the hell did that happen. WellÖ

Yeah very impressive wins especially when we knew that Rusedski, Haas and Roddick were grand slam champions, oh and today they total 1 GS in between them.. very impressive for Pete to have beaten them..

And not even mention the phisical battle that Andre had to endure against Hewit in a match which was probably the best of that tournament, and how spent he was for the final :rolleyes

r2473
11-14-2006, 03:31 PM
Every sentence left me gasping in amazement that the next one would be even more moronic yet.

That's funny:worship:

spencercarlos
11-14-2006, 06:38 PM
Also this article explains the greater sucess that Andre had 2002-2006 thanks to the weak competition :rolleyes: he could only manage to reach 3 GS semifinals and win just one another slam (2003 Australian Open).

Boris Franz Ecker
11-14-2006, 07:49 PM
During Sampras' years, Alex Corretja not only made it to the TMC, he actually won the whole thing beating Moya in the final.

Yes, and this Corretja leads the H2H against Federer 3-2.

But Federer wasn't the same player as today.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
11-14-2006, 08:00 PM
Problem with this no competition theory is that today's players generally beat the 1990s bunch when they actually played. I remember Hewitt wiping the floor with the lot of them.

A greater spread of Slams in the 90s doesn't prove the players were better. It just proves there was less of a gap between them and the #1.

BlakeorHenman
11-14-2006, 11:45 PM
Problem with this no competition theory is that today's players generally beat the 1990s bunch when they actually played. I remember Hewitt wiping the floor with the lot of them.

A greater spread of Slams in the 90s doesn't prove the players were better. It just proves there was less of a gap between them and the #1.




A) That's cause the 90's bunch were reaching the end of their careers.

B) The point of the thread was that they were less competition. That the '90's folks had less of a gap on #1 supports that '00's folks are weaker competition. They haven't managed to keep their level up to Federer's and it shows in the rankings. Pete didn't dominate at nearly this level, because the '90's guys were more able to push themselves and keep up, and had more heart.

Bagelicious
11-15-2006, 01:41 AM
I preferred this thread when it was XXX.

atheneglaukopis
01-09-2007, 06:35 AM
One of our best efforts. :angel: