[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by SetSampras

You had to incorporate a whole variety of different tactics from baseline, and at the net before. In that sense.. Yes much more difficult. The physicality wasn't nearly as much but the strategy, the way you had to think, the precision, anticipation etc. was light years ahead of today. In that sense, to me the guys have it easier. They don't have to refine their game to the point guys in the past did. Even 20-30 years ago etc. You had a sweet spot the size of a peanut on your racket.. While today you have the sweetspot the size of a 300 pound woman on your racket


People argue the guys of the past couldn't keep up with the wear and tear of the tour today.. Well the guys today couldn't compete under the old conditions either. Could you imagine Nole or Rafa trying to play their games under the conditions of the 50s or 60s? Hell even the 80s? ROFL. Could you imagine all the FH and BH shanks Fed would be having with the wooden rackets?

The physicality of the game has gone up.. The actual strategy, talent, refined all court game has sunk LOW

This won't happen often, so enjoy it, but here goes:

Excellent post. Fully agreed.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Clay Death

law #1: never question clay death the destroyer. truth is my sword.

law #2: always keep your mouth shut and just let the common mouse breeders (aka common public) wonder if you are a buffoon than to open it and remove all doubt.

So no source for that quote? No link? And that is your answer?

You are an idiot.

[Clay Death]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

So no source for that quote? No link?

oh wait. i realize now that i am a complete idiot and a lazy pig for not being able dig up the answer to this question a few pages back. i am sorry my lord and master clay death the destroyer. if i was not so damned lazy then i would have known that there was never any link. its years of being on welfare that has caused me to be so worthless.

fixed for the village idiot. campaigning early for ACC or what?

you are the ultimate "idiot" little johnny for running around and calling me and other people idiots here at mtf when you all too well that they are all 100 times more intelligent than you.

who says there has to be link for everything moron? this happened to be a coversation between pete and justin over the weekend which i happen to hear about from justin himself on nation tele.

feel like an idiot yet?

[Egreen]

Originally Posted by Jaz

As soon as Federer retires, Nadal will be even older...then it will be the weakest era ever.

Plus Nole will be crippled by then. New Johanssons and Costas will emerge.

[Corey Feldman]

Originally Posted by Johnny Groove

As opposed to this era's unending plethora of mugs and chokers who have no chance to beat the top 3?

they might not beat top 3 but you can be sure anyone from top 50 today would beat Rod Laver or Mats Wilander, at their prime, in a match

if you dont agree you are obviously a crack baby

[mark73]

Originally Posted by Vida

problem is, whenever there is no consistent champs at the top, its bound to be a weak era no matter how little top 10 is prone to choking.

I mean, if this era is weak, what would make it stronger? soderling, tsonga, berdych winning 2-slams per year, with fedalovic right next to them?

lol, by that rationale, you'd call that weak era as well.

Stop being rational. This is MTF. Ive tried being rationale and it does not work. The average IQ on GM is 90 at best.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

they might not beat top 3 but you can be sure anyone from top 50 today would beat Rod Laver or Mats Wilander, at their prime, in a match

With a wooden racquet?

[SetSampras]

Originally Posted by tennis-hero

ahh so you did, my appologies good sir

however, third party hearsay from gimelslimeball is not admissable as evidence even in phoenix wright ace attourney
(for all the old out of touch people, that would an awfully good video game about a lawyer)

you cant put words in petes mouth good sir

http://www.samprasfanz.com/cgi-bin/v...?id=1301318383

setsampras youll be pleased to know sampras has a very low opinion of this era- rejoice!

I still think there�s four guys, now five guys in Juan Mart�n del Potro, that are really the dominant players, and I think it really depends. But I do think that Djokovic is clearly up there now obviously with those guys, but I still look at Roger and Rafa and think they could very well play in the final of some more majors. It depends on who�s playing well. There�s only a handful of really great players in the sport.

Yea four or five guys just HAS to equate to strongest era ever. And Del Potro dominant? Thats the first I've heard of it. I wouldnt even call 4 or 5 guys dominant. Right now there are only TWO dominant guys. Fed hasn't won anything since Doha. He hasn't won a slam for almost 2 years. Murray has NEVER won a slam. Its hard to call someone "great" who can't even manage a set in a slam final. Greatness is defined in how you perform on the big stage.

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Philippoussis > Djokovic on grass

top class sig material, assist.....

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

top class sig material, assist.....

Scud gave Pete some real trouble on proper grass. You think 2011 is proper grass? Shame on you if you do.

[Myrre]

Originally Posted by bjurra

That is just rubbish, the depth now is much better than 10 or 20 years ago.

You're the one speaking rubbish. I know there are more good players than ever before, but for the top 3-4 players that isn't much of a problem. Since there is so little variety in surfaces and playing styles, it has never been easier to win on all surfaces than it is now. They can just play their own game whether it's on grass or clay and be equally successful. That wasn't the case in earlier eras. Muster, Bruguera, Chang etc were useless on grass. Sampras, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker were never a threat at the French. Wouldn't Nadal have easy days dominating if all tournaments were played on clay? That's basically what's happening. Make all surfaces the same and you'll have the same guys winning all tournaments (as we have today).

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

they might not beat top 3 but you can be sure anyone from top 50 today would beat Rod Laver or Mats Wilander, at their prime, in a match

if you dont agree you are obviously a crack baby

2011 top 50 player with a wooden racquet back in the day?

Or Rod Laver with today's equipment, fitness, and training?

Either way I think Laver wins.

[cveks]

yes this is definetely strongest era ever.

And Novak Djokovic is strongest tennis player in strongest tennis era ever.

At this moment for sure.

[Gagsquet]

Eras are not comparable. Stop these bullshits.

[cveks]

also its strongest era because 3 top players have most slams ever - together they have like 30 slams