Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
then the question becomes, where do you rank Murray? All four slam finals. 5 finals at the Australian Open and 1 at the French, 5 French semifinals. Is he more Versatile than Mugpras?
well, that brings the homogenisation of the surfaces into the question. They have slowed down things so much that baseliners are now winning everything and serve volleyers are almost extinct. Murray should be reasonably proficient on clay given he spent so much time practising on the stuff in Spain. And Brits historically were decent on clay, going back to Perry. So in other words, versatility is not as much a requirement nowadays as it was in Sampras era, or especially in the Borg channel Slam era, and the rarity of that double proves the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
he was the dominant player. He set a record number of grand slam tournament wins. I think he definitly could be considered one of the greatest players ever.
It is difficult to compare different eras.
Therefore i consider Pete Sampras the greatest of that era
Born Borg the greatest of another era. I could easily make the argument that he was the greatest of all time.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal the greatest players of another era.
These 4 could easily considered the greatest of all time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,806 Posts
Sampras on 4 fast surfaces for slams? Forget it. Those 14 slams would have very easily been 30 slams
Nadal on 4 clay slams by year.
Federer on 4 grass slams
Djokovic on 4 plexicushion slams

All of them would have won easily more than 30 slams. But if you want to be GOAT you need to be succesful in all surfaces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,684 Posts
Sampras - WB GOAT
7 out 7!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
But if you want to be GOAT you need to be succesful in all surfaces
All surfaces these days are very different from all surfaces during the last century (not just the 1990s). The gaps between slow and fast surfaces were much bigger back then.

For example, the pre-2003 USO green decoturf made Cincy and Shanghai look like Indian Wells, and the 1990s Stockholm/Stuttgart indoor carpet courts were even crazier.

Btw, before 2002, Queens grass was slower than Wimbledon. You know what, Thomas fucking Muster, who did not win a single Wimbledon match, reached Queens SF.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
All surfaces these days are very different from all surfaces during the last century (not just the 1990s). The gaps between slow and fast surfaces were much bigger back then.

For example, the pre-2003 USO green decoturf made Cincy and Shanghai look like Indian Wells, and the 1990s Stockholm/Stuttgart indoor carpet courts were even crazier.

Btw, before 2002, Queens grass was slower than Wimbledon. You know what, Thomas fucking Muster, who did not win a single Wimbledon match, reached Queens SF.
You argument would make more sense if Nadal was more consistent outside clay for instance. He is dominant on clay in a way that has never been seen before and struggles mightily to be consistent at any of the other 3 slams. If they were so much more similar as you suggest than why can't he find more consistent results?

Despite this Djokovic and Federer have been able to be much more consistent through their careers on grass and clay simultaneously than Nadal. This likely points to them just being great all court players and Nadal being much more reliant on a slow court which the other 3 slams aren't close to clay in that regard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,930 Posts
No one would even know his name had he played in the Fedalovic era, hed be comparable to a ljubicic or tomas berdych, maybe win a few masters here and there but thats it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
No one would even know his name had he played in the Fedalovic era, hed be comparable to a ljubicic or tomas berdych, maybe win a few masters here and there but thats it.
Nobody would even care about Nadal had he played in the 1990s, he would have gone down the history as just another Spanish claycourt specialist but better - he would not be able to hit his trademark forehand with old racquets with no polystrings.

As for Djokovic, he would have most likely never figured out his dietary problems and would have ended up winning 1-2 hardcourt Slams.

Federer would have had greatest chance, but it would have also depended on how his tennis developed. If he became a serve-and-volleyer (most likely), his chance would have been limited. If you are a serve-and-volleyer, the last thing you want is to play against someone who both serves better and volleys better than you (Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek both served better and volleyed than any version of Federer).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
You argument would make more sense if Nadal was more consistent outside clay for instance. He is dominant on clay in a way that has never been seen before and struggles mightily to be consistent at any of the other 3 slams. If they were so much more similar as you suggest than why can't he find more consistent results?

Despite this Djokovic and Federer have been able to be much more consistent through their careers on grass and clay simultaneously than Nadal. This likely points to them just being great all court players and Nadal being much more reliant on a slow court which the other 3 slams aren't close to clay in that regard.
By the standards for a Spanish claycourt specialist, his consistency on hard and grass (reached 5 Wimbledon finals in a row) is already incredibly mind-boggling.

If you look at Wimbledon draws during the 1980s-1990s, there were no Latin claycourters in the second weeks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
By the standards for a Spanish claycourt specialist, his consistency on hard and grass (reached 5 Wimbledon finals in a row) is already incredibly mind-boggling.

If you look at Wimbledon draws during the 1980s-1990s, there were no Latin claycourters in the second weeks.
My point isn't to say that that the surfaces are just as different, but to suggest that they are still quite different from one another. That shows clearly when you see how much more successful and consistent Nadal is on clay than any other surface.

Sure if the surfaces were as wildly different as they were in the past than Nadal would have almost no success outside of clay (except slower HC), but Djokovic and Federer would still have plenty of success on all surfaces and speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
If you exclude clay, he's among the very BOATs and GOATs still. But clay exists. Borg is BOATer and GOATer than Sampras actually due to versatility and more concentrated peak (slam count difference offset by Borg playing in an effectively three-slam era).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,930 Posts
Nobody would even care about Nadal had he played in the 1990s, he would have gone down the history as just another Spanish claycourt specialist but better - he would not be able to hit his trademark forehand with old racquets with no polystrings.

As for Djokovic, he would have most likely never figured out his dietary problems and would have ended up winning 1-2 hardcourt Slams.

Federer would have had greatest chance, but it would have also depended on how his tennis developed. If he became a serve-and-volleyer (most likely), his chance would have been limited. If you are a serve-and-volleyer, the last thing you want is to play against someone who both serves better and volleys better than you (Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek both served better and volleyed than any version of Federer).
Federer single (back)handedly killed serve and volley tennis. None of those players are better than Federer in anything.
Djokovics game is near perfect, hate him or love him hes probably the best player the game will ever see.
Nadal would still be the clay king whatever era he played in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
Djokovics game is near perfect, hate him or love him hes probably the best player the game will ever see.
His game is nowhere near 'complete' though. In the history of tennis, the top half of the court was used as much as the lower half. Djokovic stays on the baseline so to describe that style as 'perfect' shows no comprehension of the word.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Nadal would still be the clay king whatever era he played in.
My point still stands because Nadal would have become a footnote in Anglo-American version of tennis history - which unfortunately dominates people's perceptions.


Djokovics game is near perfect, hate him or love him
His net game, which was a much bigger thing in the 1990s, sucks, not to mention his dreadful physical conditions before that gluten-free diet, which was apparently not available in the 90s.




Federer single (back)handedly killed serve and volley tennis. None of those players are better than Federer in anything.
He would become a serve-and-volleyer. And the four players I mentioned were factually better than Federer in both serving and volleying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,930 Posts
My point still stands because Nadal would have become a footnote in Anglo-American version of tennis history - which unfortunately dominates people's perceptions.



His net game, which was a much bigger thing in the 1990s, sucks, not to mention his dreadful physical conditions before that gluten-free diet, which was apparently not available in the 90s.



He would become a serve-and-volleyer. And the four players I mentioned were factually better than Federer in both serving and volleying.
not disagreeing about nadal.

You seem to think serve and volley died out and as a result, djokovic and fed could rise. I see it the other way around, they killed serve and volley because they are just too good, too consistent to lose to a high risk high reward playing style like serve and volley. They return too well they pass too well. The fact that Murray one of the best returners of all time played in the same era didnt make it any easier for serve and volley hopefuls.

They will make a return once fedalovic retires regardless of court speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
I see it the other way around, they killed serve and volley because they are just too good, too consistent to lose to a high risk high reward playing style like serve and volley. They return too well they pass too well. The fact that Murray one of the best returners of all time played in the same era didnt make it any easier for serve and volley hopefuls
Serve-and-volley already died before Federer became world No.1, and long before Djokovic played professional tennis.

because they are just too good, too consistent to lose to a high risk high reward playing style like serve and volley. They return too well they pass too well. The fact that Murray one of the best returners of all time played in the same era didnt make it any easier for serve and volley hopefuls.
Djokovic's return abilities are untested on 1990s-style fast courts (I repeat, pre-2003 US Open decoturf makes today Shanghai and Cincy look like Sunshine Doubles). His long forehand swing and extreme Western grip are non-starter on 1990s grass.

Federer would have done better, and he would most likely become a serve-and-volleyer himself.

Btw, Murray lost to Mischa Zverev of all people.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Top