Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,847 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
During the off-season between slams, one invariably allows their mind to wander? I started thinking...remember back in the day when Agassi lost quite a few first round matches at the U.S. Open? Today, this (aside from the rare exception like the Jo Will run) would almost NEVER occur.

It makes you wonder: how would Roger, Rafa, and the rest of the field have fared if there were only 16 seeds at the slams? I submit: Roger would NOT have as many slams as he has...Now, this could be the case for any slam winner...but can you imagine?

I wish they slams would go back to only 16 seeds. Pete, through most of his career, had to deal with the inherent challenges involved with this...who wouldn't like to see Roger (and Rafa and Novak) have to deal with this challenge as well?
 

·
@Ryan's Hat
Joined
·
19,893 Posts
Sampras had more real challengers, exellent players, extraordinary competitors...Fed is almost alone (exept Rafa & now maybe Novak (Nole is grose). So, because of that, in any means, Sampras is way better player and will be. Now, Fed IS better than anybody else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,276 Posts
Sawan, do you really want people to discuss how Sampras is much better than Federer. Because that's where this thread is going:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
Federer hasn't lost to a 16-32 player off clay since Mirnyi in 2002 USO. He wouldn't be losing to them just because he meets them a round or two earlier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
Agassi's early losses at the US Open (when he was a seeded player, as opposed to a low-ranked up and comer):

Krickstein (ranked 47)
Enqvist (ranked 61)
Clement (ranked 37)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrosjeantheGreat

·
Anathemaniac
Joined
·
41,908 Posts
Sawan, do you really want people to discuss how Sampras is much better than Federer. Because that's where this thread is going:)
Some people enjoy listening to broken records. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,276 Posts
Some people enjoy listening to broken records. ;)
Sawan I think likes to watch other people playing broken records:lol: No offense,Sawan:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,847 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Sawan, do you really want people to discuss how Sampras is much better than Federer. Because that's where this thread is going:)
I originally thought I would include Rafa in the discussion, but...I like broken records;)

Seriously though, I can imagine it would change some of the events...perhaps Rafa would even suffer. Don't forget: its not just who Roger or Rafa faces in the first round, but who his potential opponents face. Roger, Rafa, or Novak could have avoided a more difficult opponent because a player (say the #17 player in the world) knocked out someone they might find difficult.

ALSO...say Roger or Rafa had to face the #17 player in the world in the opening round. That could have an impact later down the line as far as fatigue, etc...so its not just an issue of upsets...but struggles down the line, as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,276 Posts
I originally thought I would include Rafa in the discussion, but...I like broken records;)

Seriously though, I can imagine it would change some of the events...perhaps Rafa would even suffer. Don't forget: its not just who Roger or Rafa faces in the first round, but who his potential opponents face. Roger, Rafa, or Novak could have avoided a more difficult opponent because a player (say the #17 player in the world) knocked out someone they might find difficult.

ALSO...say Roger or Rafa had to face the #17 player in the world in the opening round. That could have an impact later down the line as far as fatigue, etc...so its not just an issue of upsets...but struggles down the line, as well.
I am a little dense when it comes to the matter of seedings and draws but don't Federer and Nadal win Masters events. Wouldn't it be the same thing only in a slam. In fact, I think wouldn't five sets be far more advantageous to the top players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
:lol:

just say it sawan.

ill do it for you.

sampras >>>> federer.

happy now? :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,847 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
This discussion has NOTHING to do with Sampras. Let's face it: even as a spectator, the early round matches were MUCH more exciting back in the day when there were only 16 seeds.

This argument applies even more strongly to the DTA (Diva Tennis Association): back then, women's matches were as entertaining as watching paint dry. Now, watching women's early round matches is like watching paint dry while be subjected to Chinese water torture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,276 Posts
This discussion has NOTHING to do with Sampras. Let's face it: even as a spectator, the early round matches were MUCH more exciting back in the day when there were only 16 seeds.
Except the French Open last year, I thought the early round matches in all the slams were quite exciting:shrug:
 

·
I DON'T LIKE DJOKOVIC
Joined
·
41,217 Posts
Federer would still have 12 Slams. You can count on one hand the number of times he's been truly stretched during his 12 Slam wins. I don't really see how the possibility of playing someone ranked 17-32 in the first two rounds would have changed this. And I think Rafa would still have won 3 RG titles. He doesn't lose many matches on clay, regardless of his opponents ranking.
 

·
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
Joined
·
53,509 Posts
I doubt it would have changed an awful lot, and it's the sort of what if game that I find rather dull and pointless to speculate on in any great depth.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top