** Official Wimbledon thread **

[kingsfan]

Started today and it's already raining. :depressed
Andy Murray pulled out so the Brits are melting down.
Can anyone beat Rog? Probably not, he owns the grass but they're making a big deal about him not playing a warm up like he usually does. I don't think it matters, no-one has the game on grass to beat him. I'd love to see Rafa give him a run, he did well last year but realistically it's his tournament to lose.opefully the Americans will do much better than they did in Paris. Roddick needs to get back on track and Blake could shine in the later rounds.
Bring on the tennis :hungry: This is my favorite tourney of the year.

[L.I.T]

My favorite tennis tournament of the year too.

Federer is the favorite, should wrap up number six.

On the ladies side, again, I have to go with Henin. The French and Wimbledon are her stomping grounds. Serena could make a run, as usual.

Roddick has the game for grass, but his game isn't refined enough to really challenge Federer.

[L.I.T]

Day 1 down, on to Day 2.

No major surprises so far. However, the showing of the Americans further solidifies my contention that American men's tennis is at it's weakest point in terms of overall talent...ever. Wimbledon is a tournament tailor-fit for the American style: booming serves, hard ground-strokes and fast-paced. The fact that only Roddick could get out of the first round...that's just pathetic. American men's tennis is past-tense at the moment; too much talent internationally and too little up and coming players. Hell, British tennis has a brighter future at the moment. Well, I hope Blake at least gets into the second round, but he's never been a great player at Wimbledon and his opponent (despite Blake being 4-0 historically against him) has a game that fits grass.

Nothing exciting on the womens side though. But I'm interested to see how Williams gets past her hamstring injury. The Williams sisters have always been a bit brittle.

[Spurologist]

Wimbledon Showdown

Roddick vs. Federer Part III

nevermind. They're in the same half of the draw. Maybe next year.

Roddick vs. Federer Part I (semi finals): should be an interesting match if Roddick serves better than 80% first serves.

[kingsfan]

Nice to see Henman beat Moya, that was a good match. Nothing else very exciting so far. Blake did well against Andreev, fairly dominant until the 3rd. I'm undecided on the ladies, no-one is dominant right now but it's probably going to be Henin, the rest aren't playing so well from what I've seen.

[Spurologist]

Nice to see Henman beat Moya, that was a good match. Nothing else very exciting so far. Blake did well against Andreev, fairly dominant until the 3rd. I'm undecided on the ladies, no-one is dominant right now but it's probably going to be Henin, the rest aren't playing so well from what I've seen.

S
E
R
E
N
A

[L.I.T]

That Henman match was great. Almost makes me wish he'd pull a Ivanesovic, finally winning Wimbledon, then retiring.

He has the serve and volley game for it, but he can't beat Federer, maybe Roddick. Maybe more of a Todd Martineque run, if he gets out of the match against Lopez.

Federer now owns two of the longest surface-based winning streaks in history. Nadal the other.

By the way, anyone see the hurting Richard Krajiceks younger sister put on her opponent. Yikes.

Henin vs. Serena redux.

[L.I.T]

Well, damn. There goes Henman.

[kingsfan]

Blake's out, he seems to be suffering from a lack of confidence. That through the net shot was sweet though.It's all up to Roddick now. Serena's playing better, she can give Justine a run for her money.
As usual more rain http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smibang.gif

[kingsfan]

This rain is ridiculous, men still playing 3rd round matches on Tues. I don't see how they're going to be able to finish by Sunday. Rog got lucky and got at least 5 days off while the rest have to struggle with the emotional ordeal of dealing with constants delays. that will be to his advantage. The coverage on espn is awful, instead of showing matches that were played, they have to show Serena 3 times http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smibang.gif Bullshit!! Nadal's match with Soderling looks like it was a good one and I've seen maybe 15 minutes. Only people who are dead haven't seen Serena's injury by now and they talk way too much. Show some damn tennis http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/madrun.gif

[L.I.T]

The rain has fucking sucked. I can't believe that one player is through to the semis, while another still hadn't completed her 4th round much. WTF?

The coverage on ESPN pissed me off. Why the fuck am I having to watch Sharapova and Venus? Give me the third set of the Henin match.

Bah, the rhythm of this tournament is so fucked up.

[kingsfan]

Wow interesting day, who ever woulda thought Bartoli would beat Henin? The French are having fun today with her win and Gasquet. How the hell did Andy lose that match? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smipctoss.gif Up 2 sets and 4-2, playing well and he blew it. So much for his great tiebreak run. Makes life a lot easier for Rog, like he hasn't had it easy enough already. Rafa's definitely making his fans sweat with these 5 set comebacks. It's going to make his life more difficult in the final, assuming he makes it. That's a lot of tennis he's had to play the last couple of days. I know he's young but it takes its' toll.
Venus is looking great now, it's her tourney to lose. Richard could be right, he predicted her to win the whole thing.

[SAtown]

Wow. Gasquet just came back down 0-2 sets and beat Roddick in 5. Now he faces Federer.

[leonarth]

what a game Richard :elephant :elephant

Andy was incredible during 2 set and half.

[florige]

Man Roddick can't catch a freakin break!! I still thinks once he FINALLY can put together a run and beat Federer and Nadal he may be ok.

[LEONARD]

"Have you ever been to Wimbledon?"

[Kobulingam]

Wimbledon has become a joke. They've slowed the speed and increased the bounce of the surface gradually year over year since 2001. Now you have baseliners dominating. On the grass Sampras dominated on, Roddick would have killed Gasgay.

Even Federer had to adjust over time and now doesn't serve any volley at all.....

[resistanze]

Wimbledon has become a joke. They've slowed the speed and increased the bounce of the surface gradually year over year since 2001. Now you have baseliners dominating. On the grass Sampras dominated on, Roddick would have killed Gasgay.

Even Federer had to adjust over time and now doesn't serve any volley at all.....
Well Roddick was up 2 sets to none and up in the third set, so I don't think that could be used as an excuse for Andy. He just plain choked unfortunately. It's like being up 30 in a basketball game then blaming the referee when you lose it all in the 4th quarter.

[Spurologist]

Well Roddick was up 2 sets to none and up in the third set, so I don't think that could be used as an excuse for Andy. He just plain choked unfortunately. It's like being up 30 in a basketball game then blaming the referee when you lose it all in the 4th quarter.

yep. ala NBA FINALS 06. No team names necessary.

I had a feeling Andy would have still lost to Fed if that's any consolation.

The real surprise is in the woman's draw. Henin clearly had the best chance of her career to win Wimbledon and then have all 4 grand slams in her career. But no. She loses to a french woman, BARTOLI. That has to be one of the greatest upsets in woman's tennis history (at least at Wimbledon). Can Bartoli now beat Venus in the final. Probably not. I think Venus is now poised to win Wimbledon. Henin vs. Venus would have been classic especially how they were both playing top class tennis in the tournament.

[resistanze]

Yeah Venus loves Wimbledon and I would've loved to see her try to get revenge for her sis against Henin. Ah well, can't see Venus losing now.

[resistanze]

yep. ala NBA FINALS 06. No team names necessary.

:lol

[dbreiden83080]

I think Roger is the best grass court player of all time, better than Pete and Borg. He is dominating again for 5 in a row coming off a crushing loss to Nadal at the French and not playing a warm up tourney. He is through to the Semis and he will probably see Nadal. He beat him last year in the final i know he still can't beat him on clay but on grass, that is Roger's home, he wins again, 5 in a row.

[kingsfan]

Roddick dirked, that's all there is to it.
Bartoli's playing better than I thought she would, I figured nerves would get the best of her. Venus still up 3-0 though.
Didn't they say they were having the men's first or are they just showing them after? The last time they did that they said the score and fucked it up for those of us who didn't want to know.
I've been to Wimbledon many times and love it there but the rain is incredibly frustrating http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smibang.gif

[leemajors]

I think Roger is the best grass court player of all time, better than Pete and Borg. He is dominating again for 5 in a row coming off a crushing loss to Nadal at the French and not playing a warm up tourney. He is through to the Semis and he will probably see Nadal. He beat him last year in the final i know he still can't beat him on clay but on grass, that is Roger's home, he wins again, 5 in a row.
roger doesn't have any real competition. men's tennis has been on life support for years.

[L.I.T]

roger doesn't have any real competition. men's tennis has been on life support for years.

I argued this in the Roland Garros thread. Who else in this generation is a good grass court player? Roddick? Please that guy blows donkey nuts. He has a street game period. No control and mentally weaker than a baby kitten. Nadal is a great player, but come on; a clay-courter (and that's what he is right now) making Wimbledon finals two years in a row. Weak.

Before I get flamed Federer is an all-time talent, just not the best ever.

Venus won, what a shocker. I didn't even have to watch the match, it was a foregone conclusion. Now, please Nadal, make this a tournament.

[L.I.T]

yep. ala NBA FINALS 06. No team names necessary.

I had a feeling Andy would have still lost to Fed if that's any consolation.

The real surprise is in the woman's draw. Henin clearly had the best chance of her career to win Wimbledon and then have all 4 grand slams in her career. But no. She loses to a french woman, BARTOLI. That has to be one of the greatest upsets in woman's tennis history (at least at Wimbledon). Can Bartoli now beat Venus in the final. Probably not. I think Venus is now poised to win Wimbledon. Henin vs. Venus would have been classic especially how they were both playing top class tennis in the tournament.

I was quite surprised by Henin. She absolutely dominated the first set, then...well I don't know. It was perfectly setup for Venus and she took advantage. Great tournament for her, she took out some great talent on her way to winning.

[L.I.T]

"Have you ever been to Wimbledon?"

Yes.

[dbreiden83080]

roger doesn't have any real competition. men's tennis has been on life support for years.

Well who was Petes real competition at his height? Andre Agassi, but only on and off since he was not focused for a long time. Plus Roger owned Andre in his last few years before he retired. Who else did he have to deal with. Courier for a time there, only about 3 years was he any good and then he fell off. Roger has to deal with Nadal who is awesome, he can't beat him on clay but he did at the final in Wimbledon last year and he will again this year. Hewitt he has won a few GS titles. Roddick, a grand slam champ. Roger has good competition but they don't win anything because he is so great he won't let them. I am telling you right now, Borg, Laver, Sampras, whoever you put him against, Roger would beat them.

[kingsfan]

Finally Rafa catches a break. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif I don't like seeing players retire due to injury but he's had it rough in this tourney. I hope he kicks Rog's butt today http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/hungry.gif
Congrats Venus but it would have been a better match if she'd played Justine.

[kingsfan]

This is a great final, best tennis I've seen in a while. Love him or hate him you have to admire Rafa, he's playing exceptionally well. Rog looks out of it in the 4th.

[ponky]

awesome match right now, fifth set, GO RAFA GO RAFA GO RAFA!!!!!!!! i like federer and i love watching his game but we need someone to slay goliath every once in awhile on the big stage so GO RAFA GO RAFA GO RAFA!!!!!!

[Warlord23]

Federer has that Sampras-like quality of suddenly taking it to a different level when he notices an opponent sagging just a bit. Nadal had 4 break points in back-to-back service games from Federer and couldn't capitalize. All of a sudden, a quick break and 4 big serves from Federer, its 5-2. Then Roger steps on his throat and Nadal is done

[atxrocker]

another victory for federer

[TDMVPDPOY]

So Who Won

[L.I.T]

Great match. Impressed all the way around. From Nadal pushing it to a fifth set to Federer saving 4 break points. Fantastic. We finally have a rivalry!

[L.I.T]

Well who was Petes real competition at his height? Andre Agassi, but only on and off since he was not focused for a long time. Plus Roger owned Andre in his last few years before he retired. Who else did he have to deal with. Courier for a time there, only about 3 years was he any good and then he fell off. Roger has to deal with Nadal who is awesome, he can't beat him on clay but he did at the final in Wimbledon last year and he will again this year. Hewitt he has won a few GS titles. Roddick, a grand slam champ. Roger has good competition but they don't win anything because he is so great he won't let them. I am telling you right now, Borg, Laver, Sampras, whoever you put him against, Roger would beat them.

You're a moron. Fairly obvious that you only just started watching tennis. You trying to tell me that guys like Courier, Chang, Agassi, Moya, Safin, Kraijeck, Becker, Lendl, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Hewitt (who was at his peak during Sampras era), Stich, Enberg, Muester, Johannsen, hell even Martin were push-overs? And lets not forget, the last player to push Federer to a fifth set at Wimbledon, before today, was an on his last legs Sampras.

Dude, it's undeniable that there was more talent in the previous two tennis eras. You have got to be kidding me when you compare Roddick to some of those past players.

Federer is a fantastic player, an all-time great, no doubt about that. But seriously, part of his domination is related to the relative weakness of men's tennis.

[Spurologist]

Great fucking match. I thought Fed's run was over was he was down 15-40 twice in the 5th set. Nadal just couldn't get over the hump and unfortunately for him it wook Federer up. Fed went on to break Nadal and serve ace after ace.

5 straight Wimbledon titles. That's damn impressive.

Now he's only 1 major behind Tiger Woods with 11.

[dbreiden83080]

You're a moron. Fairly obvious that you only just started watching tennis. You trying to tell me that guys like Courier, Chang, Agassi, Moya, Safin, Kraijeck, Becker, Lendl, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Hewitt (who was at his peak during Sampras era), Stich, Enberg, Muester, Johannsen, hell even Martin were push-overs? And lets not forget, the last player to push Federer to a fifth set at Wimbledon, before today, was an on his last legs Sampras.

Dude, it's undeniable that there was more talent in the previous two tennis eras. You have got to be kidding me when you compare Roddick to some of those past players.

Federer is a fantastic player, an all-time great, no doubt about that. But seriously, part of his domination is related to the relative weakness of men's tennis.


I'm a moron, fuck you dickhead coming at me like that i did not trash you. Chang was never anything but a scrapper, he had no weapons at all he just had heart and speed. These are the top 10 players right now.

1st Federer , R.
2nd Nadal , R.
3rd Roddick , A.
4th Davydenko , N.
5th Djokovic , N.
6th Gonzalez , F.
7th Robredo , T.
8th Murray , A.
9th Blake , J.
10th Haas , T.

Lets compare that some of who you named.

Courier
Chang
Agassi,
Safin,
Becker,
Lendl,
Kuerten,
Kafelnikov,
Rafter,
Hewitt

You got one all time great there and that is Agassi, who Roger crushed when he was still playing at a high level. Courier had a run just like Roddicks, for a few years and then he fell off. Andy though has lost to Roger at Wimbledown in the finals a number of times so he would have 3 or 4 GS titles if not for Roger. Lendl was not in his prime during Pete's best years he was in his prime during Mcenroe's years so that is a bad example. Kuerton was only great on clay where Pete sucked, Roger is much better on clay than Pete ever was. Rafter was really good won a few US opens but not a great all time player he is about as good as Hewitt who Roger has faced in his prime you are wrong on that one as well. Safin also in his prime during Roger's reign he beat Roger at the Aussie open a few years ago and has gotten owned since, you did not do much homework did you. Other than Agassi, Nadal is better than everyone you named except the guys like Lendl who were never threats to Pete in his era because they were done.

[L.I.T]

I'm a moron, fuck you dickhead coming at me like that i did not trash you. Chang was never anything but a scrapper, he had no weapons at all he just had heart and speed. These are the top 10 players right now.

1st Federer , R.
2nd Nadal , R.
3rd Roddick , A.
4th Davydenko , N.
5th Djokovic , N.
6th Gonzalez , F.
7th Robredo , T.
8th Murray , A.
9th Blake , J.
10th Haas , T.

Lets compare that some of who you named.

Courier
Chang
Agassi,
Safin,
Becker,
Lendl,
Kuerten,
Kafelnikov,
Rafter,
Hewitt

You got one all time great there and that is Agassi, who Roger crushed when he was still playing at a high level. Courier had a run just like Roddicks, for a few years and then he fell off. Andy though has lost to Roger at Wimbledown in the finals a number of times so he would have 3 or 4 GS titles if not for Roger. Lendl was not in his prime during Pete's best years he was in his prime during Mcenroe's years so that is a bad example. Kuerton was only great on clay where Pete sucked, Roger is much better on clay than Pete ever was. Rafter was really good won a few US opens but not a great all time player he is about as good as Hewitt who Roger has faced in his prime you are wrong on that one as well. Safin also in his prime during Roger's reign he beat Roger at the Aussie open a few years ago and has gotten owned since, you did not do much homework did you. Other than Agassi, Nadal is better than everyone you named except the guys like Lendl who were never threats to Pete in his era because they were done.

I'm sorry, wait wait, did you just compare the top ten now...to the players I just named? Please dude. Courier had a run like Roddicks? Roddick has ONE major to his credit. Courier won four majors: two at Roland Garros and two at Australian Open. Which means he was an all-court player. Lets see, he took out Agassi, Edberg (twice) and Korda. He was also the runner-up three times on three different surfaces. Please. The guy has got more game than Roddick, who is basically a one-trick pony.

Sampras may have never played in a final at Roland Garros, but he did not suck on clay. This is a common misconception; more related to his style of play than anything else. However, he made it to the semifinals once and the quarters three straight years. That is pretty damn good. He also won the Rome Masters which is the second most prestigious clay tournament in the world.

Chang I have to mention because he at least took one French Open, was a runner up in three others and is widely reknowned as being one of the finest counter-punchers in history.

You do realize that the number ten guy on your list couldn't do jack shit during the previous era, right? Agassi pre-30 was one of the all-time great players, who could dominate and dictate points on any surface. The Agassi we saw post-30 couldn't dictate points as he could before. He had to rely on timing and incredible fitness to win. By the time Federer was playing Agassi his reflexes and ball-pace were markedly slower than the Agassi of the 90s (pre-meltdown).

Kuerten was a great player, who yes dominated on clay and was one of the greatest clay players ever (oops forgot Rios as well). He also won a couple of Masters series titles on different surfaces, he had a quality all-around game.

Lendl I'll give you...except for one thing. Sampras took Lendl out when he was still playing at an exceedingly high level, beating him in a five-set match that broke Lendl's record of eight straight US Open finals.

Safin was not in his prime during the Federer era. As a matter of fact, you can argue that he is playing worse now than he did previous. Or did you forget that he actually reached number 1 in the world for 9 weeks in 2000 and took the 2000 US Open (beating Sampras in the final).

The depth of men's tennis was at it's peak during the last two generations. Going into any tournament you actually could have some debate about who was going to win, even with dominating players such as Sampras and Agassi. Now, the guys who are capable of winning a Grand Slam can be counted on one hand.

And you know what, your argument of, oh well he'd have more titles if it wasn't for Federer, holds true for the previous generation (with Sampras), so that's kinda a weak one, which is why I didn't trot it out.

I don't want to make this a Sampras vs. Federer battle, because well, it's not about that. But, since those guys were the top major winners of their generation lets look at who they had to beat and who has beat them in grand slam finals:

Sampras:

Beat: Agassi: 4 times (8 majors, career grand slam). Courier: once (4 majors). Todd Martin. Cedric Pioline: twice. Ivanisevic: twice (1 grand slam). Becker: once (6 majors). Chang: once (one grand slam). Moya: once (one grand slam). Rafter: once (two majors).

Lost to: Edberg (6 majors), Agassi (8 majors), Safin (two majors), Hewitt (two majors).

Federer:

Beat: Philippoussis: once. Safin: once (two majors). Roddick: twice (one grand slam). Hewitt: once (two grand slams). Agassi: once (8 grand slams). Please note that Agassi was 35 and retired soon after. Marco Baghdatis: once. Nadal: twice (three majors). Gonzalez: once.

Lost to: Nadal: twice (three majors).

Now, compare the quality of the opponents that Sampras faced versus the ones that Federer faced and it's no contest. Agassi and Sampras faced a vastly more varied, deep and talented men's tour than Federer has.

Again, I am not taking anything away from Federer; he still has to win the matches and beat the players. But, men's tennis now is much weaker (depth and talent-wise) than before. Outside of Martin, Sampras had to defeat players who had either won multiple grand slams or been to multiple finals. Note again, I'm only looking at the finalists.

Outside of Federer and Nadal, the best player is Roddick; a guy who has no backhand, limited front to back mobility and a serve, that while huge, can be erratic. He's a one dimensional player, period. Basically, he's Mark Philippoussis or Greg Rusedski. Once upon a time, if you had a weakness your opponents had the talent to exploit it; nowadays, the talent just cannot exploit the weaknesses of Federer and Nadal. And trust me, they do have weaknesses.

Sorry dude, I don't need to do my homework, as you say. I've been watching tennis long enough to have seen both eras.

Note: The moron comment was uncalled for.

[dbreiden83080]

You do realize that the number ten guy on your list couldn't do jack shit during the previous era, right? Agassi pre-30 was one of the all-time great players, who could dominate and dictate points on any surface. The Agassi we saw post-30 couldn't dictate points as he could before. He had to rely on timing and incredible fitness to win. By the time Federer was playing Agassi his reflexes and ball-pace were markedly slower than the Agassi of the 90s (pre-meltdown).





No Agassi was not a great all time player before 30 he was only after 30. Andre when he was young was always an amazing shotmaker but he was a headcase. He went for way too much and would make as many errors as winners he would hit. Plus his conditioning was total shit. Remember when he won Wimbledon his first GS title and then came back the next year having not played in forever and 20 pds out of shape. Post 30 when he was fit all the time he changed his game to a more strategic way of playing. Side to side wearing his opponents down into submission like chess waiting for the right time to strike instaead of going for broke on almost every shot. That is why Courier used to beat Young Andre a lot. Andre over 30 was much better than Courier ever was. The rest of your argument is very good no doubt about it however to me there is nobody on that list that can play with Roger except for Pete. They would have pushed eachother in their primes if they played in the same era. It is unfair to Roger to say he is not playing anyone because the reality is these guys would be setting their own marks in the game if not for Roger. He has won 11 GS in about 4 years, 9 straight finals made that is crazy. It is a similiar argument to Jordan. Everyone says he is the best ever yet the 80's era with Bird and Magic was much better than the 90's when he was in his prime. I think Petes era is a little better but not vastly better. I don't believe that guys like Courier and Becker are much better if at all than guys like Hewitt or Roddick. The game is faster and more athletic than it ever has been before, some of these old school players would fair poorly today. Look at Mcenroe, his serve and volley game would not play well today with the power of the new rackets and return of serves. I don't see anyone that Pete played in his era that can challenge Roger much at all except for Pete.

[L.I.T]

No Agassi was not a great all time player before 30 he was only after 30. Andre when he was young was always an amazing shotmaker but he was a headcase. He went for way too much and would make as many errors as winners he would hit. Plus his conditioning was total shit. Remember when he won Wimbledon his first GS title and then came back the next year having not played in forever and 20 pds out of shape. Post 30 when he was fit all the time he changed his game to a more strategic way of playing. Side to side wearing his opponents down into submission like chess waiting for the right time to strike instaead of going for broke on almost every shot. That is why Courier used to beat Young Andre a lot. Andre over 30 was much better than Courier ever was. The rest of your argument is very good no doubt about it however to me there is nobody on that list that can play with Roger except for Pete. They would have pushed eachother in their primes if they played in the same era. It is unfair to Roger to say he is not playing anyone because the reality is these guys would be setting their own marks in the game if not for Roger. He has won 11 GS in about 4 years, 9 straight finals made that is crazy. It is a similiar argument to Jordan. Everyone says he is the best ever yet the 80's era with Bird and Magic was much better than the 90's when he was in his prime. I think Petes era is a little better but not vastly better. I don't believe that guys like Courier and Becker are much better if at all than guys like Hewitt or Roddick. The game is faster and more athletic than it ever has been before, some of these old school players would fair poorly today. Look at Mcenroe, his serve and volley game would not play well today with the power of the new rackets and return of serves. I don't see anyone that Pete played in his era that can challenge Roger much at all except for Pete.

I really have to disagree with you on the Agassi pre vs. post 30...with a qualification. Agassi turned 30 in 2000, so I'm counting 2000 ha part of the pre-30 argument, but feel free to take 2000 out if you want.

From 1998 to 2000 (when he turned 30), Agassi played in four grand slam finals, winning three. He heat Andrei Medvedev, Kafelnikov and Todd Martin, losing to Sampras at Wimbledon (however, he beat him in a great 5 set match at the Australian). After 2000 the only grand slam he would win was the Australian twice. Which means prior to turning 30 he took six of his eight grand slams. And arguably, he won the hardest ones prior to turning 30. He is still the only player to have a career Golden Slam and is one of only five people to have won a career grand slam (Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, and Fred Perry).

If we go further back, from 1990 to 1995 Agassi played in seven grand slam finals winning three (beating Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras). Losing to: Gomez, Sampras, Courier, Sampras). So, if Sampras had not been around he'd probably have at least 10 grand slams (Sampras took him out multiple times at the US Open and Wimbledon). If it wasn't for Sampras we'd probably be comparing Federer to Agassi.

Now, per Agassi's game, we always forget what a freak of nature he was. Post-2000 Agassi's amazing eye-hand coordination, footwork and reflexes had already begun to diminish, but he was still a dominant player which is why we forget what a freak he was. The guy didn't play behind the baseline, but inside the baseline, which meant that he would be taking 100+mile an hour serves while it was still bouncing up. This threw his opponent out of their rhythm a lot. He generated a tremendous amount of pace as well, at times his returns were clocked at faster speeds than the initial serve. His footwork was tremendous (even when he was out of shape), allowing him to take balls on the up-bounce, he was rarely out of position and was one of the best at painting the lines. Much like Sampras, Agassi had some shots in his arsenal that no one (not even Federer) could match. Remember his, step into a first serve, short back swing, punch shot cross court where it would bounce just past the net? Or his running swinging volley (which I swear only he could pull off)? Much like Sampras had his overhead "dunk" shot and that snap running forehand down the line (Federer can pull off this shot at times though).

By post-2000 Agassi was already having to play behind the baseline, which limited his angles. This was a combination of a diminishment in physical skills.

Am I saying Agassi could have beaten Federer? Nope, but I think because of his collapse from 1995-1997 he actually is underrated. I do think Agassi could have beaten Federer, on clay and maybe at the Australian (the surface there favors Agassi's game). But it would have been a toss-up, seriously.

Tennis is a very hard game to compare cross generation, which is why I usually try and keep it within the last two eras. You are right that McEnroe would have had some serious problems today. But, I will say that the game is actually slowing down a bit, this is because of the new type of ball and the new surfaces.

For example, Wimbledon is widely known to be a much slower surface than it was back during the 80s and 90s. I think this has to do with the pace of the game. The Sampras era was really the explosion of the big servers and big groundstrokes. A lot of tournaments have been slowing down their surfaces to bring back the older style of play. Which is why a guy like Federer, who isn't as much a power player but a finesse player (even though he can generate some serious heat on his serve), is having such great success. I think this also helps understand why clay courters (damn those clay courters!) are starting to perform better on grass and hardcourt. They have already developed games that geared more towards wearing down your opponents as opposed to quick strike. This shift in mind-set is also why Connors has Roddick developing a serve and volley game. What is the best way to negate a baseliner? Play serve and volley, get them on the move. This is why a guy like Federer (who can play any style) is especially dangerous. However, it is also why a guy like Sampras could win in any era.

I still disagree with your comparison of Roddick to Becker and those guys, Roddick is a horrible player, I cannot stand watching him. But, anyway, lets see what Connors can do with him.

To wrap up, I find it very difficult to say one player from generation is better than all the others, because in comparing generations you have to look at everything from the depth of the field to the surfaces that the majors are played on to the style of play that was dominant at the time.

For me there are five players who are legitimately the greatest of all time, and I can't rank on over the other: Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Andre Agassi and Bjorn Borg. God, I'd love to see a round-robin tournament on multi-surfaces with those five going at it.