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.
Well who was Petes real compe ion 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 les. Rod , a grand slam champ. Roger has good compe ion 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.
Finally Rafa catches a break.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
Congrats Venus but it would have been a better match if she'd played Justine.
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.
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!!!!!!
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
another victory for federer
So Who Won
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!
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, 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 Rod 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.
Great ing 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 les. That's damn impressive.
Now he's only 1 major behind Tiger Woods with 11.
I'm a moron, you head 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 Rod , 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 Rod s, 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 les 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 Rod s? Rod 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 Rod , 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 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 les 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 les 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). Rod : 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 Rod ; 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.
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 . Remember when he won Wimbledon his first GS le 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 Rod . 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 Rod 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 Rod to Becker and those guys, Rod 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
