Wimbledon 2018

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Apart from serve Sampras can not remotely compete with Federer when both at best...

On the older faster courts there wouldnt be much between them.

They played a few challenge matches long after Sampras had retired and Sampras pushed Federer most of the way.

walshb

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

If Rafa would stay on 17 it would be maybe possible.

But he wont, that guy has at least 5 French Opens left in him

Rafa has a couple more in him...I think this time next year he could be slam finished..

Fed is cooked at 20...

osarusan

Joe_ Public wrote: »

How much allowance should you make when comparing eras? I'm not sure. Take golf for example, would Nicklaus be able to compete with the guys booming 350 yard drives today? Obviously he wouldn't.

If Nicklaus was transported forward 40 or 50 years in time along with his equipment of those days, he'd be left behind for sure.

But that's a fairly pointless comparison. Back than, same as today, everybody played with the best equipment available to them. It's a fairly level playing field, and within that, Nicklaus was hugely successful, because of his superior skills and temperament.

If he had been born in the 80's, and grown up with the rest of the current crop, and with the same access to equipment that they have had, there's every reason to think his natural talent would still shine through.

I think that holds true for comparison across generations in all sports.

Royale with Cheese

I'm guessing Nadal and Federer will both finish on 20, probably a little too far for Djokovic to catch.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

On the older grass courts I'd there wouldnt be much between them.

I’d love someone to explain this in detail. How the clearly “faster” grass, if it is, somehow means Sampras has to get wins? He still only has the serve to compete. Outside this Roger just superior everywhere...

No matter what court or conditions he only has the serve to compete with...

iamwhoiam

The crowd are so flat , bored almost

walshb

Golf comparisons through eras have far more to consider. Golf is man against course. Tennis is man v man..

Jack has scored some brilliant scores in majors, all comparable to other scores that came after him..

1965 he scored 17 under at Agusta...a 1965 Jack absolutely could compete with that play today..

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Apart from serve Sampras can not remotely compete with Federer when both at best...

How do you counter a pin point bullet serve? Sampras' ground-strokes could hold their own when it was called for, and his angled passing shots were exceptional. It's a 50/50 game when both are at their best imo. You can't just say "without his serve", when he purposefully built his game around his serve.

Also if Sampras grew up 10 years later, and worked on conditioning himself as a modern baseline player, who knows? He grew up perfecting how to best excel in how the game was played at the time, to give himself the best chance possible. Likewise, he would of done the same today. These are the variables when crossing era's that make it impossible to say

walshb

Watched tons of Pete and Roger. Apart from serve Fed is just so clearly superior. Precision, variation, clearly stronger in BH, clearly a better and more consistent FH. Movement every bit as good if not better, and far superior on defense...

Pete was a brilliant player in his era. His best from his era be RFs best I see it 8-2 or 9-1 in RFs favor. On clay? 10-0 RF..

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Watched tons of Pete and Roger. Apart from serve Fed is just so clearly superior. Precision, variation, clearly stronger in BH, clearly a better and more consistent FH. Movement every bit as good if not better, and far superior on defense...

Pete was a brilliant player in his era. His best from his era be RFs best I see it 8-2 or 9-1 in RFs favor. On clay? 10-0 RF..

But Pete's game was built around his serve. How do you counter it when on song?

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

But Pete's game was built around his serve. How do you counter it when on song?

Hold on. Fed has a brilliant serve too.

Other than Pete’s serve he loses everywhere else. So, he wins lot of games off his serve, but it’s not unbreakable. Fed will break it. Sampras won’t break RF as easily, because “after” the serve is hit, Sampras is not up to RFs inplay level..

RF, once he gets his return in, can at least pressure Pete heavily. I do not see that for Pete. Pete gets his return in and he’s on a loser after that.

mrcheez

I think both players want the game over pronto so they can check out the World Cup

Pero_Bueno

It's still on this game, if Anderson can win this set ... who knows ...

MuffinTop86

What’s with the crowd? Very muted towards Nole.
It was understandable when they were desperate for one of their own, but surely they’d rather him over Anderson?

Does anyone know if he still does that cringey messing with the ball kids?

Pero_Bueno

Never understood it, the biased toward whoever is playing against Djokovic ...

Pero_Bueno

I mean he's holding serve here, he could take this set in a tiebreak ... and then ... boom anything can happen .-.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Hold on. Fed has a brilliant serve too.

Other than Pete’s serve he loses everywhere else. So, he wins lot of games off his serve, but it’s not unbreakable. Fed will break it. Sampras won’t break RF as easily, because “after” the serve is hit, Sampras is not up to RFs inplay level..

RF, once he gets his return in, can at least pressure Pete heavily. I do not see that for Pete. Pete gets his return in and he’s on a loser after that.

Things in practice rarely play out how they should in theory, it would be close either way. Agassi was also a better all round player than Pete, infact many were, but it didn't often matter. Federer's serve is good too, Sampras' was simply a level above though. Seeing as Pete's serve was better, it levels out who breaks who to 50/50 imo. I think you underestimate Pete's ground-strokes too, he was no mug when trading shots.

They did play. Before Federer peaked, and when Sampras' form was very patchy. A level or two below their peak for both I would have said. It was a 5 setter. It's impossible to really know.

josip

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Never understood it, the biased toward whoever is playing against Djokovic ...

The Serbs aren't overly fond of the British since 1999 so it might simply be a reciprocating of feelings.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

I’d love someone to explain this in detail. How the clearly “faster” grass, if it is, somehow means Sampras has to get wins? He still only has the serve to compete. Outside this Roger just superior everywhere...

No matter what court or conditions he only has the serve to compete with...

What about Sampras's forehand ?
Or his volleying ?

Rob2D

Oh wow, did you see that?

Anderson uses just a tourngrip over the bare pallet.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

What about Sampras's forehand ?
Or his volleying ?

What about it? Watch his FH. For its time it was the best, now watch Fed’s. It’s clearly better...

Volleying? Big deal. He won’t get to use it on returning serve..and Fed will pass him..

lostcat

Djokovic needs to wake back up here or this could get interesting

iamwhoiam

lostcat wrote: »

Djokovic needs to wake back up here or this could get interesting

Yes he looks tired now too .

walshb

Come on, Kevin.

josip

Come on Jocko

Vetch

At what point is the 25 seconds supposed to start? The ball bouncing is ridiculous.

lostcat

After playing a pretty good set, this is a terrible tie breaker from Anderson

josip

That will soften their cough.

iamwhoiam

Well Done Novak .

lostcat

Djokovic is back, think it's safe to say. 4 wimbledons is pretty impressive