US Open 2019

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

His US Open record is very impressive but overall 12 of 19 slams coming from the one slam highlights his inadequacies on other surfaces. Can such a player be considered the greatest of all time?

This is a bit unfair, as he has made many GS finals away from clay.

Be like penalizing RF on clay, even though he is probably a top 5 ever clay court player. Had Nadal, the GOAT on clay not been there, RF may be a 5-6 time FO winner...

Rafa has been to several Oz finals, SW19 finals and U.S. finals. He is an all court great, like Nole and RF....

PicardWithHair

jr86 wrote: »

Oh believe me they'll count next June after Roland Garros in the eyes of many

He will be on 21 slams next June after RG...

lostcat

The history books will have a list in 5 years time on which the top three, then all retired, will sit with in or around 20 slams each, one of them will have a couple more than the other two.

people who have been watching tennis, without heavily biased own-favourite tinted glasses, can remember just the slams from this year and ponder:
AO- Djokovic destroys Nadal in the final
FO - Nadal beats Federer fairly handily in the semi en route to the title
Wimb Federer beats Nadal fairly handily in the semi, beaten by Djokovic in the final
USO - Nadal stays the pace and takes advantage of a good draw as the other two fall away

point being, in real time, the margins between these three over a decade have been very very thin, and whichever of them ends up with a slam or two more will realise that. Its a pity the fans don't/wont.

mzungu

Seems like I missed a hell of a match after heading to bed.

As regards the whole GOAT thing I won't get into it too much at the moment. All three have their favoured surfaces but Nadal just happens to be practically unbeatable on his. Unlike 1990s clay court specialists that came before him (Muster, Bruguera etc) he welcomed the challenge of conquering other surfaces. He worked damn hard at his game and rose to that challenge. I get that people do not like his style of play, but personally I enjoy it. I like baseline slugging. It is an art form in itself. Being so dominant on clay is not a mark against Nadal's claim to be the GOAT, it is quite the opposite. He is well able to win slams on another surfaces. Last night he outhit a man ten years his junior. A truly phenomenal athlete.

lostcat

Floppybits wrote: »

I would agree, there is more prestige having an Olympic Gold Medal than a masters title. The fact that it is only every 4 years adds to the prestige. Look a Federer, one of the greatest of all time and will probably not win an Olympic Gold medal in singles. I wonder if asked would he swap some ATP masters Titles for that Gold medal?

A rhetorical question I'm assuming? Federer or Djokovic would certainly give up 3 or 4 of their tens of ATP titles for a gold medal.

Djokovic would possibly give up a slam for one, the prestige is one thing but there is also 'winning one for your country'.

MisterAnarchy

mzungu wrote: »

Unlike 1990s clay court specialists that came before him (Muster, Bruguera etc) he welcomed the challenge of conquering other surfaces. He worked damn hard at his game and rose to that challenge.

Other surfaces ,yes back in the 90's there actually were other surfaces .
The courts were not homogenised and the players didn't have modern string technology.
It was a completely different era.
I've mentioned this time and time again .

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
He has suffered most with the change in technology ,Nadal has gained the most and Djokovic has also gained .

The courts nowadays are slower ,the ball bounces higher and baseliners can be alot more aggressive due to the string technology .
The modern courts favour defensive players more than aggressive players,it used to be the other way around.

Christy42

I feel like a goat discussion is silly between those 3. They are so close and so much could have gone different ways (whose totals would a healthy Murray have cut into etc.).

Then you have different surfaces, closer than they used to be but obviously still a big difference between clay and grass. I mean how much should each count for? Should Fed's grass ability count for less because people put on less grass tournaments.

I don't think the above have good answers. Just enjoy them while you can.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
H

This such certainty is ridiculous. You cannot know this..

Simple. They have all beaten each other through the years with the same conditions. All three are that superb..

Fed fans are insufferable at times...

mzungu

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Other surfaces ,yes back in the 90's there actually were other surfaces .
The courts were not homogenised and the players didn't have modern string technology.
It was a completely different era.
I've mentioned this time and time again .

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
He has suffered most with the change in technology ,Nadal has gained the most and Djokovic has also gained .

The courts nowadays are slower ,the ball bounces higher and baseliners can be alot more aggressive due to the string technology .
The modern courts favour defensive players more than aggressive players,it used to be the other way around.

If the courts really were homogenised, then Nadal should be as unbeatable on hard and grass courts as he is on clay. A lot has been made of how the surfaces have changed drastically but I really don't buy it, nor do I buy into the string technology argument for that matter. All players have the same advantages and disadvantages and it is down to the individuals talent and how they handle it.

walshb

mzungu wrote: »

If the courts really were homogenised, then Nadal should be as unbeatable on hard and grass courts as he is on clay. A lot has been made of how the surfaces have changed drastically but I really don't buy it, nor do I buy into the string technology argument for that matter. All players have the same advantages and disadvantages and it is down to the individuals talent and how they handle it.

Agreed. Far too much is being made of these drastic changes in the game from the late 90s to recent years...

And then you hear the nonsense that Nole and Nadal wouldn’t have a hope against an Edberg or Mac or Sampras if they had to play on the grass courts of the 80s and 90s. It’s horsesh1t. Nole and Nadal are absolute monsters...in any era, on any surface, with whatever equipment is being used..

Most this nonsense from Fed fans who cannot stomach the fact that Nole and Nadal are his equal...and possibly his kryptonite.

Chivito550

mzungu wrote: »

If the courts really were homogenised, then Nadal should be as unbeatable on hard and grass courts as he is on clay. A lot has been made of how the surfaces have changed drastically but I really don't buy it, nor do I buy into the string technology argument for that matter. All players have the same advantages and disadvantages and it is down to the individuals talent and how they handle it.

Yep, so players just stopped using serve and volley by pure coincidence then? A method of tennis that proved very effective on all surfaces but clay right up until the early 2000s.

The rallies just got longer by pure coincidence too.

The science comparing speed and height when the ball bounces from the 90s to the present day are all lies too.

bada_bing

Don't forget there was a period when wimbledon was simply won by firing aces one after another and i lost interest in tennis during that period and i think the same also applied for general audiences during that time. Also the rallies were quite poor as the players relied too much on their serve to win points so i'm thankful that they made changes to prevent servebots from dominating the tennis game and ensured that players were rewarded for staying in rallies and for being consistent with their game

jr86

bada_bing wrote: »

Don't forget there was a period when wimbledon was simply won by firing aces one after another and i lost interest in tennis during that period and i think the same also applied for general audiences during that time. Also the rallies were quite poor as the players relied too much on their serve to win points so i'm thankful that they made changes to prevent servebots from dominating the tennis game and ensured that players were rewarded for staying in rallies and for being consistent with their game

Very true

Also while they may have slowed down the grass after 2001 - interestingly a renowned baseliner Agassi had made two semis and a final in the last 3 years on this "fast grass"

I don't know where people get this notion that Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have been competitive on grass in that era. Agassi was a classy player but frankly isn't fit to lace either's boots

Chivito550

jr86 wrote: »

Very true

Also while they may have slowed down the grass after 2001 - interestingly a renowned baseliner Agassi had made two semis and a final in the last 3 years on this "fast grass"

I don't know where people get this notion that Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have been competitive on grass in that era. Agassi was a classy player but frankly isn't fit to lace either's boots

Agassi won all 4 grand slams during a time when the courts were hugely different, unlike the homogeneous nature of today's game. He is an absolute legend. Before the courts got slowed down, he was the only player to achieve this feat across clay, grass and hard (Laver did it on just grass and clay).

If Agassi was at his prime during the game today he'd win far more than 8 slams.

Agassi was the exception to the norm at Wimbledon during the 80s and 90s. Not too many baseliners had success there during this time. The mere fact he was able to compete against serve and volley players on fast surfaces surely indicates he would thrive in today's game of medium/slow courts.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Agassi won all 4 grand slams during a time when the courts were hugely different, unlike the homogeneous nature of today's game. He is an absolute legend. Before the courts got slowed down, he was the only player to achieve this feat across clay, grass and hard (Laver did it on just grass and clay).

If Agassi was at his prime during the game today he'd win far more than 8 slams.

Agassi was the exception to the norm at Wimbledon during the 80s and 90s. Not too many baseliners had success there during this time. The mere fact he was able to compete against serve and volley players on fast surfaces surely indicates he would thrive in today's game of medium/slow courts.

Agassi was brilliant during his reign. Nadal and Nole are different animals...

They are faster and stronger, along with all their other talents...

Agassi at his prime playing today would be very lucky to win slams if faced with the big three....all three are too strong...

josip

Agassi also married Steffi, something the Big 3 are unlikely to achieve.

dominatinMC

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Other surfaces ,yes back in the 90's there actually were other surfaces .
The courts were not homogenised and the players didn't have modern string technology.
It was a completely different era.
I've mentioned this time and time again .

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
He has suffered most with the change in technology ,Nadal has gained the most and Djokovic has also gained .

The courts nowadays are slower ,the ball bounces higher and baseliners can be alot more aggressive due to the string technology .
The modern courts favour defensive players more than aggressive players,it used to be the other way around.

The certainty with which you say this can only mean you're a die-hard Fed fan. You state these hypothetical scenarios as if fact. The fact is the Big3 have all competed under the same conditions - why the need for hypothesizing otherwise? That's like constructing an argument to say "if all courts were clay", or "if all courts were grass". We can only base arguments on what we've observed, and what actually exists. As Nadal said earlier during SW19 (in relation to Kyrgios) "if, if, if - doesn't exist"

And FWIW, Nadal has adapted his game considerably from his earlier clay-court game to eventually conquer all surfaces - as any tennis commentator will testify to. So, as homogeneous as the surfaces are (as you claim), there are obviously characteristics which he adapted to. Now, if (to borrow your hypothesis narrative) the surfaces were wildly different, as they were in the 90's, what's not to say that Nadal (and Djokovic) would not have adapted to those courts as well? Who knows :pac:

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Agassi was brilliant during his reign. Nadal and Nole are different animals...

They are faster and stronger, along with all their other talents...

Agassi at his prime playing today would be very lucky to win slams if faced with the big three....all three are too strong...

Yes and if Agassi grew up and was conditioned with today's game he'd be faster and stronger too. To say he couldn't compete is nonsense. He was still taking sets off Federer at the tail end of his career, way past it

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Yes and if Agassi grew up and was conditioned with today's game he'd be faster and stronger too. To say he couldn't compete is nonsense. He was still taking sets off Federer at the tail end of his career, way past it

Yes, I was expecting this.....

I can see him being competitive, but I don't see him really putting a dent in the other three. I didn't day he would not compete, but the poster I was quouting seemed to suggest he'd be winning a lot more slams. That I cannot at all see..

Hasn't a chance in France vs. Nole/Nadal or Fed. They have far too much....May push Fed really close...

SW19: No way he hangs with any of them.....A 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011 version of the three hammer him.

All at peak and Agassi clearly suffers...

Best chance is Oz...

He won the first three matches vs a Federer that was maybe 4 years pre prime for Roger.

All at the height of their powers see Agassi losing to the three regularly.

walshb

I will add that of all the top 90s players, it is Agassi's all around game that makes him the best threat to the top three....

I don't think a Sampras matches up well at all against the top three. He has a serve and volley....Other than this the others are far stronger...far stronger baseline games....Sampras would be hard pressed to break their serves from the back of the court, and he is risking too much trying to chop and charge...

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I was expecting this.....

I can see him being competitive, but I don't see him really putting a dent in the other three. I didn't day he would not compete, but the poster I was quouting seemed to suggest he'd be winning a lot more slams. That I cannot at all see..

Hasn't a chance in France vs. Nole/Nadal or Fed. They have far too much....May push Fed really close...

SW19: No way he hangs with any of them.....A 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011 version of the three hammer him.

All at peak and Agassi clearly suffers...

Best chance is Oz...

He won the first three matches vs a Federer that was maybe 4 years pre prime for Roger.

All at the height of their powers see Agassi losing to the three regularly.

I don't really see where you're getting any of this from. If he grew up with today's game, his strength, stamina, conditioning would be better, as would whatever else goes with today's preparations.

Otherwise, in terms of actual skill and talent, I don't see how the "big 3" are superior. Splitting hairs really, as with the top talents from any generation

walshb

If this if that...

I can’t see much change for Andre. Is he suddenly going to be so much faster and stronger?

Talent wise with a racket he is up there. Fed is superior, though. Athlete wise I think all three are superior, eras notwithstanding.

The big three are outliers; not even generational. Agassi was just another top player in his era. These three are above that.

Like Bolt in the sprints....an outlier......not much to do with era. Just special.

MisterAnarchy

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yep, so players just stopped using serve and volley by pure coincidence then? A method of tennis that proved very effective on all surfaces but clay right up until the early 2000s.

The rallies just got longer by pure coincidence too.

The science comparing speed and height when the ball bounces from the 90s to the present day are all lies too.

Exactly .

Anyone denying the fact that the courts and balls have been slowed down considerably since the 90's is frankly deluded.
The science is overwhelming .

Now, if (to borrow your hypothesis narrative) the surfaces were wildly different, as they were in the 90's, what's not to say that Nadal (and Djokovic) would not have adapted to those courts as well? Who knows

You think Nadal standing 10 yards behind the baseline at the US Open and hitting winners would have worked in the 90's ?
Do you think his grip and huge topspin would be anywhere as effective with older rackets on faster courts with lower bounce ?

The fact is the Big3 have all competed under the same conditions - why the need for hypothesizing otherwise?

Yes they have ,conditions that give the advantage to the more defensive type of player .
The strings,balls and court manufacture all contribute to this .
Its not opinion its science .

Golf is another sport where technology has played a huge part .
Modern technology means US golf competitions have largely become a putting competition as the drivers are so forgiving that its a bombers paradise .
Ball striking is no longer as important as it used to be as the clubs are so forgiving .
The ball has also been changed like as in tennis .
You cant change the courses though like what has happened in tennis ,to make them faster/lower bounce etc .

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You think Nadal standing 10 yards behind the baseline at the US Open and hitting winners would have worked in the 90's ?
Do you think his grip and huge topspin would be anywhere as effective with older rackets on faster courts with lower bounce ?
.

This is the silliness, as if it's all Nadal does or is.....ridiculous. He would simply play tennis, and from my viewing and knowledge, he'd be winning most of the time, just like he is now. On all courts and surfaces against all players and styles.

Nobody is disputing changes in courts and balls and rackets.....it's the whole OTT emphasizing it to try and lessens a couple players' chances that is being disputed....and what about the 90s players, what would they need to adapt to when now having to face a Nadal or Nole? Chip and charge as successful?

I'll take my chances that a Nadal, who has beaten a "prime Fed" many times during this era, does pretty fine against a Becker/Sampras/Edberg/Agassi from the 90s.......prime Fed in this era is still a whole other animal compared to the others from the 90s. Fed is that amazing a talent.

Again, smell of Fed fandom off this..

dominatinMC

Ah Christ, it's pathetic really - the levels to which Fed fans will go to convince themselves that he is the best, whilst Nadal & Djokovic are mere pretenders, when all the facts and stats are beginning to say otherwise. I like Fed every bit as much as Nadal & Djoker, but I am actually hoping that Nadal (or even Djokovic) surpasses Fed in the slam count - just to see the excuses and goalpost-shifting that will come from Federer fans if it happens! The mind boggles as to what they will think of to undermine that achievement :rolleyes:

mzungu

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yep, so players just stopped using serve and volley by pure coincidence then? A method of tennis that proved very effective on all surfaces but clay right up until the early 2000s.

The rallies just got longer by pure coincidence too.

The science comparing speed and height when the ball bounces from the 90s to the present day are all lies too.

The game has evolved. The surfaces do play differently, but they play differently for everybody. The same way that players had to adapt to the big hitters of the 90s, now players need to adapt to the the more physical demands of todays slugfests.

Arguments around string technology and the speed of the courts are a rabbit hole.

mzungu

walshb wrote: »

I will add that of all the top 90s players, it is Agassi's all around game that makes him the best threat to the top three....

I don't think a Sampras matches up well at all against the top three. He has a serve and volley....Other than this the others are far stronger...far stronger baseline games....Sampras would be hard pressed to break their serves from the back of the court, and he is risking too much trying to chop and charge...

Aye. I don't think Sampras could stay in touch with a Djokovic or Nadal. Don't get me wrong, he was a wonderful player in his era and watching him play was a joy. But all I am thinking now is that the big three would have attacked his backhand like no mans business. Sampras used it well as a means of defence and at times for hitting wonderful passing shots (his forehand was majestic for that too). But a sustained onslaught from peak Nadal where he will have to hit each backhand at a difficult height would have caused him major problems.

mzungu

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I don't really see where you're getting any of this from. If he grew up with today's game, his strength, stamina, conditioning would be better, as would whatever else goes with today's preparations.

Otherwise, in terms of actual skill and talent, I don't see how the "big 3" are superior. Splitting hairs really, as with the top talents from any generation

Apart from being wonderful physical specimens, the big 3 possess superior mental strength (with Nadal and Djokovic being stronger than Fed) and self belief. Agassi had the belief, but his form could be very patchy at times. His will to win/play faded for long periods. While the big three have hit their slumps, they eventually always bounced back with interest.

Psychology is very important in tennis. It often gets overlooked but it is crucial. Sometimes it's that iron will and self belief that gets them through tough matches where others would lose. It's ingrained into them, almost a part of who they are. Not everybody has that kind of belief, in fact very few do and even fewer can sustain it for pretty much their entire career. If you want an example, look at the chasing pack. They don't have the belief, they may have some good shots and a consistent game, but that on its own won't be enough to reach the heights of the big three if there is no mental strength to match it.

yes it's like Nadal's extreme mental strength isn't as sexy as some other player's attributes but he wouldn't have won a single grand slam without it.

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

Got money on Nadal only at 4/1 .... stupid to wait, he was on 5/1 about a week ago.
Guess the draw makes it a lot easier.

Still, money in the bank though.

Ah hello there!
I've been away, I will say I was very impressed with Medvedev, a far cry from his 6-3 6-0 loss a few weeks back.

He could have done him in the 5th set ! finally a new young lad that might be able to challenge Nadal.

Still he's favourite for AO (assuming Djojovic shoulder is still arsed which is quite likely)

jr86

Hector Savage wrote: »

Still he's favourite for AO (assuming Djojovic shoulder is still arsed which is quite likely)

Wrong, that would be Djokovic and rightly so

Hector Savage

jr86 wrote: »

Wrong, that would be Djokovic and rightly so

Saying if Djokovic shoulder is still injured which is likely as shoulder injuries are absolute feckers to get rid of...

dominatinMC

Hector Savage wrote: »

Saying if Djokovic shoulder is still injured which is likely as shoulder injuries are absolute feckers to get rid of...

Ya, I've just seen a report on reddit that he could be going for surgery on the shoulder...must be serious

Hector Savage

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ya, I've just seen a report on reddit that he could be going for surgery on the shoulder...must be serious

And before I would have said Nadal will clean up now .... but after seeing Medvedev impress ... let's see - Tennis needs a young slam winner.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

If this if that...

I can’t see much change for Andre. Is he suddenly going to be so much faster and stronger?

Talent wise with a racket he is up there. Fed is superior, though. Athlete wise I think all three are superior, eras notwithstanding.

The big three are outliers; not even generational. Agassi was just another top player in his era. These three are above that.

Like Bolt in the sprints....an outlier......not much to do with era. Just special.

Bolt is an outlier? Possibly, possibly not. But in this scenario, we just happen to have 3 outliers in the history of the sport at the one time? And in 20 years, another few? Everything improves over time, generation to generation, even to minute details, ways of practice, consistency at the top etc. Everything today is the "best ever" more or less, if we go down that road.

If you think these 3 are just 3 freakish players who would destroy the likes of Agassi or Spamras, or Borg or whoever, then so be it. I think it's a ridiculous assumption, particularly when we see how competitive Agassi actually was against Federer in his pomp. You accuse me of "if this and if that", but that's all you have too, hypotheticals.

walshb

Agassi won sets and matches against a young Fed..

All competing together at their prime, and Agassi would need clear improvements to be successful against them. They are simply too strong in all areas..

And let’s not pretend Agassi is ancient and was competing in a far away era..

As for Borg.....not really worth considering...

Sampras’ baseline and ground-stroking would be brutally exposed..

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Agassi won sets and matches against a young Fed..

All competing together at their prime, and Agassi would need clear improvements to be successful against them. They are simply too strong in all areas..

And let’s not pretend Agassi is ancient and was competing in a far away era..

As for Borg.....not really worth considering...

Sampras’ baseline and ground-stroking would be brutally exposed..

Recency bias. It's easy for people to forget just how good those players of the past were, with inferior technology and different courts.

Agassi took Federer to 5 sets at the US Open in 2004 and pushed him hard in the 2005 US Open Final. Both those US Open's Federer went on to win.

Granted it was an exhibition series but I remember Sampras coming out of retirement to play Federer 3 times when he was world number and he won one of them.

Not sure why you are so dismissive of Borg. He won the French Wimbledon double 4 times back when the courts were complete polar opposites. That's far more impressive than achieving the feat today. Give Federer and Nadal a wooden racquet too and see how they get on. Would love to see Nadal hit winners from way behind the baseline with a wooden racquet.

walshb

Hector Savage wrote: »

And before I would have said Nadal will clean up now .... but after seeing Medvedev impress ... let's see - Tennis needs a young slam winner.

Watch Borg. Forget what he won...

It’s like slo motion tennis compared to recent times...

Even with eras and improvements, he’d need a massive step up to compete...

I loved Agassi in the day, but I thought your view that he’d win a lot more slams in this era to be well off the mark..

Remove the three big names, and yes, he has a good chance..

Otherwise he has a serious mountain to climb to beat Nadal/Nole/Fed on any surface...he is not strong enough, just like Hewitt would be competitive, but fall short..

I believe Hewitt is a great analogy here. Dogged, relentless and very good baseliner. He suffered against the big three, because he was just not strong enough. He also beat Sampras several times, and he is not as strong as the big three.

And this nonsense of going back in time? Bringing the big three back to 70s and 80s wooden rackets...there’s no logic here. The debate has to be about bringing the 70s and 80s forwards...

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Agassi won sets and matches against a young Fed..

All competing together at their prime, and Agassi would need clear improvements to be successful against them. They are simply too strong in all areas..

And let’s not pretend Agassi is ancient and was competing in a far away era..

As for Borg.....not really worth considering...

Sampras’ baseline and ground-stroking would be brutally exposed..

You can't just pick a guy out of another era and place him in today's era, say he'd get destroyed and consider no external factors. You grow up with the game of your day. The game and conditions Agassi and Sampras grew up with were vastly different to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Sampras would be brutally exposed on today's courts or on 90's courts? Except in serious exhibitions, Federer has yet to "brutally" expose him for example, on far slower courts. If Sampras grew up today, he wouldn't be playing a serve and volley game to begin with. I don't think you're fully grasping this concept.

All we can really compare is the raw talent across generation, and how under the same conditions for every generation, how it would hypothetically play out. And when it comes to raw talent across the top players from each generation, you're splitting hairs

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Watch Borg. Forget what he won...

It’s like slo motion tennis compared to recent times...

Even with eras and improvements, he’d need a massive step up to compete....

If he grew up today, he'd have that massive step up by default, by being conditioned and having the advantages of today

walshb

I think Hewitt is the analogy here. Very good player, similar to Andre..

Hewitt’s game was very tough for a still very good Sampras. He beat Sampras several times, when Pete was still 30 or below, and when Hewitt was young.

I cannot see any Sampras having an easier time with Nole or Nadal, who were both clearly stronger than Hewitt..Sampras would be punished more..

Whatever game Sampras decides to play today, he is still Sampras, and his weaknesses would still be heavily punished by theee monsters of the game. Outliers.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Watch Borg. Forget what he won...

It’s like slo motion tennis compared to recent times...

Even with eras and improvements, he’d need a massive step up to compete...

I loved Agassi in the day, but I thought your view that he’d win a lot more slams in this era to be well off the mark..

Remove the three big names, and yes, he has a good chance..

Otherwise he has a serious mountain to climb to beat Nadal/Nole/Fed on any surface...he is not strong enough, just like Hewitt would be competitive, but fall short..

I believe Hewitt is a great analogy here. Dogged, relentless and very good baseliner. He suffered against the big three, because he was just not strong enough. He also beat Sampras several times, and he is not as strong as the big three.

And this nonsense of going back in time? Bringing the big three back to 70s and 80s wooden rackets...there’s no logic here. The debate has to be about bringing the 70s and 80s forwards...

Jessie Owens is like slow motion sprinting in comparison to Usain Bolt. Meaningless really. Different tracks, footwear, training knowledge etc between the eras. Same for tennis.

MisterAnarchy

Chivito550 wrote: »

Jessie Owens is like slow motion sprinting in comparison to Usain Bolt. Meaningless really. Different tracks, footwear, training knowledge etc between the eras. Same for tennis.

They compared this recently and estimated that Owens would be within one stride of Bolt if running under similar conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

Chivito550

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

They compared this recently and estimated that Owens would be within one stride of Bolt if running under similar conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

That's a great video. Thanks for sharing.

EagererBeaver

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not sure why you are so dismissive of Borg. He won the French Wimbledon double 4 times back when the courts were complete polar opposites. That's far more impressive than achieving the feat today.

Couldn't resist that last bit, could you.

Chivito550

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Couldn't resist that last bit, could you.

Federer did that double too. I rate Borg's achievement higher.

walshb

Get a grip..

They’re elite tennis players...

Should be able to play on any surface....under any conditions..

Difficulty level is not relevant here...

Borg did FO and SW19 several years in a row...

Absolute no different than anyone else doing it..or doing any other combination..

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Get a grip..

They’re elite tennis players...

Should be able to play on any surface....under any conditions..

Difficulty level is not relevant here...

Borg did FO and SW19 several years in a row...

Absolute no different than anyone else doing it..or doing any other combination..

How come in the 90s the French Open champions often didn't even bother showing up at Wimbledon. How come the likes of Sampras and Ivanesevic were nobodies on clay. Clay and grass were like 2 different sports. One involved rallies of 3-4 shots, the other 15-20 shots. Nowadays the surfaces are far more similar.

For Borg to win on both surfaces during such an era for so many years is a grossly underrated achievement. It's the equivalent of winning the 100m and the 800m simultaneously.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

How come in the 90s the French Open champions often didn't even bother showing up at Wimbledon. How come the likes of Sampras and Ivanesevic were nobodies on clay. Clay and grass were like 2 different sports. One involved rallies of 3-4 shots, the other 15-20 shots. Nowadays the surfaces are far more similar.

For Borg to win on both surfaces during such an era for so many years is a grossly underrated achievement. It's the equivalent of winning the 100m and the 800m simultaneously.

I never claimed there were no differences between surfaces...

And it’s why Sampras can never be considered the greatest. His poor clay record..

Nadal and Nole and Fed would have won on any surface in any era under any conditions. That is my point. They are that exceptional..

Put the three of them into the 90s and Sampras likely wins 3-4 slams max..

MisterAnarchy

Chivito550 wrote: »

How come in the 90s the French Open champions often didn't even bother showing up at Wimbledon. How come the likes of Sampras and Ivanesevic were nobodies on clay. Clay and grass were like 2 different sports. One involved rallies of 3-4 shots, the other 15-20 shots. Nowadays the surfaces are far more similar.

Some people in here are in serious denial over the courts being homogenised .
Its bordering on the ludicrous.

Have a look at this Australian Open final from 1995 between Sampras and Agassi .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtnhixokLK4

The difference between the court then and now is night and day .
Its way faster ,the ball is moving all over the place and kicking like a mule.

Look how far up the court Agassi ,the best returner of all time is standing to receive Sampras's serve ,arguably the best serve of all time.
There's none of this Nadal nonsense of standing 10 yards behind the baseline .

Of the Grand Slams back then the Australian Open was the second slowest court speed .