Tennis

[La Furia]

All I know is if every grand slam final this year is Djokovic vs Nadal, I'm going to be very upset. I guess Nole isn't 100% comfortable on clay, but takes a Soderling-esque fluke to stop Nadull on clay anyway.

[Metaphysical]

I enjoyed Tennis when Raj was at the top. he made it fun coz he could do everything. but he's a shadow of his former self and doesn't really come to the net anymore anyway.

the servefests of the 90's were awesome. yes rallies were rare, but they were great when they happened because they were A) rare and B) guys were moving all-around the place. yes there are loads of rallies now, but they're mostly just crap with two guys running side to side like Pong paddles and whomping the ball.

"UHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

two seconds later

"UHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

two seconds later

"UHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

etc.

[dalitis8]

@ La Furia & Manuel.

I really think that all this talk about surface convergence is blown out of all proportion. Even if there has been some convergence, it must be nigh negligible. What many pundits and players say nowadays, seems more like a rationalization of what has happened, rather than serious explanation. I mean, how faster did RG get? How was Wimbledon made slower? And the hardcourts? Well, they are still pretty hard.

Mind you, you had all around players (well, not nearly as all around as today's top players) in decades gone by: Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Chang etc.

The reason why Sampras could not deliver on clay, had nothing to do with balls or surfaces, but had everything to do with his extremely one-dimensional game. He just could not engage in rallies. As for his forehand. Well, that looked pretty good in the 90s, when there was no Fed, no Rafa, no Murray, no Djokovic, no Soderling, no Del Potro, no Verdasco and so on. The only Sampras-age player that could match the power of today's players must have been Marat Safin, who was on the other hand a complete nutcase and ridiculously inconsistent. Just to demonstrate how abysmal tennis was before the Federer age, just consider that Leyton Hewitt was world number one for two years!!! Terribly inconsistent players like Kefelnikov, Rafter, Safin and limited players like Ferrero, Roddick and Kuerten all made it to number one.

Furthermore, I would not say that Agassi pushed Fed in the US Open final in 2005:



*Plus, Agassi was the exception to the rule, for some reason he played his best tennis after the age of 30. In which time he won most of his majors.

[dalitis8]

I enjoyed Tennis when Raj was at the top. he made it fun coz he could do everything. but he's a shadow of his former self and doesn't really come to the net anymore anyway.

the servefests of the 90's were awesome. yes rallies were rare, but they were great when they happened because they were A) rare and B) guys were moving all-around the place. yes there are loads of rallies now, but they're mostly just crap with two guys running side to side like Pong paddles and whomping the ball.

"UHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

two seconds later

"UHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

two seconds later

"UHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

etc.

You are not a big tennis fan and it shows.

The past few years will be remembered as the golden age of tennis. Never, absolutely ever, have we enjoyed so many top players at/near their peaks at the same time.

People who complain about contemporary tennis, are a) Old players who try to convince audiences that they were somehow equal or even better than the current crop, b) Old pundits who are nostalgic and c) Some fans who want to sound profound by doubting today's blinding talent on display and d) Americans, who do not wish to admit that Europe has totally eclipsed them in the sport of tennis.

If you look at today's fading contingent of American players (Roddick, Fish, Isner, Querrey) you will soon find that they play exactly like players from the 90s. Big serve, coming to the net (so as to avoid actually playing a point) and maybe a big forehand.

This is highly indicative of how much the bar has been raised. What was good enough for positions 1,2,4 and 7 a few years back, can now only fetch 8,17,18 and 94.

[Manuel Traquete]

@ La Furia & Manuel.

I really think that all this talk about surface convergence is blown out of all proportion. Even if there has been some convergence, it must be nigh negligible. What many pundits and players say nowadays, seems more like a rationalization of what has happened, rather than serious explanation. I mean, how faster did RG get? How was Wimbledon made slower? And the hardcourts? Well, they are still pretty hard.

Mind you, you had all around players (well, not nearly as all around as today's top players) in decades gone by: Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Chang etc.

The reason why Sampras could not deliver on clay, had nothing to do with balls or surfaces, but had everything to do with his extremely one-dimensional game. He just could not engage in rallies. As for his forehand. Well, that looked pretty good in the 90s, when there was no Fed, no Rafa, no Murray, no Djokovic, no Soderling, no Del Potro, no Verdasco and so on. The only Sampras-age player that could match the power of today's players must have been Marat Safin, who was on the other hand a complete nutcase and ridiculously inconsistent. Just to demonstrate how abysmal tennis was before the Federer age, just consider that Leyton Hewitt was world number one for two years!!! Terribly inconsistent players like Kefelnikov, Rafter, Safin and limited players like Ferrero, Roddick and Kuerten all made it to number one.

Furthermore, I would not say that Agassi pushed Fed in the US Open final in 2005:



*Plus, Agassi was the exception to the rule, for some reason he played his best tennis after the age of 30. In which time he won most of his majors.

I agree about your initial point, kind of. I do think the conditions might have changed, but it is a bit overstated. It's mostly due to how fast and fit Nole, Murray and Nadal are imo.

Can't agree with the rest of your post though.

-Sampras never did great at Roland Garros because he suffered from Thalassemia Minor, a condition that greatly affected his stamina. That was a huge hindrance in a Clay Grand Slam. Besides, his serve and forehand weren't as effective on that surface.

-Verdasco? His forehand is nothing special. Murray's forehand is actually the biggest liability in his game. Djokovic's can be pretty good at times, but it doesn't generate the same pace with the same consistency as Sampras. Soderling's can be awesome when he's on fire, but it's nowhere near as consistent as Sampras's.

The other three are comparable: I actually believe Federer had a better forehand in his prime, it's the most versatile forehand I've ever seen, he could do anything with it. Nadal's is different, not as good as an offensive, point-winning shot but he can generate unprecedented top spin. It's still an inferior shot as far as power/generating winners is concerned.

Del Potro might be the most comparable in today's game; I believe Del Potro's forehand is the best on tour among the new generation. It is the most powerful forehand in men's tennis history and actually pretty consistent, not to mention that it's amazing on the run (like Sampras's was). I'd say Del Potro is the best comparison in terms of forehand. Delpo generates more power, but Sampras's was a bit more versatile imo. Remember how destructive Delpo's forehand was especially in 2009, especially at the USO? Sampras's was like that on a regular basis.

But Verdasco, Murray and Djokovic, seriously? If Murray could hit a forehand like Sampras, he'd dominating the men's tour, it's exactly the kind of lethal weapon he's missing at the business end of Slams.

Agassi was 34 back then, he had to take shots before every match due to his sciatica, and had played two grueling five setters in a row. And he was 1-1 in sets and a break up in third set (ended up losing in the tie break) vs peak Federer, that's pretty good all things considered. Agassi at his prime would have been an even more formidable opponent.

Also, Safin is not from Sampras's era, he's from Federer's era. And yes, it is widely accepted that the period between Sampras's decline and Federer's ascension, 2000-2003, was a weak era in men's tennis, with good but not great (in an historical sense) players like Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero and Johansson winning Slams and holding the no.1 ranking. We might have a similar period once Nadal, Nole and Murray decline unless a new great champions emerges.

You are not a big tennis fan and it shows.

The past few years will be remembered as the golden age of tennis. Never, absolutely ever, have we enjoyed so many top players at/near their peaks at the same time.

People who complain about contemporary tennis, are a) Old players who try to convince audiences that they were somehow equal or even better than the current crop, b) Old pundits who are nostalgic and c) Some fans who want to sound profound by doubting today's blinding talent on display and d) Americans, who do not wish to admit that Europe has totally eclipsed them in the sport of tennis.

If you look at today's fading contingent of American players (Roddick, Fish, Isner, Querrey) you will soon find that they play exactly like players from the 90s. Big serve, coming to the net (so as to avoid actually playing a point) and maybe a big forehand.

This is highly indicative of how much the bar has been raised. What was good enough for positions 1,2,4 and 7 a few years back, can now only fetch 8,17,18 and 94.

This is very inaccurate.

1-We only have two great players at their peak at the moment: Nadal and Djokovic. Murray is a very consistent no.4, but he has never won a Slam and has never been no.1. Historically speaking, he's a bit irrelevant, far from a great player. Del Potro did win one and was the first man to beat Federer and Nadal back to back, but you need more to a great player in an historical sense.
Federer is past his prime. So for all effects and purposes we have two greats of the game in their prime.

There have been times with Sampras, Agassi and Becker all at their prime. Lendl, McEnroe and Wilander... there have definitely been eras with more great players at their peak at the same time.

2-Completely false. Past legends are constantly harping on about how this is the greatest ever era in tennis. Agassi did so, Sampras did so, Lendl did so, Laver, McEnroe... do let me know if you need me to send you the links of the past legends claiming this is the best ever era.

3-This is one of the most absurd things I've ever read, no offense. Are you genuinely comparing Sampras to Roddick, Isner, Fish and Querrey, I mean really?!

Roddick is the best of the bunch and even he is so inferior to Sampras it's not even funny. Roddick's first serve is great, Sampras's is better. While Roddick has a lot of power but little precision, Sampras combines power and precision in a deadly way. Second serve, landslide victory for Sampras. Actually, Sampras's second serve is almost as deadly as Roddick's first (ok, maybe this is an exaggeration, but the man had an awesome second serve).

Forehand - clear advantage Sampras. Better angles, more consistency...

Backhand - Sampras by far, Roddick's backhand is a huge liability, Federer exploited it for fun.

Net game - the less said, the better. Roddick's volleys are average and his approach shots very poor as well.

There's basically nothing Roddick has over Pete. In his last tournament before retiring, Pete trashed Roddick in three quick sets in the 2002 US Open, one year before Roddick's US Open win.

And I won't even compare Sampras to QUERREY and INSER, out of respect towards the great champion. I seriously can't believe you wrote that.

[dalitis8]

I am not saying that these players were as good as Sampras.

I am only saying that the general level of American tennis is almost impossible to have declined in proportion that the achievements of American players have. This for me is an indication of how much the game of tennis has leaped forward during the past few years.

I also think that you seriously exaggerate the potency of the Sampras forehand. If I recall well, it was not that powerful

I agree with you on his serve though. It was surely the best of all times, and nothing that any of the current players can produce. In all other areas though, I think Sampras was light years behind today's players.

You also commit one grave error.

You consider players that have not won majors, or numerous majors, to be somehow irrelevant. The falsity of this line of thought is very easy to demonstrate. There are only so many majors per year. Therefore, one's own quality as a player is only a variable in the equation of who actually wins and how many. For example Murray, is an amazing player, who is unfortunate enough to have arisen in an era with Fed, Rafa and Nole around. How many majors would Sampras or Agassi win if they had to face what Andy has during the past 5 years or so? Surely much less than they did, and quite possibly (for my money at least) none at all. Before the Fed and Rafa, lots of players had realistic chances of winning majors, and did, because no one could dominate. But ever since Roger and Rafa, only Del Potro and maybe Safin (Fed was not yet at his peak back then) managed to break the rot. It took the reincarnation of Superman as a prickly Serb to bust the Rafa/Roger tyranny. Murray is an almost excellent player, who falls a bit short of the 3 giants that he has to face time and again in the majors. Just look at how close he was to beating Djokovic in the semi a few days back. I am convinced that Andy will win a major or two one day. If you look at his Masters 1000 record, it is pretty amazing, as is his consistency.

[dalitis8]

The lack of power and pace compared with today's game, is more than evident with a naked eye:

[Manuel Traquete]

I am not saying that these players were as good as Sampras.

I am only saying that the general level of American tennis is almost impossible to have declined in proportion that the achievements of American players have. This for me is an indication of how much the game of tennis has leaped forward during the past few years.

I also think that you seriously exaggerate the potency of the Sampras forehand. If I recall well, it was not that powerful

I agree with you on his serve though. It was surely the best of all times, and nothing that any of the current players can produce. In all other areas though, I think Sampras was light years behind today's players.

You also commit one grave error.

You consider players that have not won majors, or numerous majors, to be somehow irrelevant. The falsity of this line of thought is very easy to demonstrate. There are only so many majors per year. Therefore, one's own quality as a player is only a variable in the equation of who actually wins and how many. For example Murray, is an amazing player, who is unfortunate enough to have arisen in an era with Fed, Rafa and Nole around. How many majors would Sampras or Agassi win if they had to face what Andy has during the past 5 years or so? Surely much less than they did, and quite possibly (for my money at least) none at all. Before the Fed and Rafa, lots of players had realistic chances of winning majors, and did, because no one could dominate. But ever since Roger and Rafa, only Del Potro and maybe Safin (Fed was not yet at his peak back then) managed to break the rot. It took the reincarnation of Superman as a prickly Serb to bust the Rafa/Roger tyranny. Murray is an almost excellent player, who falls a bit short of the 3 giants that he has to face time and again in the majors. Just look at how close he was to beating Djokovic in the semi a few days back. I am convinced that Andy will win a major or two one day. If you look at his Masters 1000 record, it is pretty amazing, as is his consistency.

But it has. The simple fact is that no player among from the post-Sampras/Agassi generation can even come close to the talent those two had. Players like Roddick or Isner would not be dominant in any era. Just like Switzerland will probably not have a talent like Roger, or Spain a talent like Nadal in the near future. That's just how it is.

As for his forehand, it's way more penetrating than Nadal and even Federer's. He used to go for the lines all the time and usually managed it. As far as power is concerned, I'm under the impression that it was quite powerful, but I don't have the comparative speed numbers, so I can't really say for sure. Still, regardless of power, a player like Murray could really use the Sampras forehand, even if just for its reliability and depth alone.

And I know that Murray and Delpo are great players. But as of right now, they are little more than footnotes in tennis history. If Murray retires without a Slam, he'll be a footnote in tennis history. Murray is definitely an incredibly consistent player, but will he remembered as a great of the game if he can't make an impact in the biggest tournaments (the Slams)? Of course he won't. That's why I said we can't really consider Murray a great in his prime at this point.

[La Furia]

Using mugs like Roddick, Isner and Blake to downplay the Americans of the 90s doesn't make any sense. Roddick and Isner are closer to Ivanisevic than Sampras.

[Manuel Traquete]

Using mugs like Roddick, Isner and Blake to downplay the Americans of the 90s doesn't make any sense. Roddick and Isner are closer to Ivanisevic than Sampras.

Roddick maybe. He is a bit limited, but he worked extremely hard and could even have won more than one Slam if not for Federer. He made the most of his talent. It's amazing how a player with such a predictable (although powerful) serve, weak backhand, weak approach shots and volleys, average returns... could win one Slam, reach four finals and hold the no.1 ranking. Truly the greatest overachiever of the past decade.

Blake and Isner are nowhere Ivanisevic though. Goran's serve alone is worth more than Blake's entire game. As for Isner, the serves are comparable, but Ivanisevic has a better forehand and infinitely better volleys.

I do like Isner though, he's a fighter, one of those players who can life tough for any player on any given day. I was lucky enough to watch that entire epic vs Mahut.

[La Furia]

Roddick maybe. He is a bit limited, but he worked extremely hard and could even have won more than one Slam if not for Federer. He made the most of his talent. It's amazing how a player with such a predictable (although powerful) serve, weak backhand, weak approach shots and volleys, average returns... could win one Slam, reach four finals and hold the no.1 ranking. Truly the greatest overachiever of the past decade.

Blake and Isner are nowhere Ivanisevic though. Goran's serve alone is worth more than Blake's entire game. As for Isner, the serves are comparable, but Ivanisevic has a better forehand and infinitely better volleys.

I do like Isner though, he's a fighter, one of those players who can life tough for any player on any given day. I was lucky enough to watch that entire epic vs Mahut.

Ivanisevic's game beyond his serve is a bit underrated I agree. I'm just using an example of the closest a player got to winning a slam during the "fast era" with serves alone. Isner and even Roddick are even more limited.

Roddick during his peak was actually pretty athletic. His hits beyond his serve range from awful to average, but he could move enough to defend himself. I think Hewitt had a more impressive career considering he didn't have one go to move like Roddick had with his serve. He was an above average returner with an impressive lob who was otherwise well-rounded but average, but managed to win 2 slams through wit and determination. Roddick never had that cerebral part of the game down.

[Manuel Traquete]

Ivanisevic's game beyond his serve is a bit underrated I agree. I'm just using an example of the closest a player got to winning a slam during the "fast era" with serves alone. Isner and even Roddick are even more limited.

Roddick during his peak was actually pretty athletic. His hits beyond his serve range from awful to average, but he could move enough to defend himself. I think Hewitt had a more impressive career considering he didn't have one go to move like Roddick had with his serve. He was an above average returner with an impressive lob who was otherwise well-rounded but average, but managed to win 2 slams through wit and determination. Roddick never had that cerebral part of the game down.

Nah Hewitt in his prime was way better than Roddick. People underestimate Hewitt because he became Federer's whipping boy in 2004-2006, but that was not prime Hewitt. The best Hewitt was 2001-2002, before his first major injury. While he was still a top player afterwards, he had lost quite a bit of speed, which was his main asset.

At his best, Hewitt had a good serve, very good returns, flat, deep shots from both wings and he ate serve & volleyers for breakfast, his passing shots and lobs are among the best I've seen, and of course he had that enormous fighting spirit. Besides, he's the best percentages player I've ever seen (in his prime), he had entire matches with not a single wrong shot selection. He never beat himself (with unforced errors), you really had blow him off the court to beat him.

He was definitely a worthy world no.1 for the post-Sampras, pre-Federer era. If not for his injuries, I'm sure he'd have got more than 2 Slams. Even with his injuries, he'd have got a few more if not for Federer. He lost to Fed 6 times in a row in non-French Open Slams in 2004 and 2005. Federer was a horrible, horrible match-up for Hewitt and without his 2001 speed he didn't even have a fighting chance.

While I agree that Hewitt wasn't an all-time great talent, he was a pretty good player in his prime (and even after his first major injury). Try to watch some highlights from his 2001 USO final vs Sampras (a post-prime Sampras, but still pretty good), you'll see that Hewitt was no mug. He was much better than Roddick; in fact, when both were at their prime, Hewitt owned Roddick across every surface on their head-to-head.

Roddick has the better serve and more power, but Hewitt is way more solid from the baseline, better at the net, better movement, much better defense... He was the first glimpse we got of a defensive baseliner dominating the game. Like an alpha version of Nadal and Djokovic.

[Wolfe]

Nadal will play in a charity match against an opponent of his choosing (media say it's either going to be Federer, Djoko or a Spanish speaking opponent) at Santiago Bernabeu. It's probably going to beat the records of attendance of a singles tennis match in history.

[zanela]

Nadal will play in a charity match against an opponent of his choosing (media say it's either going to be Federer, Djoko or a Spanish speaking opponent) at Santiago Bernabeu. It's probably going to beat the records of attendance of a singles tennis match in history.

Whats the status? Last i heard Roger opted out. Can't find anything on it. Hopefully he doesn't choose the serb, be a bit insulting losing the exhibition match as well.


Anyway...Roger vs Isner finals at Indian wells. Isner beat nole, whilst roger took out rafa in straight sets. The swiss looks leaner, meaner and sharper. Infact, that was his best outing against rafa thus far. Fed fans might wanna watch it. The windy conditions didn't help the spaniard, but he was made to look amateurish nonetheless.

But Rafa made it to the doubles finals (with marc lopez), and will be playing Isner and S. Querry. Hoping a better result there.

[Corb]

Fuck yeah!