Are Today's Tennis Stars Better Than....... (shoes, athletic, finals, won)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's hard to compare eras, but I'd say yes. Tennis has changed so much because of technological advances, but the game is much deeper and faster than it was in Laver, Rosewall or Budge's day.
so completely different and a lot of that is driven by technology as well as the constant increase in athletic training, specialization, etc
it's definitely a more powerful game right now - it is played deeper and you do have to move quicker to react to those shots
although, I actually kind of prefer the older style where you'd see more rallies, more net play and players able to cover more of the court and scramble a bit - where now you'd most likely have a shot rocketed past you if you got into a scramble
The raquet for one ..... pretty much everything about them ...... technology also comes in the form of training .... supplements, machines, computerized analysis, etc
although, I actually kind of prefer the older style where you'd see more rallies, more net play and players able to cover more of the court and scramble a bit - where now you'd most likely have a shot rocketed past you if you got into a scramble
I think it's the opposite actually. They intentionally made the switch to slower surfaces and heavier balls so that there would be longer rallies. Wimbledon today is definitely far more entertaining than it was during the era of Sampras, Becker, Edberg dominance.
Can you think of any former tennis player who is as athletic as say Nadal?
Sure. Pat Rafter was a sensational athlete. So were Edberg, Becker, Kracijek, Sampras and many of the other grass-court players from the more attacking serve-volley era. Cedric Pioline was a terrific athlete and had a beautiful all-around attacking game. He just couldn't capitalize on his talent because he was a headcase.
Today's players are far better movers along the baseline, however, and far less proficient at net. The biggest difference between the modern game and previous eras, imo, is the return of serve. Goran Ivanisevic's 129 mph first serve would come back much more often in today's game. Granted, he was a lefty and placed his serve very well, but the "huge" serves of the 1990s aren't "huge" serves by today's standards. Even Nadal will crank one up to 130 on occasion and he's far from being one of the elite servers in the modern game.
Federer, I think, has raised the bar so high that he's making this new crop of players so much better than anything we've seen before. He takes the ball on the rise like Agassi. He constructs points like Rod Laver. And he plays every point like Connors. Whereas Sampras really only applied pressure to opponents during his service games, Federer applies equal pressure during both his service and return games. Sampras was never really a threat to break you most games. Federer (the vintage Federer anyway) got every return of serve back into play. So not only did you have to work hard to break his serve (which is hard), but you had to work incredibly hard to hold your serve as well. It was a constant barrage of pressure from all angles.
Federer also has an uncanny ability to transition from defense to offense at the drop of a hat.
As Agassi said:
Quote:
Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for, and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.
Pete was great, I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger.
I felt really bad for Andy in this match. He worked so hard on his fitness, backhand, and return that year. He even hired Jimmy Connors to build up his "toughness." He did everything right in this match and still lost. Why? Because Federer did everything right and BETTER. That shot at 0:53 is the prime example of what I mean. Roddick steps around his backhand to TATOO a return and Fed simply blocks it back like it's another day on the job.
Same here. Feliciano Lopez played out of his mind. Federer threw it into 6th gear and mauled him. I'm convinced that Lopez's quality of tennis that night would have beaten any of the greats of past or present. It was his night...until Federer took the court, that is.
What did the guy say in Gladiator? "When death smiles at a man, all a man can do is smile back." Well, all Tim Henman could do was smile back. I remember watching this live and falling down on the floor out of utter disbelief.
And who could ever forget this classic? I don't care what Todd Martin had to say about the match not being "the best display of tennis tactics we've seen." As if he could just hit one of his 122 mph slice serves out wide, come into net, and put a way an easy volley into the open court against Nadal. Rafa is probably the best ball retriever the game has ever seen and he also possesses an uncanny ability to hit ungodly passing shots from the most awkward positions on court. Even on the faster grass, I'd say he'd eat Edberg, Stich, Becker, and Ivanesich for breakfast. The only two players I could really see giving him fits are Sampras and Krajicek. Those were the only two guys with the power and all around shot-making ability to soundly defeat Nadal (especially on very fast grass). And even those guys would have to approach the net with caution. Nadal's forehand has nearly as much spin as Sampras' second serves, which means that ball dips quickly to your shoestrings when coming forward. Which then means you're forced to hit a volley UP, which then means you get to taste another Nadal forehand.
Federer, I think, has raised the bar so high that he's making this new crop of players so much better than anything we've seen before.
I totally agree. I occasionally watched the finals of Grand Slam events back in the 1990s, but watching Federer play back in the 2004-2006 time frame captured my imagination and made me a lot more interested in tennis. He was so much better than everybody else (in addition to playing in a much more aesthetically pleasing manner than everyone else) that initially it hurt the men's game; guys like Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt, who would have won more Grand Slam titles in many other periods, were physically and psychologically overwhelmed by Federer. But then guys like Nadal, Djokovic, and to a lesser degree Andy Murray and Juan Martin del Potro came along, and though they didn't play like Federer, they played in a manner in which they at least sometimes could beat Federer. The quality of players like Nadal, Djokovic, etc., in addition to Federer himself, also forced the second-tier players to get better.
I didn't watch tennis too much prior to the mid-2000s (and especially prior to the last couple of years), but when I see highlights of players from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, there's no comparison - the men's players of today seem to play so much faster, more powerfully, and in general a lot better than the top players of eras past. IMO, Roger Federer's greatness is a big reason why that has happened; he pushed all the top younger players who came a few years after him to step up their games.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
