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.
Bingo, this is what I'm talking about right here. You had a larger field of players back then capable of winning a grand slam or upsetting a top 3 player in a major. I mean, since 2004 TWO players have won a slam other than Federer/Djokovic/Nadal: Safin Australian Open 2005, Juan Martin del Pedro U.S Open 2009. Otherwise the aforementioned 3 have a stranglehold on the majors. I don't think I've ever seen a situation in men's tennis where 2-3 players are effectively unbeatable. Now, I'm not sure if it's a case where those 3 are simply THAT good, or that the pool of players around them aren't good enough overall to challenge them. Perhaps a bit of both but either way, it doesn't really make for compelling tennis IMHO.
It's simply the case that they are THAT good. Consider the following:
Roger Federer faced Agassi for the first time as a 17 year old junior in Basel. Even though Agassi won the match (as well as their next encounter when Fed was 19, I believe), Roger was still able to push him around from the baseline quite a bit. And this was when Agassi was about 27 or 28. Roger then went on to demolish Agassi in their next 8 encounters, winning most of those in straight sets. This is why Agassi was quoted saying the following:
Quote:
He plays the game in a very special way," Agassi said. "I don't think I've seen it before. He's the best I've ever played against." "Pete was great," Agassi said. "But there was a place to go with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you could do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger."
Translation: If Pete serves under 55% on his 1st serve, you can push him into a corner and pound away at his backhand. If Federer serves under 55% on his 1st serve, he's still likely to break you 5 or 6 times throughout the course of the match.
Here are some other choice quotes from Agassi about Federer:
Quote:
He's the only guy I've ever played where you hold serve to go up 1-0 and you think, "alll right, good!" There's a sense of urgency on every point, every shot.
Quote:
He's the best I've ever played against," said 35-year-old Agassi, who has battled against the likes of Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras, who won an all-time best 14 grand slam singles titles. "I've played a lot of them over the years, but there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way," he said about attacking those other esteemed rivals. Federer, said the sagely Agassi, has no weaknesses and a seemingly endless variety of options to swing a match in his favor. "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.
That's what I mean when I say Federer and Nadal apply CONSTANT pressure. It's like running from the Liquid Terminator...you just can't take a break for water and hope he doesn't catch up to you. If you lose focus for a moment, you're done. End of story. Fed and Rafa fight for every point, every set, in every match. They don't take matches off like Courier (who used to read novels on court), Sampras (who would just give up and go all out on 2nd serves when he got tired), Agassi (who basically quit the game for 2 years and had a history of blowups early in his career), and Becker (who just stopped going to the French after a while). If you want to know why Fed and Nadal always seem to be in the Finals, then there's your answer.
It's simply the case that they are THAT good. Consider the following:
Roger Federer faced Agassi for the first time as a 17 year old junior in Basel. Even though Agassi won the match (as well as their next encounter when Fed was 19, I believe), Roger was still able to push him around from the baseline quite a bit. And this was when Agassi was about 27 or 28. Roger then went on to demolish Agassi in their next 8 encounters, winning most of those in straight sets. This is why Agassi was quoted saying the following:
Translation: If Pete serves under 55% on his 1st serve, you can push him into a corner and pound away at his backhand. If Federer serves under 55% on his 1st serve, he's still likely to break you 5 or 6 times throughout the course of the match.
Here are some other choice quotes from Agassi about Federer:
That's what I mean when I say Federer and Nadal apply CONSTANT pressure. It's like running from the Liquid Terminator...you just can't take a break for water and hope he doesn't catch up to you. If you lose focus for a moment, you're done. End of story. Fed and Rafa fight for every point, every set, in every match. They don't take matches off like Courier (who used to read novels on court), Sampras (who would just give up and go all out on 2nd serves when he got tired), Agassi (who basically quit the game for 2 years and had a history of blowups early in his career), and Becker (who just stopped going to the French after a while). If you want to know why Fed and Nadal always seem to be in the Finals, then there's your answer.
I don't really dispute any of that, but that doesn't really challenge my assertion that the men's field was overall deeper with quality players in the 90's. You're merely firming up your opinion that Federer is the greatest via quotes from past greats, which I've stated a few times in this thread I'm inclined to agree with.
Bajan, I tried to rep you but it said I needed to spread it around first( I hate that feature). In any event, I agree with you regarding Federer's place in history. His abilities would have made him a dominant force in any era( and I think I alluded to such earlier).
I don't really dispute any of that, but that doesn't really challenge my assertion that the men's field was overall deeper with quality players in the 90's. You're merely firming up your opinion that Federer is the greatest via quotes from past greats, which I've stated a few times in this thread I'm inclined to agree with.
That's what some people say, but I just don't agree. I think people have a tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses. If you look at guys like Courier, Muster, Brugera, Kuerten, Chang, Ivanesivic, and compare them to Berdych, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Verdasco, and Roddick, you'll see that the competition today is probably stronger than it was then. It just doesn't look that way because Federer and Nadal rule the Slams. But if you removed those two guys from the equation, the field would look more like the 90s where the Grand Slam results were more varied and less predictable. I mean, Federer has kept Roddick from winning countless titles. If weren't for Fed, Roddick would probably have multiple Slams, and we'd be throwing his name around with the Agassis, Connors and McEnroes.
Sampras always says that Agassi pushed his game to new heights. I never really agreed with that. I think the most thoughtful tennis Sampras ever played was in his 2001 match against Federer at Wimbledon (which he lost). Even though Pete was beyond his prime at that point (and Roger was just a skinny kid then), I think Roger pushed Pete in a way he had never been pushed before. I wish those two guys had more overlap so that we could have seen Pete actually take his game to the next level. Agassi, though a good player, did not offer Sampras 1/16 of the challenge that Federer did.
That's what some people say, but I just don't agree. I think people have a tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses. If you look at guys like Courier, Muster, Brugera, Kuerten, Chang, Ivanesivic, and compare them to Berdych, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Verdasco, and Roddick, you'll see that the competition today is probably stronger than it was then.
We're kind of going in circles on this point, I think it's becoming somewhat redundant now. As I said earlier, Federer's competition is either stronger or weaker depending on what argument is being made, and for whom. In particular, the era argument really does become pointless after a while.
This is what I meant earlier, I can't see how this is a 'golden' age when you've got 3 ultra dominant players moping up the floor with everyone else. While it's a treat to see the level of skill these guys have, at this point there's really not much incentive to watch a final unless they happen to be playing each other.
But then again, did anyone really tune in to watch Richard Krajicek destroy Malvai Washington in the Wimbledon final back in '96? Honestly, did many people (other than Americans) really care when Sampras and Agassi played in a GS Final (which only happened in '90, '95, '99 and '02)? When you really think about it, the Sampras-Agassi "rivalry" was just a tad bit over-hyped. It was tremendously lopsided in Sampras' favor and the matches they played were never even that good.
The Federer-Nadal Finals at Wimbledon were nothing short of breath-taking. I was left completely speechless after the 2008 Wimbledon Final. Even people who generally have no interest in the sport tuned in to watch that match. In fact, I think it received the highest ratings of any televised match in history. The backdrop to the match was something out of a story book. On the one hand, Federer, the King of Grass, is poised to make history by breaking Bjorn Borg's record of 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles. On the other hand, Nadal, the King of Clay, is poised to make history by becoming the first man to win the French and Wimbledon in the same year. And as a bonus, the No. 1 ranking is on the line. Nadal comes into Federer's house, where he had been considered virtually untouchable, and beats him in a 5-set thriller for the ages. He entered Federer's Kingdom and took the crown in blood. How could this not be considered the golden age of tennis?
One more thing...a lot of people tend to merge all of the past greats into one past "Super Era." If you look at almost any era of tennis, you had two really great players, a couple of "up and comers" and then some solid players with little name recognition.
Rod Laver was at the end of his career when Borg and Connors came on the scene.
Borg and Connors were contemporaries. McEnroe was the young gun.
McEnroe and Lendl were contemporaries. Becker was the young gun.
Becker and Edberg were contemporaries. Sampras was the young gun.
Sampras and Agassi were contemporaries. Federer was the young gun.
So I don't think it's really fair to say that "Sampras played against McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Lendl" because those guys were at the tail end of their careers/primes when Pete started to catch fire. They were still around, and they were still good players (Edberg beat Sampras in the US Open Final in '92), but their hey days were long gone. During the Open Era of tennis, the sport has almost always been "dominated" by two guys at the top.
But then again, did anyone really tune in to watch Richard Krajicek destroy Malvai Washington in the Wimbledon final back in '96? Honestly, did many people (other than Americans) really care when Sampras and Agassi played in a GS Final (which only happened in '90, '95, '99 and '02)? When you really think about it, the Sampras-Agassi "rivalry" was just a tad bit over-hyped. It was tremendously lopsided in Sampras' favor and the matches they played were never even that good.
The Federer-Nadal Finals at Wimbledon were nothing short of breath-taking. I was left completely speechless after the 2008 Wimbledon Final. Even people who generally have no interest in the sport tuned in to watch that match. In fact, I think it received the highest ratings of any televised match in history. The backdrop to the match was something out of a story book. On the one hand, Federer, the King of Grass, is poised to make history by breaking Bjorn Borg's record of 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles. On the other hand, Nadal, the King of Clay, is poised to make history by becoming the first man to win the French and Wimbledon in the same year. And as a bonus, the No. 1 ranking is on the line. Nadal comes into Federer's house, where he had been considered virtually untouchable, and beats him in a 5-set thriller for the ages. He entered Federer's Kingdom and took the crown in blood. How could this not be considered the golden age of tennis?
That historic Federer-Nadal match at Wimbledon was 4 years ago, at that point I think things were certainly more compelling then they are now. At this stage, one of three men is practically guaranteed to win all grand slam tournaments, barring unforeseen injuries or something else. So no, I don't consider it the 'golden age' from a standpoint of watching a grand slam and expecting to see anyone but one of three guys winning. There's really not even much of a reason to watch the pre-final rounds, since we can bet our lunch money on the final consisting of the same three individuals. Hell, we may as well just have a round robin tournament between the three of them, to decide who will met in the slam final. No-one else is in the picture. I don't consider that golden age, and perhaps you should consider that we have different definitions of what that means, or what we each consider compelling.
Those were Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, and John McEnroe.
Based on absolute dominance, Rod Laver is the only player you could truly put above Roger Federer as the GOAT. He won the Calendar Slam twice, though in those days 3 of the 4 Majors were played on grass. He certainly would have won something on the order of 20 Slams had professionals not been banned from competition until 1968.
There's no question in my mind that Nadal is better than John McEnroe. I don't think McEnroe would even be offended by anyone saying that. Nadal may be the mentally toughest player we've ever seen. And he's without question the most fit and the strongest. He's raised the bar in the sport in a way that McEnroe never did.
So I don't think it's really fair to say that "Sampras played against McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Lendl" because those guys were at the tail end of their careers/primes when Pete started to catch fire. They were still around, and they were still good players (Edberg beat Sampras in the US Open Final in '92), but their hey days were long gone. During the Open Era of tennis, the sport has almost always been "dominated" by two guys at the top.
I've never stated either Mcenroe or Lendl as a Sampras contemporary. Becker and Edberg were still in their mid-20s and grand slam threats when Sampras came into his own, so I don't think its accurate to say either one were past their primes when Sampras took off. Agassi, while inconsistent, was also very much in the picture during Pete's heyday. Courier was also there, winning 3-4 slams. All of those guys started at different times but I'd say they all got a chance to play each other at their respective best at one point or another. There were at least 5 viable Grand slam threats and a handful of second-tier stars like Rafter, Chang, Kafelnikov and a few others who kept things interesting. We can harp on and on about how great Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are, but as I've said repeatedly I don't find the same three winning over a 5 year period all that compelling or what would constitute a 'golden age'. YMMV.....
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.
