Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting federer V Sampras stats.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Total Power said:
I am pretty sure you have never disagreed with Robert Walls or Steve Silviagni or Chris McDermott etc etc :rolleyes:

If by depth you mean players outside the US and Australia dominating , then i agree with him.However its ridiculous to suggest that the level of tennis is higher now that what it used to be.
Click to expand...

Like you would know?

Anyone with half a brain can see the level has risen.
 
likka said:
Like you would know?

Anyone with half a brain can see the level has risen.
Click to expand...

Oh really? thats why there are no grand slam winners in the top 20 other than federer , nadal, hewitt and roddick??? and only other ones to make a slam final in the top 20 is Gonzalez and Nalbandian (only once each).Sure it has risen. :rolleyes:.Compare that to the list i provided in the first page, 14 grand slam winners and 18 players making GS finals in the top 20 alone.,You will continue to see Federer Roddick, Federer Nadal final in atleast 2 out of 4 slams in the future.Bookmark it.But here is an example. An ailing Andre Agassi, 36 year old and playing with 2 pain killing injections, defeating Baghdatis (seeded 10th) in the last touranment he will ever play.He could barely move in the final set and he was still hitting winners everywhere.If Agassi returns now, he will still be in the top 20 (as he was, before he retired).Thats because he is all quality, all the younger stars have struggled to beat a 35 year old Andre last year.You resorting to personal insults and continious reference to jim courier's statement means you cannot defend your point.But hey i will give you, this...the game hasnt improved at the top, but the 50-200 ranked guys has improved themselves considerably.
 
Total Power said:
Oh really? thats why there are no grand slam winners in the top 20 other than federer , nadal, hewitt and roddick??? and only other ones to make a slam final in the top 20 is Gonzalez and Nalbandian (only once each).Sure it has risen. :rolleyes:.Compare that to the list i provided in the first page, 14 grand slam winners and 18 players making GS finals in the top 20 alone.,You will continue to see Federer Roddick, Federer Nadal final in atleast 2 out of 4 slams in the future.Bookmark it.But here is an example. An ailing Andre Agassi, 36 year old and playing with 2 pain killing injections, defeating Baghdatis (seeded 10th) in the last touranment he will ever play.He could barely move in the final set and he was still hitting winners everywhere.If Agassi returns now, he will still be in the top 20 (as he was, before he retired).Thats because he is all quality, all the younger stars have struggled to beat a 35 year old Andre last year.You resorting to personal insults and continious reference to jim courier's statement means you cannot defend your point.But hey i will give you, this...the game hasnt improved at the top, but the 50-200 ranked guys has improved themselves considerably.
Click to expand...

I agree that its a strong list but I don't think you can go back to 95 and count how many grand slam winners there are and compared to now. You really need to count todays list in 10 years time as there are players that will still win a Grand Slam just haven't yet.
 
Exactly how does the number of grand slam winners dictate the quality of tennis? It doesn't.

You've already conceded that the top 100 is far more competitive, which is fine.

This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the quality of the tennis and the consistency of its production.

To say that the game is going backwards in terms of quality is naive and just plain wrong. The ball is hit harder with less margin for error by more players.

Dunno what sport you've been watching.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

likka said:
Exactly how does the number of grand slam winners dictate the quality of tennis? It doesn't.

You've already conceded that the top 100 is far more competitive, which is fine.

This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the quality of the tennis and the consistency of its production.

To say that the game is going backwards in terms of quality is naive and just plain wrong. The ball is hit harder with less margin for error by more players.

Dunno what sport you've been watching.
Click to expand...

I was going to replay last night to this debate. I will say I agree with Total Power on this one. Although there are more countries represented in the top 50 to 10 years ago the quality of tennis played is not where it was in the mid/late 90's. You had serve volleyer's, you had different surfaces. The quality is still there but no way is it better. No way would Federer have won 4 wimbledon's in the 90's. You recon he'd beat Sampras, Becker, Ivanisovic would have belted him on grass. Baseliners were terrible in Wimbledon. Heck do you recon Hewitt would have reached the 3rd round on grass in the mid 90's- NO way! As for the ball hitting harder- that is due to technology and the grapphite raquets being used thesedays with a 60lb tension rate. But that has not improved the quality of tennis. Is there a serve volleyer in the top 50 in the world now? They are all baseliners. It is very one dimensional nowadays which is boring in a way. You want variety, and that increases the quality of tennis. I am looking forward to the day the wimbledon courts change and baseliners have to learn to volley!
 
likka said:
Exactly how does the number of grand slam winners dictate the quality of tennis? It doesn't.

You've already conceded that the top 100 is far more competitive, which is fine.

This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the quality of the tennis and the consistency of its production.

To say that the game is going backwards in terms of quality is naive and just plain wrong. The ball is hit harder with less margin for error by more players.

Dunno what sport you've been watching.
Click to expand...

What quality of tennis are you talking about? where is variety in today's tennis? do you like watching baseline battles in each and every match? all the players in the top 50 have similar style of play.You really believe that guys like Robredo and Ljbucic would make the top 10 of that list? i can bet they wont.Here is my question to you...how many claycourters have dominated wimbledon and american hardcourts in the past? the answer is NONE.Now why do they dominate now? because they have improved? yes a little bit but the biggest factor is the court surface.The ATP is doing whatever they can to kill serve and volley tennis and that is good for the game? do you know hitting PASSING shots is an art? there are many many players in the history who can beat baseliners easily but when it came to serve and volleyers they lost everytime (pancho gonzalez, miroslav merir etc). How can you say today's list has more depth????how many diving volley's how many shootout tennis like rafter vs agassi do you see.Its just pure one dimensional tennis.Yes the power has improved, fitness has improved (as it should, graphite racquets and more scientific fitness program), but sorry...i cannot give you quality.If you think a match between Nadal and Robredo is an example of greater quality, good on ya.
 
bombersno1 said:
I was going to replay last night to this debate. I will say I agree with Total Power on this one. Although there are more countries represented in the top 50 to 10 years ago the quality of tennis played is not where it was in the mid/late 90's. You had serve volleyer's, you had different surfaces. The quality is still there but no way is it better. No way would Federer have won 4 wimbledon's in the 90's. You recon he'd beat Sampras, Becker, Ivanisovic would have belted him on grass. Baseliners were terrible in Wimbledon. Heck do you recon Hewitt would have reached the 3rd round on grass in the mid 90's- NO way! As for the ball hitting harder- that is due to technology and the grapphite raquets being used thesedays with a 60lb tension rate. But that has not improved the quality of tennis. Is there a serve volleyer in the top 50 in the world now? They are all baseliners. It is very one dimensional nowadays which is boring in a way. You want variety, and that increases the quality of tennis. I am looking forward to the day the wimbledon courts change and baseliners have to learn to volley!
Click to expand...


Exactly, well said mate :thumbsu: :thumbsu: cant agree more
 
Total Power said:
That exactly is my point.Sampras was unbeatable at wimbledon in the 1990's but if he played now, he will be extremely vulnerable.The wimbledon surface back then was NOT suited to baseline tennis, even the likes of federer would struggle there.He might have won once or twice but he would NOT dominate on that surface.

I agree wimbledon is the official world championships of tennis, however i liked the concept of grand slam cup, where the 4 grand slam performances were given a weighted average and rankings were decided in that manner.

Another point i'd like to mention GT, the racquets these players using how are high tension graphite racquets, suited to power tennis (baseline stuff). With the racquet technology of the early 1990's can anyone hit those winners federer does at the moment? An example of the graphite 7.3 techonology that Federer using at the moment.(String tension 60 lbs). Now back in 1990's you need a string tension of ATLEAST 70 lbs to hit the ball with similar power and anyone who knows anything about tennis would agree that 70 lbs would kill your shoulder in a months time. GT, from what i know from previous discussions, you know a fair bit about the game of tennis unlike the other losers here, do you realistically think federer would dominate the 1990's era given all the points mentioned above?
Click to expand...


There are technical differences which make it difficult if not impossible to say a player would transfer dominance from one era to another.

For example The Laver of the '60s would be blown away today by increased pace and power but would the Laver of the '60s with access to modern nutritional info, modern racquets, modern training techniques dominate? Perhaps. we can't know. Equally with fed and Samp. We can't really know.

part of what makes me go for Fed is that fact that he really only played about 3 hours of tennis at anything like max effort at Melbourne. he was at cruise control 90% of the time. Apart from clay where he is clearly mortal he rarely actually has to stretch himself and in a way is let down by the failure of the field to compete. In essence we don't know how good he is because he is too good if you see what I mean.

Frankly a player can only be judged on his performances at his peak usintg similar technology to his rivals. Fed's peak which goes back to July 2003 with his first Slam and break into top 3 is the most dominant period in Open era history on any statistical comparison hence he has a right to be called the best. Would that transfer? We can't know. Does inability to know that deprive him of the rank as best open era player? No. he wins that on any statistical comparison.

Sampras would not win 7 wimbledons now. fed almost certainly would not win 7 in the 90s but that is supposition and as i say we actually don't know how good is is. Don't forget McEnroe a similarly stellarly gifted player was superb at Wimbledon in the age of the big hitters. Genius tells everywhere and while i do take your point about racquets and you may well be right i think Fed would still have been a huge challenge to the Becker/Sdberrg/samp generation due to the fact that a lot comes down to pure class which he has in abundance.
 
Point taken GT, but IMHO my point about variety still stands.Maybe he will have trouble against those attacking serve and volley players.Remember, henman gave him a bit of trouble when he was playing his best tennis.Henman is now on the decline and federer is now able to beat him comfortably.I am not saying federer would lose to them, but i am just saying it would be something different.
 
The great man himself said that this was the best tennis player he's ever seen. Such recognition from a man such as Laver is enough for me to give the nod to Fed. Perhpas he is the greatest of all time, but this sort of title will hold tight if:

a) He beats Sampras' record.
b) He continues to dominate until his 30's.
c) He wins the French Open
d) He at least completes one "grand slam".
 
Sampras says he could have held his own against Federer

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pete Sampras thinks he could have held his own against Roger Federer but conceded on Tuesday that the Swiss master is poised to smash his record of 14 grand slam titles.

Sampras, who retired after winning the 2002 U.S. Open, considered what the result might have been had the two giants of men's tennis met in their prime.

"I don't think one guy would have dominated the other," said the American during a teleconference to announce his return to tournament tennis, playing a limited number of events on a tour for over-30 players.

ADVERTISEMENT


"I think our games are pretty similar. It would have been a great clash to see us in our prime. Roger is doing what I never did; dominate the way he is. He's lost five matches in two years, that's unheard of.

"But I feel like my game is too big to be dominated by someone. When my game was on, my serve was on, I felt I was tough to beat. I felt unbeatable."

Sampras could soon see how his career stacks up alongside Federer, after the Swiss took another stride toward the record with his third Australian Open crown on Sunday.

The 25-year-old Swiss has won 10 grand slams since his maiden title at Wimbledon in 2003 and will break Jimmy Connors's record of 160 consecutive weeks as world number one next month.

After beating Andre Agassi to lift his 14th grand slam title, Sampras believed his record would stand the test of time.

But almost immediately an unrelenting Federer launched his assault on the mark.

"I thought it would take longer than seven or eight years," said the 35-year-old Sampras. "I don't seen anyone pushing him so I could see him winning 17, 18, 19 majors. He has 10 already and he's in the middle of his career.

"He just came along at the right time and is playing tremendous tennis and I don't see him stopping now."

NO COMEBACK

Sampras also believes Federer is capable of achieving a success that eluded him by winning on the red clay of Roland Garros.

The Swiss world number one needs the French Open to complete his set and become only the third player to hold all four majors at once.

"I think he can because he grew up playing on clay and he's come close the last two years," said Sampras. "I really believe he can win there.

"I'm a fan, of his game, his temperament, how he handles himself on and off the court. I marvel at things he's able to do," he added.

The two players clashed just once in their careers, with the Swiss prevailing. There will be no re-match.

"When we retire we all have thoughts of playing again but my playing days are over on the ATP Tour," admitted the seven-time Wimbledon champion. "It's a lot of work, a whole different lifestyle I'm done with.

"I have been hitting the ball pretty well for the past six months and still feel that I can maybe compete against some of the guys. But to think about coming out of retirement is something far-fetched."

(Writing by Steve Keating in Toronto)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Total Power said:
I really wonder how many people have actually followed tennis from the 80's and 90's here on bigfooty.I bet, not many.
Click to expand...

Put it this way I am starting to think I can count them on one hand!
 
Pete always was a class act off court as well as on it. Of course he would not have been dominated. He would have held his own against any player in history. 14 slams nd 5 masters cups don't just happen by accident.

Also everyone seems to think its only a matter of time til Roger beats his record. It is not. He needs 5 more. winning slams is hugely difficult. Injury and loss of form can happen to anyone. Perhaps a real gun or two will come along. Perhaps Murray for instance will blossom. We never know.

The fact that he is clearly good enough to reach 15 does not mean he inevitably will reach 15 and number 1 is a lonely place.

i believe that if he retains fitness and form he will do it but that is by no means certain.
 
gaelictiogar said:
The fact that he is clearly good enough to reach 15 does not mean he inevitably will reach 15 and number 1 is a lonely place.

i believe that if he retains fitness and form he will do it but that is by no means certain.
Click to expand...

I still rate laver's 12 as the best ever! if federer can win a calender slam, i will change my opinion
 
gaelictiogar said:
Pete always was a class act off court as well as on it. Of course he would not have been dominated. He would have held his own against any player in history. 14 slams nd 5 masters cups don't just happen by accident.

Also everyone seems to think its only a matter of time til Roger beats his record. It is not. He needs 5 more. winning slams is hugely difficult. Injury and loss of form can happen to anyone. Perhaps a real gun or two will come along. Perhaps Murray for instance will blossom. We never know.

The fact that he is clearly good enough to reach 15 does not mean he inevitably will reach 15 and number 1 is a lonely place.

i believe that if he retains fitness and form he will do it but that is by no means certain.
Click to expand...

:thumbsu:

Some logic never goes astray.
 
Total Power said:
Oh really? thats why there are no grand slam winners in the top 20 other than federer , nadal, hewitt and roddick??? and only other ones to make a slam final in the top 20 is Gonzalez and Nalbandian (only once each).Sure it has risen. :rolleyes:.Compare that to the list i provided in the first page, 14 grand slam winners and 18 players making GS finals in the top 20 alone.,You will continue to see Federer Roddick, Federer Nadal final in atleast 2 out of 4 slams in the future................. the 50-200 ranked guys has improved themselves considerably.
Click to expand...

There are players who have won slams but are not in the top 20 at this stage. Safin, Ferrero, Gaudio, Moya to name a few. Majority of players in the top 20 these days are either young and up and coming (Murray, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Gasquet, Berdych) or mature aged players who have just entered their peak (Blake, Gonzo, Robredo). There is every chance that these players can be future slam winners. The quality of the top 20 now is equal to that of the top 20, 10 years ago.

The difference is that the quality throughout the top 100 has improved dramatically, making it alot tougher to win grand slams in this era. Federa's dominance during this period show his greatness. Federer would have dominated during the 90's even against pete.
 
Total Power said:
Point taken GT, but IMHO my point about variety still stands.Maybe he will have trouble against those attacking serve and volley players.Remember, henman gave him a bit of trouble when he was playing his best tennis.Henman is now on the decline and federer is now able to beat him comfortably.I am not saying federer would lose to them, but i am just saying it would be something different.
Click to expand...

Fair point, however he mauled Ancic at Wimbledon last year and he is probably the best serve/vollyer going around at the moment (which shows just how low the serve/volley stocks are in mens tennis). When Roddick first joined with Conners he started attacking the net more and adding variety to his game. At first this troubled Rog but as he has done through his career he has adapted and figured out a way of defeating something that worried him. So while in theory a player who adopts a different game style against him may trouble him initially, Federer is smart enough and good enough to find a way to dismantle their game. Thats why he is the greatest. Sampras was not versatil enough hence why he never won the French open. If Federer eventually finds a way to defeat Nadal at Roland Garros his status as the G.O.A.T. cannot be questioned.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Furious D said:
There are players who have won slams but are not in the top 20 at this stage. Safin, Ferrero, Gaudio, Moya to name a few. Majority of players in the top 20 these days are either young and up and coming (Murray, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Gasquet, Berdych) or mature aged players who have just entered their peak (Blake, Gonzo, Robredo). There is every chance that these players can be future slam winners. The quality of the top 20 now is equal to that of the top 20, 10 years ago.

The difference is that the quality throughout the top 100 has improved dramatically, making it alot tougher to win grand slams in this era. Federa's dominance during this period show his greatness. Federer would have dominated during the 90's even against pete.
Click to expand...

fair enough, but guys like Moya, Gaudio are nowhere near grand slam threats like Goran, Rafter, Krajicek, Edberg and co used to be.Infact Gaudio, Safin, Ferrerro are pretty much journeymen tennis players.Safin is a complete waste of talent.How many times has he been past the quarter finals in a grand slam?? 4 times only.Certainly you will agree that beating someone like goran or krajicek on grass is much more difficult than say...beating Safin on grass.The quality of players in the top 20 is disappointing.An ailing Andre Agassi playing with 2 pain killer injections was able to outgun Marcos Baghdatis.Not only outgun on court but outgunned fitness wise too.He was standing in the middle of the court and made Baghdatis run all over the place.Baghdatis is no mug, but my point is something different. A star playing in his last grand slam taking on a young star, 21 year old and experienced enough to end his career. A young Andre Agassi ending John Mcenrores career at wimbledon....just showed the class the generation had back then.

Federer is a legend, without a doubt, but he has still not beaten petes record. IMO when federer is not playing his best tennis he still wins because no one is able to come up with a different gameplan to upset him.All are baseliners these days. Ancic might be a serve and vollyer but the quality of his vollyers is very disappointing.He has potential to do so much, yet he has done nothing and he keeps losing to no namers.
 
Please stop going back to the Agassi-Baghdatis match

Shame on you comparing Baghdatis with a man who can play tennis

Baghdatis is a one-hit wonder



Tennis today > Tennis 1995

Oh, and you may not rate Safin, but he is a Slam winner, and thats all you are basing your arguments on!
 
mdunn27 said:
Please stop going back to the Agassi-Baghdatis match

Shame on you comparing Baghdatis with a man who can play tennis

Baghdatis is a one-hit wonder



Tennis today > Tennis 1995

Oh, and you may not rate Safin, but he is a Slam winner, and thats all you are basing your arguments on!
Click to expand...

Fine then.Anyone would reckon that Agassi, a couple of years ago, was capable of beating any top 10 player today other than Federer.Agassi at 35 was himself a top 10 player.You can check the head to head records of Agassi against the current so called top 10..you will se he has a winning record against most.(played recently).

You can say tennis today > tennis 1995 but what are you basing your opinions on? safin is a slam winner for sure but he is a wasted talent.More often than not he gives up without a fight.

The variety is lacking in todays tennis.That is the point.Where are the serve and volleyers or do you enjoy one dimension baseline tennis? you compare the 1995 list and tell me that guys like robredo would beat guys like muster on clay or a 2nd grade serve and volleyer like ancic would beat guys like becker?
 
mdunn27 said:
Please stop going back to the Agassi-Baghdatis match

Shame on you comparing Baghdatis with a man who can play tennis

Baghdatis is a one-hit wonder



Tennis today > Tennis 1995

Oh, and you may not rate Safin, but he is a Slam winner, and thats all you are basing your arguments on!
Click to expand...
You CANNOT be serious! :eek:

Mcenroe_John.jpg
 
Total Power said:
You cannot be serious.Have a look at top 20 now and compare it to 1995. You will see there are NO grand slam winners in the top 20 other than Federer, Nadal and Roddick.Here are the ATP 1995 year end rankings

1. Pete Sampras

2. Andre Agassi

3. Thomas Muster

4. Boris Becker

5. Michael Chang

6. Yevgeny Kafelnikov

7. Thomas Enqvist

8. Jim Courier

9. Wayne Ferreira

10.Goran Ivanisevic

11. Richard Krajicek

12. Michael Stich

13.Sergi Bruguera

14.Arnaud Boetsch

15. Marc Rosset

16.Andreï Medvedev

17.Magnus Larsson

18. Todd Martin

19.Stefan Edberg

20. Albert Costa.



Anyone with any knowledge of tennis would admit that lot is >>>>>>>> daylight >>>>> present lot. Take out Roddick, Federer, Nadal and all you have are mediocre players who wouldnt be in the top 10 in the above list.
Click to expand...
Of the 14 Grand Slam Winners from the Top 20 from 1995, Muster, Chang, Costa, Medvedev, Bruguera only achieved Grand Slam Success on clay, there was no clay shark like Nadal but more importantly Sampras couldn't play on it as we all know. Federer has made changes to his game and and changes to the relationship between him and Rafa to ensure he will win this year's FO (he has the mental edge now) which I believe will place him above Sampras.

The reason there is not heaps of Top 20 GS winners today is because clay-court-clowns with big serves like Krajicek, Stich and Ivanisevic playing on lightning fast grass courts could chip in for a Wimbledon, and the Winner of the French Open was practically a lottery (which hasn't been the case today because of Kuerten than Rafa; Kuerten would have won alot more if not for his hip). The slowing down of the grass courts at Wimbledon mean guys like Ljubocic, Ancic and Safin cannot chime in with a Wimbledon win, and a true all court player is more rewarded (Federer). If the courts remained as fast, Federer might not be winning it every year, and we might not be having this discussion ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting federer V Sampras stats.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top