This is world class men's tennis?

Glasgow Seahawk":adjds00p said:

NoChops":adjds00p said:

KK84":adjds00p said:

The Wimbledon finals Federer vs Nadal in 2008 and Federer vs Roddick 2009 both blew anything Sampras did out of the water. I was a huge Sampras fan growing up, but anyone who says Tennis was better then than it is now isn't watching.

Click to expand...

I am watching and it was better then, and I'll tell you why.

At one point the game was full of stars that could win a slam at any given point. Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang, Goron, Krajicek, and a handful of "old guard" that could still play spoiler if they caught a break. Edberg, Lendal, Becker, Conners, MAC. Hell, Conners was 83 years old when he made is run in 91.

That is nine hall of fame players that were all playing at the same time. Today's game is in fine shape, but Tennis was "better" then.

Click to expand...

Now you have Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro who could win at any given time. Feder is on the decline and Nadals injuries are catching up on him but those players would probably beat most tennis players of the past due to increased technologies and fitness.

Why is US mens tennis in a funk right now?

Britains has sucked for years and Murray is an exception as he is/was based and trained in Barcelona.

Click to expand...

Those guys are legit. But name me 5 more hall of fame players that could win right now. With the exception of maybe Edberg every name I posted could have won a major in 1990 and some of those really old farts actually did. The game was soooo much deeper in talent then. I've got 9 hall of famers to your 2..try again.

There's less hall of famers and fewer major winners in this era for a good reason. Take all those names from the early 90s and have them run into Federer and Nadal every tournament and they'd have significantly lesser careers methinks.

NoChops":2ixeig2b said:

KK84":2ixeig2b said:

The Wimbledon finals Federer vs Nadal in 2008 and Federer vs Roddick 2009 both blew anything Sampras did out of the water. I was a huge Sampras fan growing up, but anyone who says Tennis was better then than it is now isn't watching.

Click to expand...

I am watching and it was better then, and I'll tell you why.

At one point the game was full of stars that could win a slam at any given point. Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang, Goron, Krajicek, and a handful of "old guard" that could still play spoiler if they caught a break. Edberg, Lendal, Becker, Conners, MAC. Hell, Conners was 83 years old when he made is run in 91.

That is nine hall of fame players that were all playing at the same time. Today's game is in fine shape, but Tennis was "better" then.

Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with your list there. First of all, you're combining two different eras. Connors and Macenroe playing spoiler to Sampras and Agassi? Really? When?

Secondly of the 6 stars you mentioned, Chang, Ivanisivic, and Krajicek only won 1 major each……it's the same as most other sports. People's brains play tricks on them when it comes to the good ole days.

KK84":2t8odl4i said:

There's less hall of famers and fewer major winners in this era for a good reason. Take all those names from the early 90s and have them run into Federer and Nadal every tournament and they'd have significantly lesser careers methinks.

Click to expand...

two way street sir. Roger doesn't have the titles he had if he had to play pete and andre either.He only played Aggasi when he was basicly playing for a paycheck. Nadal would still dominate in Paris, but he would probably have 3-4 less titels there.

KK84":q8xqr7ei said:

NoChops":q8xqr7ei said:

KK84":q8xqr7ei said:

The Wimbledon finals Federer vs Nadal in 2008 and Federer vs Roddick 2009 both blew anything Sampras did out of the water. I was a huge Sampras fan growing up, but anyone who says Tennis was better then than it is now isn't watching.

Click to expand...

I am watching and it was better then, and I'll tell you why.

At one point the game was full of stars that could win a slam at any given point. Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang, Goron, Krajicek, and a handful of "old guard" that could still play spoiler if they caught a break. Edberg, Lendal, Becker, Conners, MAC. Hell, Conners was 83 years old when he made is run in 91.

That is nine hall of fame players that were all playing at the same time. Today's game is in fine shape, but Tennis was "better" then.

Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with your list there. First of all, you're combining two different eras. Connors and Macenroe playing spoiler to Sampras and Agassi? Really? When?

Secondly of the 6 stars you mentioned, Chang, Ivanisivic, and Krajicek only won 1 major each……it's the same as most other sports. People's brains play tricks on them when it comes to the good ole days.

Click to expand...

I just said spoilers, not spoilers to andre and pete. but, Connors and Mac made it to the Semi's/quaters of the open in 91/92 respectively, very much on the wrong side of 40. Has it happened since? Nope. My mind is still pretty sharp, im about the same age as when Jimmy made it to the semis in NY.. Becker won in the 90's Lendl won in the 90's. I threw in Goron and Dick so people wouldn't think I was just ra ra on the 4 Americans.

Im not gonna bother to look it up, but I'll take a guess and say Chang won more titles than any player playing today not named Roger or Nadal.

There's always going to be some crossover between eras. Sampras was stopped from winning a fifth Wimbledon in a row when he was knocked out by a teenage Federer, and both Agassi and Sampras won titles after that (in 2002), so you could include Agassi and Sampras as part of the current era. Plus, there are some young guys playing now (Raonic? Janowicz?) who will go on to take over from the current guys, so you can't judge this era yet. But to compare today's guys to the 90's, it's not even close:-

If you restrict yourself to the modern era, it would be hard to argue against Fed being the best ever.

Nadal is the best ever clay court player, and despite playing at the same time as Fed has 12 majors - who wouldn't put him in the top 5 ever?

Djokovic is just entering his prime, and already has 6 majors. Could be 7 by tonight. He will win more majors than anyone from the 80s and 90s except Sampras.

Murray has one major so far, but has lost 4 finals to the 3 above. I fancy him to win more majors, but there is no disgrace to only winning a couple when you play at the same time as two of the best players ever.

Some of the players on your list are essentially nobodies in tennis history terms. Kraijcek? Chang? They won one major each, exactly one less than Leyton Hewitt and the same as Del Potro (who is still improving). Chang couldn't play on grass to same himself.

That crossover is exactly what I am talking about. I didn't rag on the guys playing today other than stating that Nadal can't keep his fingers out of his own ass, I was just pointing out at one point you had a dozen hall of fame players all playing at the same time. 5 greats being replaced by 4 new ones and to me that makes it the best era. It was better than pete and andre being replaced by fed and nadal.

Really don't know why you rag on Chang though, youngest slam winner ever, beat Edberg and Lendl on his way to that title. Longest match in U.S. Open history, guy was a ball machine for two decades. 34 atp titles is nothing to shake a stick at.

Why don't we make this much more interesting....Sabatini vs. Sharapova??

I would still take Sabatini over Sharapova today. In straight sets.

Might be the age I was when she was playing...

i was thinking more how she would sweat through her outfit. Never seen a woman sweat so much and make it so damn sexy. minus the really bad 80's hair, that lady was HOT HOT HOT

I meant the same thing. I was just using metaphor to hide the fact I was a pervert.

Back to the extremely misguided OP, I hope that when you watch the highlights of today's final, you will realise that was 10 times better than a Sampras final.

BRITISH WINNER AT WIMBLEDON!

Andrew Murray you are incredible.

cdallan":2cq5wi2n said:

I meant the same thing. I was just using metaphor to hide the fact I was a pervert.

Back to the extremely misguided OP, I hope that when you watch the highlights of today's final, you will realise that was 10 times better than a Sampras final.

Click to expand...

We meet for coffee in a sports bar mondays and fridays so will undoubtably be forced to watch replays in 70 TVs. Thank God no sound to listen to.

Perhaps I can get our server to put The Speed Channel on.

For your info I rarely watched Sampras play. Tennis is not my game. But I did take the time to watch Borg, Conners, Laver, and some others that interested me. Its like Golf, unless Tiger is playing I don't know but about 2-3 other names and pay no attention at all to the game.

Paint drys faster than excitement flows from the men's tennis game as far as I'm concerned. This is a place of varying opinions, stop trying to change mine and improve yours. We disagree on this subject.

You probably like futbol too!

You can't disagree with my opinion on tennis. I'm a Scot, we're the best in the World at it.

cdallan":1g8z62z6 said:

You can't disagree with my opinion on tennis. I'm a Scot, we're the best in the World at it.

Click to expand...

That is not what they say about you in Marykirk.

:les:

Like I would get caught dead in Marykirk.