Topic: New Coach for Roger

[dmastous]

This has gone way off topic. It's gotten to a discussion which has no winners and no losers. There is no way to make a substantial argument either way. The data is too bendable. You can tweak it anyway you want and come to your own conclusions.
Please, get back to the original discussion, or go somewhere else. Dig up an old GOAT thread and bang away 

[rafan]

Seems like there are quite a few here who are obsessed with stats and the basis for their arguments is pure numbers. But let me remind them that there is lot more beyond mere numbers. skill level, opponents, mental strength and many other things. They cannot be measured by stats. They are felt. If you brush aside all those things and just go blindly by numbers to form an argument, that's wrong. Stats are important, but not everything. Do you rate Federer's double bagel delight against hartfield in some opening round of a slam equally with Roddick's blasting from melbourne last year because the stats are similar? I mean the numbers are similar. So according to you, Federer beating Hartfield in some 2nd round and Federer mastering Roddick in a semifinal are both pretty much same LEVEL of performances because the numbers are similar. Yeah, that's what I mean.

[rafan]

This has gone way off topic. It's gotten to a discussion which has no winners and no losers. There is no way to make a substantial argument either way. The data is too bendable. You can tweak it anyway you want and come to your own conclusions.
Please, get back to the original discussion, or go somewhere else. Dig up an old GOAT thread and bang away 

That's what I asked the members to do a few posts back because this issue will always be discussed until Federer does one of those two things. But a few outrageous posts got me responding again. 

[TennisVeritas]

hunting you, we haven't in any way diminished roger's achievements....we have given the great guy the credit he deserves,...if you have observed my posts carefully then you'll see that in my explanation of my GS scenario I don't at all blame the top seed if he wins because he has made the best use of it...but what the three of us are trying to say is that Roger has capitalized on a weak era...good for him and no doubt that he deserves all the praise he is getting but then you can never say that Goran is equivalent to Roddick (oh please that just sounds ridiculous to me) Roddick has worked harder no doubt but is he ever a serious contender for GS these days? While there were big players in wimby even though Goran had not won a slam in the mid 90's Goran had always been counted as one of the favorites to win the wimby...evn Sampras has mentioned that he was 'scared' of Goran...hmm how many of our top players are 'scared' of Roddick?? Leave alone Roger being scared of him...
                 Again coming to Agassi...may be he is overrated...but when you and kittens are hurling records after records at us then surely you must have overlooked the career GS that Agassi has managed to achieve...Agassi was a very good baseliner...in fact i believe that had he concentrated a lot more on his career he could have gone to double digits in terms of number of GS....Surely Fed has gone beyond Agassi...but when you say that Agassi had a very weak era during which he could dominate then aren't you countering your own post because Fed had after all kind of dominated the 'not-so-great' agassi according to you?? Again we aren't comparing Agassi to Fed anyways...so why are you ranting about Agassi here?
 And when you are saying that we don't bother to answer your questions it just seems that you are not really reading our posts carefully...sorry but before posting make sure you read all the posts carefully...then we shall talk...Look we are not blinded and we don't give a damn whether you are a Fed fan or a sampras fan...all we are discussing is the era...and you need not justify your position just because you 'aren't a Fed fan' because it doesn't make any damn difference to us.
                 
 

But what you also haven't done is take a numerical, or sensible approach to comparing the eras.

This is what is really being said here..  And what so many of us get so frustrated about.  Emma and you, and WHOMEVER, have the right to believe whatever you want.  That is no problem.

The problem with weak era theorist is that they NEVER back up what they say.  All you have done is given us conjecture instead of a side by side comparison, or anything that could be termed evidence.

Look at your Goran comparison.  It is pure opinion.  The numbers and the results point to Roddick.  Sorry, but Pete saying he is scared of Goran doesn't mean anything.  Pete was also scared and OWNED by Guy Forget and Richard Krajicek, but that doesn't vault them ahead of slam winners in my book.  Not that opinion doesn't mean anything, but come on.  Can't you (you = weak era theorist , not as in:  you = you on other matters     ) just once back your opinion up??   

Seriously, I have never heard a systematic, FACT based reason ONCE for the weak era.  On numerous websites no one has ever said, "Ok, the 00's are weak because Player A did this, and comparable Player B did this in a similar period." and so on.

Just once I would love to hear you guys, who proclaim it like it is fact, to actually use anything besides your own opinion.  I mean ANYTHING that makes sense and could be considered intelligent and comparative.

If no one can do that, then let it go...

You are not an owner of a player when you have a 6-4 overall and 1-1 in slams H-to-H against him. Owning a player means something like 12-6 overall, 5-2 in slams and 9-1 on one surface. Also something like 8-0 for a course of time(Hewitt over Federer, even Nalbandian? not sure, check the records). The things which Sampras never allowed anyone to do to him despite having some legends along side him during his playing days.

Sure..And how many times Pete was able to compete against those legends on his worst surface, i.e. clay??  ..Umm..

Wait not a lot given his poor record in this surface (e.g. how many RG finals or even semi for Pete  )...And who was his major contender on clay during the '93-'98 period (his best seasons)? ..Where was a monster of the size of Rafa during that period?? How many matches between this monster and Pete on clay ??  ..

My God what a weak arguments are yours  ...

BTW you should remember the following: John Mac and Borg had a final H2H of 7-7..But Mac once pointed quite clearly out the following FACT: my H2H against Borg is quite good but this is due also to the fact that I did never manage to play Borg on clay, in that case my H2H would be far worst..Here it is: a very similar case than FED with RAFA..But FED is good on clay so he ends up playing against the MONSTER   

RAFA IS THE BEST CLAY COURTER PLAYER ON THE OPEN ERA: FACT AND UNFORTUNATELY (OR FURTUNATELY DEPENDS) FED IS PLAYING AGAINST HIM

Now, having such a H2H against him is not so bad: Who was the only opponent of Rafa on that surface during the '06-'07 seasons? FED..How tested the most during these seasons..Him..In '08 we had simply a FED playing 10-20% less of his usual standard (high) level and Rafa was (is) near to his best on clay (and even outside IMO):

What do you expect as a result?

More hypocrisy: You are telling us that numbers and statistics are not everything but concerning FED and Rafa IT IS EVERYTHING right? Great double standard here..Finally, if Numbers are not everything: Could you please tell me your hypothetical H2H between Pete and Rafa on clay? Will he very different from the one of FED?..Sure I am already 

[rafan]

hunting you, we haven't in any way diminished roger's achievements....we have given the great guy the credit he deserves,...if you have observed my posts carefully then you'll see that in my explanation of my GS scenario I don't at all blame the top seed if he wins because he has made the best use of it...but what the three of us are trying to say is that Roger has capitalized on a weak era...good for him and no doubt that he deserves all the praise he is getting but then you can never say that Goran is equivalent to Roddick (oh please that just sounds ridiculous to me) Roddick has worked harder no doubt but is he ever a serious contender for GS these days? While there were big players in wimby even though Goran had not won a slam in the mid 90's Goran had always been counted as one of the favorites to win the wimby...evn Sampras has mentioned that he was 'scared' of Goran...hmm how many of our top players are 'scared' of Roddick?? Leave alone Roger being scared of him...
                 Again coming to Agassi...may be he is overrated...but when you and kittens are hurling records after records at us then surely you must have overlooked the career GS that Agassi has managed to achieve...Agassi was a very good baseliner...in fact i believe that had he concentrated a lot more on his career he could have gone to double digits in terms of number of GS....Surely Fed has gone beyond Agassi...but when you say that Agassi had a very weak era during which he could dominate then aren't you countering your own post because Fed had after all kind of dominated the 'not-so-great' agassi according to you?? Again we aren't comparing Agassi to Fed anyways...so why are you ranting about Agassi here?
 And when you are saying that we don't bother to answer your questions it just seems that you are not really reading our posts carefully...sorry but before posting make sure you read all the posts carefully...then we shall talk...Look we are not blinded and we don't give a damn whether you are a Fed fan or a sampras fan...all we are discussing is the era...and you need not justify your position just because you 'aren't a Fed fan' because it doesn't make any damn difference to us.
                 
 

But what you also haven't done is take a numerical, or sensible approach to comparing the eras.

This is what is really being said here..  And what so many of us get so frustrated about.  Emma and you, and WHOMEVER, have the right to believe whatever you want.  That is no problem.

The problem with weak era theorist is that they NEVER back up what they say.  All you have done is given us conjecture instead of a side by side comparison, or anything that could be termed evidence.

Look at your Goran comparison.  It is pure opinion.  The numbers and the results point to Roddick.  Sorry, but Pete saying he is scared of Goran doesn't mean anything.  Pete was also scared and OWNED by Guy Forget and Richard Krajicek, but that doesn't vault them ahead of slam winners in my book.  Not that opinion doesn't mean anything, but come on.  Can't you (you = weak era theorist , not as in:  you = you on other matters     ) just once back your opinion up??   

Seriously, I have never heard a systematic, FACT based reason ONCE for the weak era.  On numerous websites no one has ever said, "Ok, the 00's are weak because Player A did this, and comparable Player B did this in a similar period." and so on.

Just once I would love to hear you guys, who proclaim it like it is fact, to actually use anything besides your own opinion.  I mean ANYTHING that makes sense and could be considered intelligent and comparative.

If no one can do that, then let it go...

You are not an owner of a player when you have a 6-4 overall and 1-1 in slams H-to-H against him. Owning a player means something like 12-6 overall, 5-2 in slams and 9-1 on one surface. Also something like 8-0 for a course of time(Hewitt over Federer, even Nalbandian? not sure, check the records). The things which Sampras never allowed anyone to do to him despite having some legends along side him during his playing days.

Sure..And how many times Pete was able to compete against his best opponent on his worst surface ..Umm..

Wait not a lot given his poor record on this surface (e.g. how many RG finals or even semi for Pete  )...And who was his major contender on clay during the '93-'98 period? ..Where was a monster of the size of Rafa in the '90..

RAFA IS THE BEST CLAY COURTER PLAYER ON THE OPEN ERA: FACT AND UNFORTUNATELY (OR FURTUNATELY DEPENDS) FED IS PLAYING AGAINST HIM

Now, having such a H2H against him is not so bad: Who was the only opponent of Rafa on that surface during the '06-'07 seasons? FED..How tested the most during these seasons..Him..In '08 we had simply a FED playing 10-20% less of his usual standard (high) level and Rafa was (is) near to his best on clay (and even outside IMO):

What do you expect as a result?

More hypocrisy: You are telling us that numbers and statistics are not everything but concerning FED and Rafa IT IS EVERYTHING right? Great double standard here..Finally, if Numbers are not everything: Could you please tell me your hypothetical H2H between Pete and Rafa on clay? Will he very different from the one of FED?..Sure I am already 

Yes, unfortunately see his record against Nadal. From that this whole weak era thing gets exposed and sheds light on the issue which highlights the lack of players who are at least 50 or 60% of what Nadal is. I am no hypocrite to go on and say that Pete would have beaten Nadal at French, BUT let me say this much that he wouldn't have given up without trying things differently. His reasons for mediocre performances on clay was more to do with his lack of desire. Not that he couldn't play on clay. Or else, despite playing less amount of clay court tennis, you don't win the second most prestigious clay court title, the Italian open and beat a few clay greats at the Roland Garros. 

Kittens25, beating players like Courier and Bruguera on their favorite surface in one tournament, that too of the magnitude of French open, is something great, no matter what their respective seasons were like till then. Bruguera was still a force on clay in 96, or else he wouldn't have reached the french final in 97 and lost to another great, Kuerten. Something similar goes to courier, he was still reaching the quarters and semis and was not a washed up player like what you say. Despite saying this, as a fan of Sampras, am not convinced that Sampras threw his everything on clay. He could have done much better. You are welcome to disagree.

[rafan]

93-98. I see a repeated mention of this span. What's with that period of 93-98 with Sampras? Din't he play tennis before 93 or after 98? Or that period of 93-98 makes your argument easy? Washed up courier? fading away becker? LOL Becker was going strong even in 96, 97 and produced some of his best tennis in 96. Just because Sampras beat courier after 93, he doesn't become a washed out player. And I see many here who quite blissfully ignore the 90-93 period of sampras' career. Now see this, the list of players who stopped him at slams during that period.

91 US open      - stopped by Jim courier in the QF
92 french open - stopped by Agassi in the QF
92 wimbledon   - Stopped by Ivanisevic in the semis
92 US open      - stopped by Stefan Edberg in the Final
93 Aus open     - stopped once again by Stefan Edberg in the semifinal
93 french open - stopped by Bruguera in the QF 

Sampras din't take part in the 91 and 92 editions of the Aus open. It took players like Agassi, Edberg, Bruguera, Courier(who was then going strong according to you), Ivanisevic on grass to stop him at various slams WHEN HE WAS STILL ZONING IN in that 90-93 period. We call them greats, don't we? Now that's what I mean essentially. Had he been fortunate to enjoy the liberty that Federer enjoyed, any layman would be good enough to guess that he would have added at least half of those slams which he lost during that period when he was still in the process of getting into the groove. His greatness is that he could still end his career winning 14 slams. It's funny that some discredit Sampras because he lost to some lesser ranked players. Ask Becker, ask Mc Enroe, ask Edberg on how tough it is to maintain some consistency playing tennis in SNV style.
Why do you think Becker often came out blasting everything one day and looked totally out of sorts the very next day? In fact it's Sampras' sheer greatness that he could maintain such level of consistency through out playing in a style which is risky and highly prone to errors.

Federer enjoyed liberty of weak competition during which he scalped slams one by one and it's clear to many. With all respects to him, there were no players like Edberg, Courier, Becker or a young Agassi to stop him when he was getting into the groove and even after he started dominating there was just no one who could challenge him. Again, I keep hearing this crap like Federer dominated them and made them look like mediocre players. The opponents of sampras when he was zoning in, all put together have 25-30 slams. How many do Federer's opponents before Nadal and Djokovic have? 5? 6? Now when Nadal has started finding his feet on other surfaces than clay, who is the Boss out there? Yes, that's what I mean. Did players like Roddick or Hewitt or anyone of those early opponents of Federer looked like testing him?  Nadal and Djokovic are simply better than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and the rest. Face it, no harm.   

Many people think in the same way. I repeat that Federer is 27, still capable of playing great tennis, should do one of those two things that I mentioned above for everyone to disbelieve in the weak era argument and put this talk to bed. If not, this arguments will continue to happen in every tennis forum till Federer's retirement and even after that. On that note, let me quit this argument here.

[TennisVeritas]

Ok concerning the technology this is what i think...
  When i purchased my latest racquet and hit the practice courts i was just surprised with the velocity it was able to generate...my dad had always used a wooden one and when he started hitting the ball with my latest racquet all he said was that the ball comes off so easily, you don't have to hit the ball so hard as with a wooden racquet...so what i understood was that with a wooden racket obviously the serve and volley along with baseline game was the norm...but what I don't understand is that with an improved technology, its ought to be easier to serve and volley...please don't say that the baseline game has become so good that you can easily get passed and such crap cos I believe that with a great serve (of say Fed or ARod's calibre) you cud easily approach the net and chip the balls...after all tsonga did it and perhaps with better control could have walked away with th AO title this year....that's what Emma is trying to say...better technology does not imply a better talent or a pool of players...
   And Huntingyou...how can you randomly say that with more population the talent gets even bigger? After all 128 players enter the field and all these 128 have to play others before they end up playing at a GS event and the winner has to play just 7 players to lift the title....what I don't understand is that just because the technology has improved do you mean to say that he automatically has to play better players? After all the champion is equipped with the same technology no?
  Another thing...about Fed's mental ability....no doubt that he is mentally tough...but before the wimby this year I could have been a bit skeptical concerning Pete's edge over Fed in that department...but this year had it been Pete in the finals he would have held the serve...there's just no doubt about it....Fed's ability was to take the game to 5 sets but did not win it...yes he lost it only by a margin but Pete would have just squeezed it.

 Lastly concerning our pet subject...the weak era theory...well I've said it that Fed has done a fantastic job in making the best in his conducive times....but again for perhaps myself, emma and others ARod, Hewitt, a lazy Nalby , a wasted Safin and Donkey are just not the players we'd like to see in the top 10...ok now others like Rafa( who has actually only evolved now), Nole and Murray are up there but from the early days of Fed's GS victories ie from 03 to 06...who were his main competitors in finals? ARod was mostly to be seen in the finals ,no? ARod is a guy with a booming serve and...and....hmm i can't seem to come up with many other shots in his huge 'arsenal'... Nalby never made to a GS final after that one wimby...Safin played whenever he felt like...and then Donkey was the only serious contender...boy a potential slam winner!  Hewitt is just an overrated player...all he had was extremely quick legs and a decent forehand...even Andy Murray of today could easily defeat the player Hewitt was in 01-02....and the other rivals? Gonzalez, Baghdatis...man...super tough players...where is Baggy by the way? I'm not going to dissect each of Pete's rivals in the 90's.YOU SHOULD ...anyways as i have said that Fed has done very well in making the best of his chances and converting most of them into GS victories and here he stands on the brink of greatness...But the weak era theory is not something that we have just 'come up with' to diminish Fed's greatness or something...else all of us could not have agreed on the same views but then its our view 

It seems that wiky is too complicate for you then I will help you. We all agree that the best FED's GS seasons are between '03- and '08 and here are his GS finals victories:

2003 Wimbledon  FED-Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3)
2004 Australian Open  FED- Marat Safin 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2
2004 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2004 US Open  FED- Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0
2005 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2005 US Open FED- Andre Agassi 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1
2006 Australian Open FED- Marcos Baghdatis 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 US Open FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2007 Australian Open FED- Fernando Gonzalez 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4
2007 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 US Open FED- Novak Djokovic 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
2008 US Open FED- Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2

Let me see..In your "objective" (for a FED hater sure  )  post you are telling me that his main opponent was AROD..

Why he had the same amount of lost finals than Rafa..

By the way, what is wrong with AROD..Was Pioline a far better player? Still this was a main opponent of Pete in two finals..Ops 

And you can tell whatever you want but I prefer Marat to the one of the (crazy) Goran (how many GS from this last one compare to Marat..Finals..semi..results on HC please)..

And then after where are all this fantastic names in the '90..What is the difference between Boris in '95 for Pete at Wimbledon and Andre in '05 for FED at the USO (a part might be that Andre was more near his best years than Boris)..I personally prefer Djoko on hard than Moya..And Gonzo and Bagda to Todd Martin..Where is all this big difference!! The presence of Chang  ...   

1993 Wimbledon Pete-Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open  Pete- Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Pete- Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Pete- Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Pete- Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Pete Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 
1997 Australian Open Pete Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Pete- Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2

Continue to believe in your weak era dream: Reality and facts simply tell us that both they were facing similar competition. Even, given the presence of a Moster like Rafa, FED had definitely to face a BIG and challenging competition IMO..

[falcon]

Ok concerning the technology this is what i think...
  When i purchased my latest racquet and hit the practice courts i was just surprised with the velocity it was able to generate...my dad had always used a wooden one and when he started hitting the ball with my latest racquet all he said was that the ball comes off so easily, you don't have to hit the ball so hard as with a wooden racquet...so what i understood was that with a wooden racket obviously the serve and volley along with baseline game was the norm...but what I don't understand is that with an improved technology, its ought to be easier to serve and volley...please don't say that the baseline game has become so good that you can easily get passed and such crap cos I believe that with a great serve (of say Fed or ARod's calibre) you cud easily approach the net and chip the balls...after all tsonga did it and perhaps with better control could have walked away with th AO title this year....that's what Emma is trying to say...better technology does not imply a better talent or a pool of players...
   And Huntingyou...how can you randomly say that with more population the talent gets even bigger? After all 128 players enter the field and all these 128 have to play others before they end up playing at a GS event and the winner has to play just 7 players to lift the title....what I don't understand is that just because the technology has improved do you mean to say that he automatically has to play better players? After all the champion is equipped with the same technology no?
  Another thing...about Fed's mental ability....no doubt that he is mentally tough...but before the wimby this year I could have been a bit skeptical concerning Pete's edge over Fed in that department...but this year had it been Pete in the finals he would have held the serve...there's just no doubt about it....Fed's ability was to take the game to 5 sets but did not win it...yes he lost it only by a margin but Pete would have just squeezed it.

 Lastly concerning our pet subject...the weak era theory...well I've said it that Fed has done a fantastic job in making the best in his conducive times....but again for perhaps myself, emma and others ARod, Hewitt, a lazy Nalby , a wasted Safin and Donkey are just not the players we'd like to see in the top 10...ok now others like Rafa( who has actually only evolved now), Nole and Murray are up there but from the early days of Fed's GS victories ie from 03 to 06...who were his main competitors in finals? ARod was mostly to be seen in the finals ,no? ARod is a guy with a booming serve and...and....hmm i can't seem to come up with many other shots in his huge 'arsenal'... Nalby never made to a GS final after that one wimby...Safin played whenever he felt like...and then Donkey was the only serious contender...boy a potential slam winner!  Hewitt is just an overrated player...all he had was extremely quick legs and a decent forehand...even Andy Murray of today could easily defeat the player Hewitt was in 01-02....and the other rivals? Gonzalez, Baghdatis...man...super tough players...where is Baggy by the way? I'm not going to dissect each of Pete's rivals in the 90's.YOU SHOULD ...anyways as i have said that Fed has done very well in making the best of his chances and converting most of them into GS victories and here he stands on the brink of greatness...But the weak era theory is not something that we have just 'come up with' to diminish Fed's greatness or something...else all of us could not have agreed on the same views but then its our view 

It seems that wiky is too complicate for you then I will help you. We all agree that the best FED's GS seasons are between '03- and '08 and here are his GS finals victories:

2003 Wimbledon  FED-Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3)
2004 Australian Open  FED- Marat Safin 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2
2004 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2004 US Open  FED- Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0
2005 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2005 US Open FED- Andre Agassi 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1
2006 Australian Open FED- Marcos Baghdatis 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 US Open FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2007 Australian Open FED- Fernando Gonzalez 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4
2007 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 US Open FED- Novak Djokovic 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
2008 US Open FED- Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2

Let me see..In your "objective" (for a FED hater sure  )  post you are telling me that his main opponent was AROD..

Why he had the same amount of lost finals than Rafa..

By the way, what is wrong with AROD..Was Pioline a far better player? Still this was a main opponent of Pete in two finals..Ops 

And you can tell whatever you want but I prefer Marat to the one of the (crazy) Goran (how many GS from this last one compare to Marat..Finals..semi..results on HC please)..

And then after where are all this fantastic names in the '90..What is the difference between Boris in '95 for Pete at Wimbledon and Andre in '05 for FED at the USO (a part might be that Andre was more near his best years than Boris)..I personally prefer Djoko on hard than Moya..And Gonzo and Bagda to Todd Martin..Where is all this big difference!! The presence of Chang  ...   

1993 Wimbledon Pete-Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open  Pete- Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Pete- Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Pete- Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Pete- Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Pete Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 
1997 Australian Open Pete Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Pete- Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2

Continue to believe in your weak era dream: Reality and facts simply tell us that both they were facing similar competition. Even, given the presence of a Moster like Rafa, FED had definitely to face a BIG and challenging competition IMO..

Oh do they?? Well who are the best players of the 90's in your opinion? ( apart from Sampras of course)
Muster 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Becker 12-7
Pioline 9-0
Enqvist 9-2
Rafter 12-4
Phillipoussis 7-3
Henman 6-1
Rusedski 9-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Chang 12-8
Albert Costa 5-0
Moya 3-1
Alexander Volkov 9-2
Wheaton 8-0
Kucera 7-1
Courier 16-4
Malavai Washington 7-0
Rosset 5-1
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Rios 2-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

I don't think you will get more comprehensive head to heads than that against some of the best players in the world. Well Pete had to face them all during his time...

Some of the closer records include:

Stich 4-5
Brugera 2-3
Edberg 8-6
Krajicek 4-6
Ferreira 7-6
Corretja 5-3
Agassi 20-14
Kuerten 2-1
Larrson 7-4
Forget 5-4
Santoro 4-3


Now my pick of the best players of all times ( atleast the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's... A winning H2H of Sampras over so many players and some of them were comprehensive victories on clay ALSO.
If you consider the 2003-2006 era of Fed then most of his opponents in major matches were roddick, Nalby, Safin, Hewitt....c'mon why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? Gimme a break....Only safin is an exception...well we all know how devotedly he pursued the sport  Just answer this part...in what way are Arod, Nalby, donkey and Hewitt better than Sampras' early competitors( i.e the 90-93..early 94)  like Courier, Edberg, Becker??? during which time he was stopped from winning atleast 5 more slams?

   And besides why are you getting so defensive? These posts were not targeted at fed at all...if its a weak era it stands up the same way for even Nadal...so there's no point in feeling the way that you do...I mean thinking that these posts are all targeted against Fed...we are just discussing the eras...the various players of different eras...some of us felt that there was far more variety ( surely we get to see so much of snV these days no?) in the 90's...different playing styles...and specialization of players on different courts...like Kafelniov, Kuerten, Muster,Moya, even Chang specializing on clay....Becker, Edberg, Goran, Pete on grass....Agassi, Courier, rafter and Pete again on hard courts....while today i ( and many others) feel that most of the players are just hard court ball bashers (other than rafa and Fed )...that's all...not targeting any player....i'm sorry if you felt that way...because I don't know where that idea came into your head...as I've never ever posted anything against Fed....once again..I'm just discussing the eras...

[TheEternalCowboy]

Seems like there are quite a few here who are obsessed with stats and the basis for their arguments is pure numbers. But let me remind them that there is lot more beyond mere numbers. skill level, opponents, mental strength and many other things. They cannot be measured by stats. They are felt. If you brush aside all those things and just go blindly by numbers to form an argument, that's wrong. Stats are important, but not everything. Do you rate Federer's double bagel delight against hartfield in some opening round of a slam equally with Roddick's blasting from melbourne last year because the stats are similar? I mean the numbers are similar. So according to you, Federer beating Hartfield in some 2nd round and Federer mastering Roddick in a semifinal are both pretty much same LEVEL of performances because the numbers are similar. Yeah, that's what I mean.

That's why I personally feel that I was the greatest tennis champion from the early 90's till today.  I may not have stats to back in up, but I have HEART. 

[TennisVeritas]

Ok concerning the technology this is what i think...
  When i purchased my latest racquet and hit the practice courts i was just surprised with the velocity it was able to generate...my dad had always used a wooden one and when he started hitting the ball with my latest racquet all he said was that the ball comes off so easily, you don't have to hit the ball so hard as with a wooden racquet...so what i understood was that with a wooden racket obviously the serve and volley along with baseline game was the norm...but what I don't understand is that with an improved technology, its ought to be easier to serve and volley...please don't say that the baseline game has become so good that you can easily get passed and such crap cos I believe that with a great serve (of say Fed or ARod's calibre) you cud easily approach the net and chip the balls...after all tsonga did it and perhaps with better control could have walked away with th AO title this year....that's what Emma is trying to say...better technology does not imply a better talent or a pool of players...
   And Huntingyou...how can you randomly say that with more population the talent gets even bigger? After all 128 players enter the field and all these 128 have to play others before they end up playing at a GS event and the winner has to play just 7 players to lift the title....what I don't understand is that just because the technology has improved do you mean to say that he automatically has to play better players? After all the champion is equipped with the same technology no?
  Another thing...about Fed's mental ability....no doubt that he is mentally tough...but before the wimby this year I could have been a bit skeptical concerning Pete's edge over Fed in that department...but this year had it been Pete in the finals he would have held the serve...there's just no doubt about it....Fed's ability was to take the game to 5 sets but did not win it...yes he lost it only by a margin but Pete would have just squeezed it.

 Lastly concerning our pet subject...the weak era theory...well I've said it that Fed has done a fantastic job in making the best in his conducive times....but again for perhaps myself, emma and others ARod, Hewitt, a lazy Nalby , a wasted Safin and Donkey are just not the players we'd like to see in the top 10...ok now others like Rafa( who has actually only evolved now), Nole and Murray are up there but from the early days of Fed's GS victories ie from 03 to 06...who were his main competitors in finals? ARod was mostly to be seen in the finals ,no? ARod is a guy with a booming serve and...and....hmm i can't seem to come up with many other shots in his huge 'arsenal'... Nalby never made to a GS final after that one wimby...Safin played whenever he felt like...and then Donkey was the only serious contender...boy a potential slam winner!  Hewitt is just an overrated player...all he had was extremely quick legs and a decent forehand...even Andy Murray of today could easily defeat the player Hewitt was in 01-02....and the other rivals? Gonzalez, Baghdatis...man...super tough players...where is Baggy by the way? I'm not going to dissect each of Pete's rivals in the 90's.YOU SHOULD ...anyways as i have said that Fed has done very well in making the best of his chances and converting most of them into GS victories and here he stands on the brink of greatness...But the weak era theory is not something that we have just 'come up with' to diminish Fed's greatness or something...else all of us could not have agreed on the same views but then its our view 

It seems that wiky is too complicate for you then I will help you. We all agree that the best FED's GS seasons are between '03- and '08 and here are his GS finals victories:

2003 Wimbledon  FED-Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3)
2004 Australian Open  FED- Marat Safin 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2
2004 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2004 US Open  FED- Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0
2005 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2005 US Open FED- Andre Agassi 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1
2006 Australian Open FED- Marcos Baghdatis 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 US Open FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2007 Australian Open FED- Fernando Gonzalez 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4
2007 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 US Open FED- Novak Djokovic 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
2008 US Open FED- Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2

Let me see..In your "objective" (for a FED hater sure  )  post you are telling me that his main opponent was AROD..

Why he had the same amount of lost finals than Rafa..

By the way, what is wrong with AROD..Was Pioline a far better player? Still this was a main opponent of Pete in two finals..Ops 

And you can tell whatever you want but I prefer Marat to the one of the (crazy) Goran (how many GS from this last one compare to Marat..Finals..semi..results on HC please)..

And then after where are all this fantastic names in the '90..What is the difference between Boris in '95 for Pete at Wimbledon and Andre in '05 for FED at the USO (a part might be that Andre was more near his best years than Boris)..I personally prefer Djoko on hard than Moya..And Gonzo and Bagda to Todd Martin..Where is all this big difference!! The presence of Chang  ...   

1993 Wimbledon Pete-Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open  Pete- Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Pete- Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Pete- Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Pete- Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Pete Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 
1997 Australian Open Pete Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Pete- Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2

Continue to believe in your weak era dream: Reality and facts simply tell us that both they were facing similar competition. Even, given the presence of a Moster like Rafa, FED had definitely to face a BIG and challenging competition IMO..

Oh do they?? Well who are the best players of the 90's in your opinion? ( apart from Sampras of course)
Muster 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Becker 12-7
Pioline 9-0
Enqvist 9-2
Rafter 12-4
Phillipoussis 7-3
Henman 6-1
Rusedski 9-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Chang 12-8
Albert Costa 5-0
Moya 3-1
Alexander Volkov 9-2
Wheaton 8-0
Kucera 7-1
Courier 16-4
Malavai Washington 7-0
Rosset 5-1
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Rios 2-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

I don't think you will get more comprehensive head to heads than that against some of the best players in the world. Well Pete had to face them all during his time...

Some of the closer records include:

Stich 4-5
Brugera 2-3
Edberg 8-6
Krajicek 4-6
Ferreira 7-6
Corretja 5-3
Agassi 20-14
Kuerten 2-1
Larrson 7-4
Forget 5-4
Santoro 4-3


Now my pick of the best players of all times ( atleast the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's... A winning H2H of Sampras over so many players and some of them were comprehensive victories on clay ALSO.

If you consider the 2003-2006 era of Fed then most of his opponents in major matches were roddick, Nalby, Safin, Hewitt....c'mon why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? Gimme a break....Only Safin is an exception...well we all know how devotedly he pursued the sport  Just answer this part...in what way are Arod, Nalby, donkey and Hewitt better than Sampras' early competitors( i.e the 90-93..early 94)  like Courier, Edberg, Becker??? during which time he was stopped from winning atleast 5 more slams?

   And besides why are you getting so defensive? These posts were not targeted at fed at all...if its a weak era it stands up the same way for even Nadal...so there's no point in feeling the way that you do...I mean thinking that these posts are all targeted against Fed...we are just discussing the eras...the various players of different eras...some of us felt that there was far more variety ( surely we get to see so much of snV these days no?) in the 90's...different playing styles...and specialization of players on different courts...like Kafelniov, Kuerten, Muster,Moya, even Chang specializing on clay....Becker, Edberg, Goran, Pete on grass....Agassi, Courier, rafter and Pete again on hard courts....while today i ( and many others) feel that most of the players are just hard court ball bashers (other than rafa and Fed )...that's all...not targeting any player....i'm sorry if you felt that way...because I don't know where that idea came into your head...as I've never ever posted anything against Fed....once again..I'm just discussing the eras...

What a great double standard in your last post..

You are taken the shortest period possible for FED '03-'06 (why not '07 , why not this year: he was still at the top, still GS winner and N#2 in the ranking as the worst result) and you are pointing out the poor competition over this short period and at the same time, in a typical hypocrite way so characteristic of a FED hater, everything about Pete is extended all over the '90 (I.E. ALL THE 10 seasons)  

Are you able to read? My analysis was concerning the '3-'8 span for both players (I.E. '93-'98 FOR PETE AND '03-'08 FOR FED; THE PERIOD IN WHICH BOTH OF THEM THEY HAVE ACHIEVED THE MOST: THE HOT OF THEIR ERA IF YOU WANT).

If you read properly my previous posts you will see that I never wrote this:

"Why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? " [ NEVER POSTED THAT: YOU ARE READING BETWEEN THE LINES: SOMETHING QUITE NATURAL IN INDIA IT SEEMS]

I am not saying that. My point is the following (as HY did as well):

Agassi was erratic from 1993-1998
Courier got burn out after 1993
Becker wasn't Becker Becker of 1985-1992
Edberg fade away after 1993

So, once again, the competition during their best years was similar for both: If you are telling it was weak for FED during the '03-'08 then it was also the case of Pete in his '93 - '98..

Finally, you are telling us that: "Now my pick of the best players of all times (at least the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's" You really saw few Tennis right: Age please? What about al the open era great players in the end of '60-'70-'80 ...Ops but then I notice that you are telling me that for you these are great players:

Rusedski 9-1  
Ivanisevic 12-6
Enqvist 9-2
Pioline 9-0  
Malavai Washington 7-0  
Rosset 5-1  
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

Thanks for the  

What it is sure it is that we will never see Tennis in the same way and we will disagree a lot: These are your great players in the '90...Your gold age of Tennis  

Sure: this is a question of taste and I do not have any intention to discuss your bad tastes.

But then why you did not consider those fantastic players then:

Christo Van Rensburg (1-2), WHO
Andy Roddick (1-2),
Max Mirnyi (1-2),  
Marat Safin (3-4), ops  
Lleyton Hewitt (4-5), ops ops  
Paul Haarhuis (1-3),  
Richard Krajicek (4-6),

Ops..All of them they have a positive H2H with your idol..I see you are so objective..

More..You are moving: The weak era was first IN YOUR POST defined by the "main competitors in [FED] finals [BEING CLOWNS]" (your words)..

I SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF DIFFERENCE WITH PETE COMPETITORS IN GS FINALS AND THEN AS A CONSEQUENCE YOU RUN AWAY TO THE PETE'S H2H OVER 10 YEARS WITH THE GREAT PLAYERS OF THE '90  ..

I am wondering your next step: Take only the '05 season for FED and in the same time consider Lendl and Mac as being part of the Pete era  

[jeffrx]

<<<<<<Gut feeling, no numbers, stats, or anything else needed>>>>>>>>

Federer is/was better than Sampras was.  He simply has more tennis talent, although Pete was a marvelous player.  Even if you take my pro-American bias into account, Federer still comes out on top.

Just my 2 cents.  No arguing will be done by me because in the great scheme of things, does it really matter all that much?

[falcon]

Ok concerning the technology this is what i think...
  When i purchased my latest racquet and hit the practice courts i was just surprised with the velocity it was able to generate...my dad had always used a wooden one and when he started hitting the ball with my latest racquet all he said was that the ball comes off so easily, you don't have to hit the ball so hard as with a wooden racquet...so what i understood was that with a wooden racket obviously the serve and volley along with baseline game was the norm...but what I don't understand is that with an improved technology, its ought to be easier to serve and volley...please don't say that the baseline game has become so good that you can easily get passed and such crap cos I believe that with a great serve (of say Fed or ARod's calibre) you cud easily approach the net and chip the balls...after all tsonga did it and perhaps with better control could have walked away with th AO title this year....that's what Emma is trying to say...better technology does not imply a better talent or a pool of players...
   And Huntingyou...how can you randomly say that with more population the talent gets even bigger? After all 128 players enter the field and all these 128 have to play others before they end up playing at a GS event and the winner has to play just 7 players to lift the title....what I don't understand is that just because the technology has improved do you mean to say that he automatically has to play better players? After all the champion is equipped with the same technology no?
  Another thing...about Fed's mental ability....no doubt that he is mentally tough...but before the wimby this year I could have been a bit skeptical concerning Pete's edge over Fed in that department...but this year had it been Pete in the finals he would have held the serve...there's just no doubt about it....Fed's ability was to take the game to 5 sets but did not win it...yes he lost it only by a margin but Pete would have just squeezed it.

 Lastly concerning our pet subject...the weak era theory...well I've said it that Fed has done a fantastic job in making the best in his conducive times....but again for perhaps myself, emma and others ARod, Hewitt, a lazy Nalby , a wasted Safin and Donkey are just not the players we'd like to see in the top 10...ok now others like Rafa( who has actually only evolved now), Nole and Murray are up there but from the early days of Fed's GS victories ie from 03 to 06...who were his main competitors in finals? ARod was mostly to be seen in the finals ,no? ARod is a guy with a booming serve and...and....hmm i can't seem to come up with many other shots in his huge 'arsenal'... Nalby never made to a GS final after that one wimby...Safin played whenever he felt like...and then Donkey was the only serious contender...boy a potential slam winner!  Hewitt is just an overrated player...all he had was extremely quick legs and a decent forehand...even Andy Murray of today could easily defeat the player Hewitt was in 01-02....and the other rivals? Gonzalez, Baghdatis...man...super tough players...where is Baggy by the way? I'm not going to dissect each of Pete's rivals in the 90's.YOU SHOULD ...anyways as i have said that Fed has done very well in making the best of his chances and converting most of them into GS victories and here he stands on the brink of greatness...But the weak era theory is not something that we have just 'come up with' to diminish Fed's greatness or something...else all of us could not have agreed on the same views but then its our view 

It seems that wiky is too complicate for you then I will help you. We all agree that the best FED's GS seasons are between '03- and '08 and here are his GS finals victories:

2003 Wimbledon  FED-Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3)
2004 Australian Open  FED- Marat Safin 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2
2004 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2004 US Open  FED- Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0
2005 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2005 US Open FED- Andre Agassi 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1
2006 Australian Open FED- Marcos Baghdatis 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 US Open FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2007 Australian Open FED- Fernando Gonzalez 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4
2007 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 US Open FED- Novak Djokovic 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
2008 US Open FED- Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2

Let me see..In your "objective" (for a FED hater sure  )  post you are telling me that his main opponent was AROD..

Why he had the same amount of lost finals than Rafa..

By the way, what is wrong with AROD..Was Pioline a far better player? Still this was a main opponent of Pete in two finals..Ops 

And you can tell whatever you want but I prefer Marat to the one of the (crazy) Goran (how many GS from this last one compare to Marat..Finals..semi..results on HC please)..

And then after where are all this fantastic names in the '90..What is the difference between Boris in '95 for Pete at Wimbledon and Andre in '05 for FED at the USO (a part might be that Andre was more near his best years than Boris)..I personally prefer Djoko on hard than Moya..And Gonzo and Bagda to Todd Martin..Where is all this big difference!! The presence of Chang  ...   

1993 Wimbledon Pete-Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open  Pete- Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Pete- Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Pete- Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Pete- Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Pete Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 
1997 Australian Open Pete Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Pete- Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2

Continue to believe in your weak era dream: Reality and facts simply tell us that both they were facing similar competition. Even, given the presence of a Moster like Rafa, FED had definitely to face a BIG and challenging competition IMO..

Oh do they?? Well who are the best players of the 90's in your opinion? ( apart from Sampras of course)
Muster 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Becker 12-7
Pioline 9-0
Enqvist 9-2
Rafter 12-4
Phillipoussis 7-3
Henman 6-1
Rusedski 9-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Chang 12-8
Albert Costa 5-0
Moya 3-1
Alexander Volkov 9-2
Wheaton 8-0
Kucera 7-1
Courier 16-4
Malavai Washington 7-0
Rosset 5-1
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Rios 2-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

I don't think you will get more comprehensive head to heads than that against some of the best players in the world. Well Pete had to face them all during his time...

Some of the closer records include:

Stich 4-5
Brugera 2-3
Edberg 8-6
Krajicek 4-6
Ferreira 7-6
Corretja 5-3
Agassi 20-14
Kuerten 2-1
Larrson 7-4
Forget 5-4
Santoro 4-3


Now my pick of the best players of all times ( atleast the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's... A winning H2H of Sampras over so many players and some of them were comprehensive victories on clay ALSO.

If you consider the 2003-2006 era of Fed then most of his opponents in major matches were roddick, Nalby, Safin, Hewitt....c'mon why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? Gimme a break....Only Safin is an exception...well we all know how devotedly he pursued the sport  Just answer this part...in what way are Arod, Nalby, donkey and Hewitt better than Sampras' early competitors( i.e the 90-93..early 94)  like Courier, Edberg, Becker??? during which time he was stopped from winning atleast 5 more slams?

   And besides why are you getting so defensive? These posts were not targeted at fed at all...if its a weak era it stands up the same way for even Nadal...so there's no point in feeling the way that you do...I mean thinking that these posts are all targeted against Fed...we are just discussing the eras...the various players of different eras...some of us felt that there was far more variety ( surely we get to see so much of snV these days no?) in the 90's...different playing styles...and specialization of players on different courts...like Kafelniov, Kuerten, Muster,Moya, even Chang specializing on clay....Becker, Edberg, Goran, Pete on grass....Agassi, Courier, rafter and Pete again on hard courts....while today i ( and many others) feel that most of the players are just hard court ball bashers (other than rafa and Fed )...that's all...not targeting any player....i'm sorry if you felt that way...because I don't know where that idea came into your head...as I've never ever posted anything against Fed....once again..I'm just discussing the eras...

What a great double standard in your last post..

You are taken the shortest period possible for FED '03-'06 (why not '07 , why not this year: he was still at the top, still GS winner and N#2 in the ranking as the worst result) and you are pointing out the poor competition over this short period and at the same time, in a typical hypocrite way so characteristic of a FED hater, everything about Pete is extended all over the '90 (I.E. ALL THE 10 seasons)  

Are you able to read? My analysis was concerning the '3-'8 span for both players (I.E. '93-'98 FOR PETE AND '03-'08 FOR FED; THE PERIOD IN WHICH BOTH OF THEM THEY HAVE ACHIEVED THE MOST: THE HOT OF THEIR ERA IF YOU WANT).

If you read properly my previous posts you will see that I never wrote this:

"Why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? " [ NEVER POSTED THAT: YOU ARE READING BETWEEN THE LINES: SOMETHING QUITE NATURAL IN INDIA IT SEEMS]

I am not saying that. My point is the following (as HY did as well):

Agassi was erratic from 1993-1998
Courier got burn out after 1993
Becker wasn't Becker Becker of 1985-1992
Edberg fade away after 1993

So, once again, the competition during their best years was similar for both: If you are telling it was weak for FED during the '03-'08 then it was also the case of Pete in his '93 - '98..

Finally, you are telling us that: "Now my pick of the best players of all times (at least the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's" You really saw few Tennis right: Age please? What about al the open era great players in the end of '60-'70-'80 ...Ops but then I notice that you are telling me that for you these are great players:

Rusedski 9-1  
Ivanisevic 12-6
Enqvist 9-2
Pioline 9-0  
Malavai Washington 7-0  
Rosset 5-1  
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

Thanks for the  

What it is sure it is that we will never see Tennis in the same way and we will disagree a lot: These are your great players in the '90...Your gold age of Tennis  

Sure: this is a question of taste and I do not have any intention to discuss your bad tastes.

But then why you did not consider those fantastic players then:

Christo Van Rensburg (1-2), WHO
Andy Roddick (1-2),
Max Mirnyi (1-2),  
Marat Safin (3-4), ops  
Lleyton Hewitt (4-5), ops ops  
Paul Haarhuis (1-3),  
Richard Krajicek (4-6),

Ops..All of them they have a positive H2H with your idol..I see you are so objective..

More..You are moving: The weak era was first IN YOUR POST defined by the "main competitors in [FED] finals [BEING CLOWNS]" (your words)..

I SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF DIFFERENCE WITH PETE COMPETITORS IN GS FINALS AND THEN AS A CONSEQUENCE YOU RUN AWAY TO THE PETE'S H2H OVER 10 YEARS WITH THE GREAT PLAYERS OF THE '90  ..

I am wondering your next step: Take only the '05 season for FED and in the same time consider Lendl and Mac as being part of the Pete era  

SHAME ON YOU!!  If it were a personal attack i could have taken it with pinch of salt....your bufoonery was against my homeland...have respect for other's sentimentality for their motherland you clown...this is something unbearable...you could have called me names or anything...you could have pointed out flaws in my post like other respectable posters here...but unfortunately you've got me calling names just because you have hurt my nationalistic feelings....I don't know if you are white or black but this is definitely something directed at my country and is certainly racist...I'm now totally going to refrain myself from addressing any person intent on blackening the image of my country....i have no intention of keeping in touch with this topic...I'd rather......
Once again Shame on you...I don't know what made you write that...don't you read your posts before posting? I read my posts atleast 3 times before posting careful not to hurt the personal feelings of others....this has gone too far...I'm ashamed...this is a tennis forum...maintain the decorum...I'm never going to look at this again...I'd welcome it if the mods can lock this topic..finally I say it once again that I'm hurt...this was something I did not expect...
Thank you others like kittens and huntingyou for helping me see your side of this issue...it was a great pleasure discussing these with you ...kittens especially...one of the most objective posters around here...it is always great and enlightening to read your posts..no matter which side you take up...if i have hurt you in any way i appologize..and emma and rafan it was a pleasure sharing your view as well.....but unfortunately i can't say the same about this obnoxious poster...

Once again my intent was not to spoil the fun on this forum...but I'm really seething under anger right now...ciao guys...

[TennisVeritas]

Ok concerning the technology this is what i think...
  When i purchased my latest racquet and hit the practice courts i was just surprised with the velocity it was able to generate...my dad had always used a wooden one and when he started hitting the ball with my latest racquet all he said was that the ball comes off so easily, you don't have to hit the ball so hard as with a wooden racquet...so what i understood was that with a wooden racket obviously the serve and volley along with baseline game was the norm...but what I don't understand is that with an improved technology, its ought to be easier to serve and volley...please don't say that the baseline game has become so good that you can easily get passed and such crap cos I believe that with a great serve (of say Fed or ARod's calibre) you cud easily approach the net and chip the balls...after all tsonga did it and perhaps with better control could have walked away with th AO title this year....that's what Emma is trying to say...better technology does not imply a better talent or a pool of players...
   And Huntingyou...how can you randomly say that with more population the talent gets even bigger? After all 128 players enter the field and all these 128 have to play others before they end up playing at a GS event and the winner has to play just 7 players to lift the title....what I don't understand is that just because the technology has improved do you mean to say that he automatically has to play better players? After all the champion is equipped with the same technology no?
  Another thing...about Fed's mental ability....no doubt that he is mentally tough...but before the wimby this year I could have been a bit skeptical concerning Pete's edge over Fed in that department...but this year had it been Pete in the finals he would have held the serve...there's just no doubt about it....Fed's ability was to take the game to 5 sets but did not win it...yes he lost it only by a margin but Pete would have just squeezed it.

 Lastly concerning our pet subject...the weak era theory...well I've said it that Fed has done a fantastic job in making the best in his conducive times....but again for perhaps myself, emma and others ARod, Hewitt, a lazy Nalby , a wasted Safin and Donkey are just not the players we'd like to see in the top 10...ok now others like Rafa( who has actually only evolved now), Nole and Murray are up there but from the early days of Fed's GS victories ie from 03 to 06...who were his main competitors in finals? ARod was mostly to be seen in the finals ,no? ARod is a guy with a booming serve and...and....hmm i can't seem to come up with many other shots in his huge 'arsenal'... Nalby never made to a GS final after that one wimby...Safin played whenever he felt like...and then Donkey was the only serious contender...boy a potential slam winner!  Hewitt is just an overrated player...all he had was extremely quick legs and a decent forehand...even Andy Murray of today could easily defeat the player Hewitt was in 01-02....and the other rivals? Gonzalez, Baghdatis...man...super tough players...where is Baggy by the way? I'm not going to dissect each of Pete's rivals in the 90's.YOU SHOULD ...anyways as i have said that Fed has done very well in making the best of his chances and converting most of them into GS victories and here he stands on the brink of greatness...But the weak era theory is not something that we have just 'come up with' to diminish Fed's greatness or something...else all of us could not have agreed on the same views but then its our view 

It seems that wiky is too complicate for you then I will help you. We all agree that the best FED's GS seasons are between '03- and '08 and here are his GS finals victories:

2003 Wimbledon  FED-Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3)
2004 Australian Open  FED- Marat Safin 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2
2004 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2004 US Open  FED- Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0
2005 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2005 US Open FED- Andre Agassi 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1
2006 Australian Open FED- Marcos Baghdatis 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 US Open FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2007 Australian Open FED- Fernando Gonzalez 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4
2007 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 US Open FED- Novak Djokovic 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
2008 US Open FED- Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2

Let me see..In your "objective" (for a FED hater sure  )  post you are telling me that his main opponent was AROD..

Why he had the same amount of lost finals than Rafa..

By the way, what is wrong with AROD..Was Pioline a far better player? Still this was a main opponent of Pete in two finals..Ops 

And you can tell whatever you want but I prefer Marat to the one of the (crazy) Goran (how many GS from this last one compare to Marat..Finals..semi..results on HC please)..

And then after where are all this fantastic names in the '90..What is the difference between Boris in '95 for Pete at Wimbledon and Andre in '05 for FED at the USO (a part might be that Andre was more near his best years than Boris)..I personally prefer Djoko on hard than Moya..And Gonzo and Bagda to Todd Martin..Where is all this big difference!! The presence of Chang  ...   

1993 Wimbledon Pete-Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open  Pete- Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Pete- Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Pete- Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Pete- Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Pete Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 
1997 Australian Open Pete Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Pete- Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2

Continue to believe in your weak era dream: Reality and facts simply tell us that both they were facing similar competition. Even, given the presence of a Moster like Rafa, FED had definitely to face a BIG and challenging competition IMO..

Oh do they?? Well who are the best players of the 90's in your opinion? ( apart from Sampras of course)
Muster 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Becker 12-7
Pioline 9-0
Enqvist 9-2
Rafter 12-4
Phillipoussis 7-3
Henman 6-1
Rusedski 9-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Chang 12-8
Albert Costa 5-0
Moya 3-1
Alexander Volkov 9-2
Wheaton 8-0
Kucera 7-1
Courier 16-4
Malavai Washington 7-0
Rosset 5-1
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Rios 2-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

I don't think you will get more comprehensive head to heads than that against some of the best players in the world. Well Pete had to face them all during his time...

Some of the closer records include:

Stich 4-5
Brugera 2-3
Edberg 8-6
Krajicek 4-6
Ferreira 7-6
Corretja 5-3
Agassi 20-14
Kuerten 2-1
Larrson 7-4
Forget 5-4
Santoro 4-3


Now my pick of the best players of all times ( atleast the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's... A winning H2H of Sampras over so many players and some of them were comprehensive victories on clay ALSO.

If you consider the 2003-2006 era of Fed then most of his opponents in major matches were roddick, Nalby, Safin, Hewitt....c'mon why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? Gimme a break....Only Safin is an exception...well we all know how devotedly he pursued the sport  Just answer this part...in what way are Arod, Nalby, donkey and Hewitt better than Sampras' early competitors( i.e the 90-93..early 94)  like Courier, Edberg, Becker??? during which time he was stopped from winning atleast 5 more slams?

   And besides why are you getting so defensive? These posts were not targeted at fed at all...if its a weak era it stands up the same way for even Nadal...so there's no point in feeling the way that you do...I mean thinking that these posts are all targeted against Fed...we are just discussing the eras...the various players of different eras...some of us felt that there was far more variety ( surely we get to see so much of snV these days no?) in the 90's...different playing styles...and specialization of players on different courts...like Kafelniov, Kuerten, Muster,Moya, even Chang specializing on clay....Becker, Edberg, Goran, Pete on grass....Agassi, Courier, rafter and Pete again on hard courts....while today i ( and many others) feel that most of the players are just hard court ball bashers (other than rafa and Fed )...that's all...not targeting any player....i'm sorry if you felt that way...because I don't know where that idea came into your head...as I've never ever posted anything against Fed....once again..I'm just discussing the eras...

What a great double standard in your last post..

You are taken the shortest period possible for FED '03-'06 (why not '07 , why not this year: he was still at the top, still GS winner and N#2 in the ranking as the worst result) and you are pointing out the poor competition over this short period and at the same time, in a typical hypocrite way so characteristic of a FED hater, everything about Pete is extended all over the '90 (I.E. ALL THE 10 seasons)  

Are you able to read? My analysis was concerning the '3-'8 span for both players (I.E. '93-'98 FOR PETE AND '03-'08 FOR FED; THE PERIOD IN WHICH BOTH OF THEM THEY HAVE ACHIEVED THE MOST: THE HOT OF THEIR ERA IF YOU WANT).

If you read properly my previous posts you will see that I never wrote this:

"Why are you saying that Courier, Becker (in the early 90's was at his prime...not to mention 95' and 96' as well) , Edberg( a fantastic grass courter) are all worse than the guys like ARod, Donkey, Nalby and Hewitt? " [ NEVER POSTED THAT: YOU ARE READING BETWEEN THE LINES: SOMETHING QUITE NATURAL IN INDIA IT SEEMS]

I am not saying that. My point is the following (as HY did as well):

Agassi was erratic from 1993-1998
Courier got burn out after 1993
Becker wasn't Becker Becker of 1985-1992
Edberg fade away after 1993

So, once again, the competition during their best years was similar for both: If you are telling it was weak for FED during the '03-'08 then it was also the case of Pete in his '93 - '98..

Finally, you are telling us that: "Now my pick of the best players of all times (at least the top 50) lie across various generations...but many of them lie in the 90's" You really saw few Tennis right: Age please? What about al the open era great players in the end of '60-'70-'80 ...Ops but then I notice that you are telling me that for you these are great players:

Rusedski 9-1  
Ivanisevic 12-6
Enqvist 9-2
Pioline 9-0  
Malavai Washington 7-0  
Rosset 5-1  
Woodforde 10-1
Korda 12-5
Bjorkman 9-1
Woodbrige 7-1
Krickstein 5-1
Lappenti 3-0
Schalken 5-0
Medvedev 6-2
Masur 4-0

Thanks for the  

What it is sure it is that we will never see Tennis in the same way and we will disagree a lot: These are your great players in the '90...Your gold age of Tennis  

Sure: this is a question of taste and I do not have any intention to discuss your bad tastes.

But then why you did not consider those fantastic players then:

Christo Van Rensburg (1-2), WHO
Andy Roddick (1-2),
Max Mirnyi (1-2),  
Marat Safin (3-4), ops  
Lleyton Hewitt (4-5), ops ops  
Paul Haarhuis (1-3),  
Richard Krajicek (4-6),

Ops..All of them they have a positive H2H with your idol..I see you are so objective..

More..You are moving: The weak era was first IN YOUR POST defined by the "main competitors in [FED] finals [BEING CLOWNS]" (your words)..

I SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF DIFFERENCE WITH PETE COMPETITORS IN GS FINALS AND THEN AS A CONSEQUENCE YOU RUN AWAY TO THE PETE'S H2H OVER 10 YEARS WITH THE GREAT PLAYERS OF THE '90  ..

I am wondering your next step: Take only the '05 season for FED and in the same time consider Lendl and Mac as being part of the Pete era  

SHAME ON YOU!!  If it were a personal attack i could have taken it with pinch of salt....your bufoonery was against my homeland...have respect for other's sentimentality for their motherland you clown...this is something unbearable...you could have called me names or anything...you could have pointed out flaws in my post like other respectable posters here...but unfortunately you've got me calling names just because you have hurt my nationalistic feelings....I don't know if you are white or black but this is definitely something directed at my country and is certainly racist...I'm now totally going to refrain myself from addressing any person intent on blackening the image of my country....i have no intention of keeping in touch with this topic...I'd rather......
Once again Shame on you...I don't know what made you write that...don't you read your posts before posting? I read my posts atleast 3 times before posting careful not to hurt the personal feelings of others....this has gone too far...I'm ashamed...this is a tennis forum...maintain the decorum...I'm never going to look at this again...I'd welcome it if the mods can lock this topic..finally I say it once again that I'm hurt...this was something I did not expect...
Thank you others like kittens and huntingyou for helping me see your side of this issue...it was a great pleasure discussing these with you ...kittens especially...one of the most objective posters around here...it is always great and enlightening to read your posts..no matter which side you take up...if i have hurt you in any way i appologize..and emma and rafan it was a pleasure sharing your view as well.....but unfortunately i can't say the same about this obnoxious poster...

Once again my intent was not to spoil the fun on this forum...but I'm really seething under anger right now...ciao guys...

Racist my post...But I was just pointing out that, in my opinion, you had the tendency to read between the lines like another (well know) Indian poster her..Is this racist? ..Jeezzz Apologise if this hurt you so much..Come on..Where was the racism on my comment!! Anyway..

[FreeBird]

SHAME ON YOU!!  If it were a personal attack i could have taken it with pinch of salt....your bufoonery was against my homeland...have respect for other's sentimentality for their motherland you clown...this is something unbearable...you could have called me names or anything...you could have pointed out flaws in my post like other respectable posters here...but unfortunately you've got me calling names just because you have hurt my nationalistic feelings....I don't know if you are white or black but this is definitely something directed at my country and is certainly racist...I'm now totally going to refrain myself from addressing any person intent on blackening the image of my country....i have no intention of keeping in touch with this topic...I'd rather......
Once again Shame on you...I don't know what made you write that...don't you read your posts before posting? I read my posts atleast 3 times before posting careful not to hurt the personal feelings of others....this has gone too far...I'm ashamed...this is a tennis forum...maintain the decorum...I'm never going to look at this again...I'd welcome it if the mods can lock this topic..finally I say it once again that I'm hurt...this was something I did not expect...
Thank you others like kittens and huntingyou for helping me see your side of this issue...it was a great pleasure discussing these with you ...kittens especially...one of the most objective posters around here...it is always great and enlightening to read your posts..no matter which side you take up...if i have hurt you in any way i appologize..and emma and rafan it was a pleasure sharing your view as well.....but unfortunately i can't say the same about this obnoxious poster...

Once again my intent was not to spoil the fun on this forum...but I'm really seething under anger right now...ciao guys...

Racist my post...But I was just pointing out that, in my opinion, you had the tendency to read between the lines like another (well know) Indian poster her..Is this racist? ..Jeezzz Apologise if this hurt you so much..Come on..Where was the racism on my comment!! Anyway..

Veritas,
     I agree with Falcon that your statement is racist - your statement amounted to "you're reading things that aren't really there, because you're from India".  In reality, of course, Falcon's alleged tendency to read between the lines too much has nothing to do with her country of origin or country of current residence.  IMO it's wrong to do this because it posits something beyond a person's control as the reason for their behavior.  In this case, if Falcon reads betwen the lines incorrectly because she's from India, then it's a flaw that she'll never be able to overcome - because she'll never be from anywhere else.  The consequences are relatively small here, but it's the same principle as what's behind this statement:  "Falcon will never be able to do job X, because she's from India".  You can see the real, big, ugly consequences of a statement like that.
     If you want to point out similarities between Falcon and Shankar, it's best to find a different way  

[Emma]

Veritas,

Indians are very good in many things including math. In fact, each year they produce more scientists than the whole Europe combined. If I were you, I would check all my facts first before I open my mouth. That was quite ignorant of you.