i just cannot see how hewitt, roddick, safin, old agassi can be classified in the league of nadal, djokovic, murray and del potro.......
Until Murray actually win a slam, you can take him out of the mix. Del p has ONE slam - ironically - the same as.......Roddick! Lol! Hewitt has slams, Safin has slams, Agassi has 8, and how many does Murray have? Oops...none right now. So today the only 2 players who really stand out in your list are Novak and Nadal. Take them away from today's players and who the heck do you have????? Don't go on "potentials" but what they have actually DONE. If we go on potentials - heck, back in Rogers's day, Roddick, Juan Carlos, Nalbandian and others HAD potential, but injuries had a place there. Sure Murray has the game, but he may Never win a slam! The only players in this generation to win slams are Nadal, Novak and one to Del Po, so this generation has a lot to prove yet!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One could even argue that playing against a variety of players is tougher than owning one player. Nadal has now gone through Roger in 7 of his slam wins, once he had that backhand of Roger's figured out, Nadal could hobble on one leg and beat Roger, where's the competition there? Similarly, Djokovic now owns Nadal, if he beats Nadal for 10 more grand-slams will we be takling about how great Novak is for beating a 10 time grand slam champ like Nadal or will we be saying oh well he just owned one person and got lucky he had no other competition whereas someone like Roger had to go through multiple grand-slam champs and a variety of players playing different styles.
It's all in how you look at it. Fact of the matter is the slams are what they are and the players are what they are. If you look at the big picture, 90s were so strong and yet you had Pete Sampras win 14 slams and that too only on 3 surfaces - from the sound of that one could easily argue that he had no competition whatsoever for most of the decade anywhere but clay. But is that true? I don't think so.
And honestly at this point to call Del Potro and Murray better competition than Roddick and Hewitt is kinda funny. Just because they have more skills doesn't mean much, even someone like Gulbis has more skills than some of the past greats, what use is it? Also, Hewitt old? Federer played through Hewitt between 03-06 when Hewitt was the same age as him. Now Roger is OLD compared to Nadal/Djokovic, and you are calling Federer had to play old Hewitt? And Safin is inconsistent but Tsonga and Del Potro are the models of consistency?
Whatever, I have no use arguing about this, I just wanted to pitch in because Dallas actually chimed in for once and I agree with her. As far as I'm concerned, Johnny mac had the best volleys, Sampras had an amazing serve, Lendl pioneered the baseline power, Connors maximized his potential beyond anything, Nadal's physical game is brutally amazing, Djokovic's lack of weakness and solidity from every aspect is a model for the future and overall Federer's grace and style of play makes him someone I'd pick to watch if I wanted to amaze some of my non-tennis friends with how tennis is played at the highest level. Records and titles and impact on sport and consistency overall as well as a wonderful ambassador to the sport, I'll take Roger over anyone else if I had to pick one person. You all can think whatever you want