ladyjulia, but you're talking about pre-TMF era. You wouldn't say a player with a winning record against Murray before '08 Wimbledon is a better player than the current Muzz, would you? Stats don't tell the whole story.

This is all actually Roddick's fault and that rain delay at Wimby 2004.

Fed said that after he won Wimby 2004 (which he thought he wouldn't after losing the first set to Roddick), he got the inspiration to dominate. He thought he would never win against Roddick, but he did and then decided that he could defeat everybody else too and then went on that winning spree.

ladyjulia, forgot to address your point re Safin. Lemme just say Nole's career as one of the Big 3/4 is just starting, whereas we have years of Marat's career to look back on.

Thx, rafadoc. Just doing my job, as usual. :)

""
does anybody sane think Nole and Murray won't win multiple Slams?
""

NP, I don't remember this, as I'd stopped following tennis at the time. But, what were the projections for Roddick like after he won his USO? I'm sure everyone expected multiple. Similarly with Nalbandian after he reached his Wimby final. Nalby's woes started only after '05. Safin, well, who knows what goes on between those years. But, Lleyton played him a few times late in GSes as well. As I recall, everyone expected Rusty to collect 5 or 6 at the very least.

Just sayin' Rafa could well turn out to have that extra gear over all these guys. I wouldn't have thought so last year, but after he's been able to get a win on HC, it's gonna be hard to stop him.

Yup...deeps agree with you!

""imjimmy - but is it more competitive cos Nole, Murray are better players or because none of them, even Nadal, are as good as Fed was in his era? I remember the end of 2003 when people were saying the same thing about Nalby-JCF-Federer-Roddick-Hewitt and we all know how that ended.""

deeps: As AM said, Hewitt, JCF and Roddick won their slams before Fed was TMF. Hewitt in '01 and '02, JCF and Roddick in '03. When Fed reached his prime there was no contest. More like transcendent domination.

OTOH Rafa is in his prime right now. Arguably his best tennis in '08 and '09 has not been very different from what Fed produced at his peak. Even then Nole/Muzz are NOT far off and are genuine threats already in slams. Considering that Muzz and Nole are extremely young and not even close to their peak, they're just going to get more competitive. We will have at least 3 really good young players in the next few years fighting for the top honors.

Pspace...I agree...we have to see how good Rafa is in defending his non-clay court slams.

And Rafa is one consistent player.

I don't see Nole/Murray having the kind of consistency that Rafa/Roger have...but I could be wrong.

Just like Roger found Roddick to be the trigger to set off his dominant self, Murray might find somebody else.

Rafa, huh, already found his carpet..

I think the key statement is ..

"before Fed was TMF"...

If Fed did not become TMF, we would have never called that generation weak.

Ah, Pspace, but there were a few dissenting voices questioning Roddick's potential at the time. The one I remember most was Paul Annacone, who said not only that he don't see A-Rod becoming a tennis great and--right on target--that Safin was the most talented dude of the up-and-coming generation. You just need to filter out the white noise.

As for Rafa enjoying TMF-like domination, I don't see it, but even if he did that wouldn't change my perception of today's competition being tougher. For one thing Nole and Muzz have been more consistent at Slams and MS events than either Nalby or Safin, and there's my personal judgment of the respective players' tennis.

NP - I would agree that Murray and Nole seem to be a lot more consistent than Roddick was. And even if somebody dominates like Sampras and Fed (and its not necessary its Nadal), if the rest of them can keep up this insane semis-finals streaks that they have going on, I would say they are superior players to the TMF era bunch. But that's really happened only once in the open era, the middle to late eighties. And its harder to keep that up when you have somebody so clearly at the top. Would the eighties have been so competitive if there was a clearly superior player like the TMF or lets say the Williamses on the women's side? I feel like there is a chicken and egg aspect to the whole argument.

Anyway,

the discussion is never ending...:-)

seeya guys...here's hoping for a Rafa-Roger final!

BTW, Pspace, I'm genuinely surprised that you don't agree that today's competition has gotten tougher, 'cause IIRC you're one of the few Fed KADs around here who admit Sampras had it tougher than Fed. But it's alright, we're cool. :)

I think the one consistent element in projections about Nadal's career is that they've all underestimated how good a player he;d become.

I leave out of this some of the posters on this board, notably (but not limited to) Rosangel. First, the conventional wisdom was that Nadal was a one surface wonder. Then, it was his body would break down. The conventional wisdom was that Federer was the player for the ages, with Nadal being a tough challenge he'd eventually figure out.

I remember some arguments from about two years back with former posters, especially Bob, on players' abilities to keep improving. Bob insisted that after about 20 or so players essentially stopped improving. I thought that the great ones continued to improve their game. I see in Nadal clear evidence for this viewpoint. After seeing him play at IW I knew he'd be very, very good, but I honestly didn't expect him to get this good, and he likely isn't done yet.

ladyjulia,

I think the argument is that the potential of that era was overhyped in 2003 and Fed becoming TMF is a reflection of that. Oh and if I were to argue that era was weak, Nadal becoming number 2 would be a stronger argument for me. Nadal started making significant noise in the hardcourts only in 2008 - before that he won multiple hard court tourneys only once in 2005, had crappy H2Hs on the surface against a number of lower ranked players, was injured a couple of times. And the fact that he sat so strongly at number 2 even though he was barely in the top 5 players on the surface that made up 60% of the tour - maybe the players were weaker.

deeps, of course only time can tell what kinds of records Muzz and Nole will end up with, but I think even now one can argue that they're better players than most of the Roddick-Hewitt generation. To repeat, Roddick and Hewitt had (and have) little that could hurt TMF, while Muzz and Nole do. If people don't see it that way then it'll be very hard to find common ground here.

NP - yeah Nole and Murray have better weapons/games with respect to hurting Fed. But Murray, Nole etc.. grew up with Fedal as the problem to solve. Roddick/Hewitt didn't and we don't know what would have happened if Fed had been the standard for them too. I am not 100% sure that the higher standard today isn't more a testament of Fed's greatness that he was able to raise the bar at the top of the game than the crappiness of the previous era.

NP: you write "If people don't see it that way then it'll be very hard to find common ground here." I believe reasonable people can differ.

Murray, in particular, has a ton of talent, but so did Marat Safin. Djokovic works hard, but so did Lleyton Hewitt. And both of them are playing in the Federer-Nadal era. They may win multiple slams, but it isn't a given.

deeps...Nadal was No.2 because he consistently won one GS and 2 or 3 MS titles every year on clay.

If there was no Federer, Nadal would have been No. 1 of that same era for about 3 years now with his ranking points.

There was always a gap in the ranking points between No. 2 and No.3 because of the clay court tournament sweep.

NP...you come back to the same point...Hewitt had the tools to defeat Fed seven times, he did not because Federer solved him.

The question boils down to whether Fed became TMF because of Roddick, Hewitt as the competition or did he roll over Hewitt, Roddick because he became TMF?

If the latter is true, then he will never be able to defeat Nadal ever, nor Djoko, nor Murray.

I meant if the former is true, he will never defeat Nole, Rafa, Murray.

The question boils down to whether Fed became TMF because of Roddick, Hewitt as the competition or did he roll over Hewitt, Roddick because he became TMF?

If the former is true, then he will never be able to defeat Nadal ever, nor Djoko, nor Murray.

Andrew - I wonder how easy it will be for Rafa to improve now that he is number one and is great on all surfaces. During Roger's reign of 2004-2007, Rafa was great on clay but often bowed out early on the other surfaces, which gave him more time to rest, practice, and improve. The first time I saw Fed play live was US Open 2004 versus Hewitt and I'm not sure that Fed ever played better than that. I think he maintained that level through Shanghai 2007 but not sure he ever had the time to improve. It should be interesting.

deeps, but that doesn't explain why Roddick hasn't been able to solve Fedal through all these years. And estimating one player's "era" over another doesn't necessarily diminish him as a player. I've already explained this on a previous thread. Lemme see if I can find it.

Andrew, you ain't gonna get any argument from me re Safin. I still think the guy is the biggest underachiever of his generation. Alas, Marat's injuries might have ended his time at the top prematurely, and again the guy's an unbelievable headcase. I don't see either Murray or Djokovic frustrating like him anytime soon.

ladyjulia, like I said, Federer wasn't TMF back then. That's like saying any1 who had a winning record Sampras before '93 Wimbledon was a great grass-court player! Doesn't make sense, does it?

ladyjulia: Andre Agassi, press conference, USO F 2005:

Q. Does the joy of being out there today and what's happened these past couple weeks outweigh the sting of losing to the world's best player today?

ANDRE AGASSI: It does, yes. It does. It's disappointing to lose, but the first thing you have to assess is why did you lose and, you know, I just lot to a guy that's better. I mean, there's only so long you can deny it. But, you know, he's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. You know, there's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. I mean, every shot has that sort of urgency on it. And if you do what you're supposed to do, you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too good.

********

Q. You said you thought he was the greatest you've ever played against. Did you think that before tonight or was there something about tonight specifically that pushed you over the edge of thinking that?

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, that's a great question. This is playing him in the finals of a Slam, you know. I've seen a lot of people play special matches arbitrarily, you know, just out of nowhere, just played a great match. He certainly has done that a number of times against me. But when you play somebody in the finals of a Slam, you can assess it pretty effectively. And I've never seen that.

Q. Do you think Roger is even better than Sampras at his best, and he could maybe break one day the record of Sampras?

ANDRE AGASSI: Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger. I think he's the best I've played against. But I also think the accomplishment of winning that many Slams requires a number of things, including a little bit of luck to make sure you're healthy, nothing goes wrong.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=31

I think Andre would suggest the latter.

Here's a further illustration. I think the Safin of the '00 USO final would've beaten Murray or Djokovic at his best (well, maybe not the Djoko of last year's YEC final), but he just hasn't been very consistent to provide Fed with enough competition. Marat bows to almost no one in talent, but again he underachieved due to injuries and mental instability.

ladyjulia,

I would add in the Wimbledon runner-ups to Nadal's lead.

I would argue he would have been number 1 throughout those 3 years - Fed wasn't really his problem on hard courts and I expect the other players would have benefitted more from a lack of Fed and i could see the number 1 changing hands often.

And if Roddick etc.. had shown half the consistency Nole/Muzz show now, the gap with Nadal should have been smaller despite his crazy clay court numbers.

Think of this stat - in 2009 already - Nole-Rafa have already played 4 times, Murray - Rafa 3. And that's a reflection of how much better these players are at getting to latter stages or the ATP tour below the top 4 is weaker - take your pick.

I agree with the rest of your post though I think never would be putting it too strongly. And the only way that the answer can be definitely solved is fi Fed has a second era of dominance like Graf otherwise this will go in teh stable of unanswerable debates.

deeps, here's the post I mentioned earlier:

For those of you who say this whole “weak era” argument is pure bunk or just a matter of different perspectives, why don’t we try a fun little experiment. Let’s take Sampras’ and Fed’s 1st 4 years of dominance (’93-’96 vs. ’04-’07) and give the top players from each era the same (or at least comparable) racquets and put ‘em on the same courts. Which side emerges victorious? Ask a random sample of knowledgeable tennis fans and I’ll bet that the majority will pick Pete’s. And I’ll also bet that they won’t give stats as the only basis for their decision. So the “weak era” issue is valid, whether you like it or not.

Now this is where both the Sampras & Fed KADs make a mistake: Just the fact that Fed dominated in a less competitive era doesn’t preclude him from the GOAT status. A player is NOT only as good as his competition. Lemme explain it this way. Let’s say TMF played at a certain level (say, 1000) from ’04 to ’07, and his top opponents at a significantly lower level (800-850). (For the sake of argument let’s ignore the issues of matchups, bodily conditions, etc.) Let’s also say Pete’s top opponents from the ‘90s played at a higher level than Fed’s (around 900) but not TMF himself. So Fed played in a “weak” era, but he still would’ve dominated in the ‘90s! In fact, I’m sure he would have (sans Sampras, of course), just not so sure that he would’ve snatched up 12 GS titles and made 3 consecutive FO finals with the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Moya & Kuerten around. Others are free to disagree. And of course they can take comfort in the likelihood that Fed’s Blue Period (’08-retirement) will feature tougher competition than Pete’s.

Andrew:

I'm glad you're still up (though probably not for long), so let me ask you this question:

Did you think at all about the Feliciano Lopez match at the 2007 US Open when viewing today's win over Mathieu?

In connection to the Agassi excerpts you just posted above, the connection is clear: Fed lifting the level when an opponent brings his best stuff to the table. This is why Fed is two wins away from 20 straight slam semis.

Djokovic is a terrific player. Murray a quality player.

Hewitt made the most of his talent. Roddick's no slouch by any means, a persistent threat and fairly regular quarterfinal participant at the 3 non-clay slams.

They didn't sniff the consistency Fed (and Rafa) have thrown down in recent years.

This past week--with the Acasusos, Staraces, Tipsies, and KohlAndrewhasaplanofsomesorts of the world pushing big dogs in the early rounds of the French--has shown, more than ever, how amazing it is that Fed has been able to either:

A) "lift the level";

B) ride out the storm;

or C) get by on guile and composure,

to avoid early-round ambushes year after year after year at slams.

Today was a very instructive day in terms of revealing the extent (and durability) of Federer's career greatness on a larger scope and scale.

I'd be interested in your reactions to this day and (again) to the Mathieu match vis-a-vis Lopez '07.

Andrew...

thanks for the Agassi interview...that was the first match I saw Fed play in...the USO final 2005.

So, your opinion is that Agassi suggests that Fed rolled over Hewitt, Roddick because he became TMF, right?

That is what I believe too. Hewitt beating him 7 consecutive times is no fluke...the guy owned him then. Fed had to become TMF to defeat Hewitt.

Also, I believe TMF is not good enough for Nadal because of the technical aspect of left/right/topspin to BH...but I do think TMF is good enough to beat Murray and Djoko at their game.

I just wish he would appear!

NP. I don't think a weak era diminishes Fed's accomplishments - after all, I am a fan of Graf - the GOAT of weak era GOATs :). I just don't think that era is that weak even though I just argued the opposite with the Nadal stuff.

I will give you this - the fact that Roddick became the defining TMF competition outside of Nadal - the era had tons of underachievers like Safin, Nalby - all of whom could probably have left Roddick out to dry.

deeps, unlike a few Sampras KADs I don't think Fed's competition from '03 to '07 was a bad joke. At the same time I do think the emergence of Djokovic and Murray has raised the level significantly, especially considering the fact that Roddick, Nalby and others are still active in the top 10, 20. Like I said time will tell.

NP, stepped out for a bit. Yeah, I do "think" this is the toughest era in tennis ever. And, if Nole and Muzz fulfill their potential, I'm more than willing to fight anyone who declares otherwise. Just sayin' that we can't be sure at least for another year or so. I don't think either of those two are gonna win Wimby, hopefully Tsonga can wreak havoc. But, what I do "know" is Fed and Rafa are two of the greatest players I've ever seen in my life, and they control the fate of this discussion. I wouldn't put anything past them.

Lets not discount Roddick so quickly.

The guy is still in the top 10 and has been in the top 10 since 2002/2003.

That's no fluke either.

Roddick has also had a decent run to slams...2 finals at Wimby, one final at USO.

Nole/Murray still have to prove that.

Matt Zemek: there are some similarities (loss of set 1) between today's match and Federer-Lopez USO R16 2007. I did think of that match, but in a slightly different context - Federer dropped (opening) sets to Isner and Lopez, but won in 4 sets; Federer dropped sets to Acasuso and PHM, but went on to win both matches.

The Lopez match for a set and a half (starting from when Federer held for 1-0 in set 3) was TMF as dominator - Lopez knew that (a) he, Lopez, was playing out of his skin - his own game was hitting 8,000 rpms, and (b) it didn't matter - he was getting whipped.

What I found exhilerating about today's match was that PHM responded to the break in set 4 by coming back, and it took magnificent play by Federer to break in game 7.

I've been very unhappy to see Federer falling away against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic (and Gilles Simon) in big matches. I think Federer has the conditioning, the talent and desire to compete at a very high level for at least three more years. If he loses his nerve - the ability to bring his best at the death in tight matches against strong opponents - then that'll be the end of him. Interestingly, I think an earlier match with Agassi - TMC Houston 2003 RR - was the point at which he discovered and locked in this nerve. But it's been leaking for nearly a year. If the nerve is back, the results will follow.

NP, I agree with you for the most part. I think the Sampras peak trounces the Fed peak but the Fed peak wasn't teh joke most make it out to be either. I am just not that ready to put the Nole-Murray-Nadal era up there until they prove this run can last beyond this year. And I include Nadal because as much as he has defied expectations, its not certain he will be able to keep this up much longer either. And as you know, I am neither a Fed or a Sampras KAD. :)

I agree with Pspace...we have to wait for some time.

Its easy for a player to make a great run for some time...Simon did it, Safin did it, heck Nalby did it too..Murray has done it...but can they do it year after year after year?

Nadal/Federer have proved themselves for 4 years. No matter what the competition, no matter how the opponent played, no matter whether it rained, they won the GS 18 out of the last 21 slams.

Sorry, but I don't see Nole/Murray winning 18 of the next 21 slams that clearly. Sure, it might happen, but they haven't shown the potential yet.

Pspsace, you know I don't agree that this is the toughest era ever. :) At least not yet. With you on Tsonga.

ladyjulia, I don't think any1 is discounting Roddick. To be in the top 10 for 7 straight year is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I just think his best tennis < TMF's, Rafa's, Nole's or Muzz's best tennis.

Just to note: this whole consistency business at the slams has become important to the discussion because of Federer. I mean, before his 19 SF streak, a good year was like 2 SFs maybe and 1 win. 2 wins would be great. There was also the whole surface slow down and Luxilon revolution thrown into the mix, and I'm not sure what that means overall. Other than Rafa and Fed, Novak is the only one who consistently made SFs and he did what? 4 or 5 in a row? Which is pretty ridiculous, but he's missed 3 of the last 4 SFs. Still, I wouldn't call what he's had a bad year...almost 10000pts. Murray has made 1 slam SF. His streak at the MS level has been unbelievable, and hence the hype...but again it's Rog and Rafa who have forced the need for this kind of consistency. There have been years when any of these four could have finished No. 1....in terms of points. I dunno how long this can go on. I find it quite shocking.

Andrew:

Well said.

A follow-up, then:

(and if you need to feed the cat or do anything else around the house or get some shut-eye, just tell me, and we can save it for another day...)

Do you think the form flashed by Fed in the final two games of set three against PHM, the first two games of set four, and games 7-9 of set four, is PRIMARILY the product of:

A) renewed confidence more than anything else;

B) increased focus and appetite, particularly relative to non-slam events;

C) noticeably improved fitness, which then leads to increased confidence and builds up a memory bank of positive visualization;

D) something not named in A, B, or C

E) a much more specific combination of the above factors

deeps, I almost fell off my chair as I read this: "the Sampras peak trounces the Fed peak." But then I saw you were comparing their eras. It was too good to be true.

Anyway I'll be very surprised if Muzz and Nole don't end up with multiple Slams, but you're right, we gonna have to see.

Pspace, I do hope it goes on for another year!

There was an article in the San Francisco chronicle that based their arguement on the point you made for Fed/Nadal to be the best rivalry in sports.

Its the consistency.

Roger will prove his greatness yet. He will have one last dominant period as #1 and winning slams over Nadal/Nole/Murray through 2010. Then he will fade into the sunset slowly.

""If the nerve is back, the results will follow.""

Amen. I hope it is.

---

ladyjulia, yeah, I hope they can both continue for many years to come. At least intermittently if not at this level of consistency. But, I would also like to see other guys like Nole, Muzz and Tsonga get a few slams in the mix :-). It's kinda lame with just two, and they both like each other.

oh and NP, putting Muster and Bruguera up there won't change the fact that Sampras would have sucked on clay in any era. Now I feel better. :)

I don't need multiple slams for Nole-Muzz - as Pspace put it, Fedal is on a whole other plane and they have a lot to say in this. But I need to see them keeping pace with Fedal at some level - something the Safins, Nalbys weren't really able to. I think we can agree that Fed didn't stop Nalby, Safin from winning more slams.

Pspace,

I am sure Nole/Muzz/Tsonga will get a few slams in the mix. Can they get 18 out of 21 is the question?

Matt Zemek: better seerving helps. I think I'm seeing a higher toss and that 10 degree extra knee flex, and I'm trying not to fool myself. Federer had the wide ad flat serve working late in the match, his payoff pitch.

I think he's fitter. And I think winning begets winning. I think Federer was lucky not to go 2 sets to 1 down against Acasuso, but even then Acasuso would have had to have won a third set, and it sounds like he was tiring at the end of set 3.

He also has limited the periods of loose play - there were flashes today, but no multi-game streaks. He went 0-40 down to PHM in set 1 after two blistering returns and one FH which missed the deuce sideline by an inch. All in all, he's playing miles better right now than he did at IW or Miami. May not be enough in the end (and the wheels could come off against Haas), but its steps in the right direction.

And now I really do have to go to bed.

Hi everyone. Good tennis today in both Andreev Del Potro and Roger PHM matches.

I am sorry Samantha that Caro lost, these things happen she could be a little burned out after so much tennis these past weeks. But she will get new chances and this will serve as a learning exprience. A pity they did not broadcast her match in Argentina.

I saw part of Serena´s match she is clearly not playing very well but could improve and focus more in the next matches. She has the shots and the fitness I think. Regarding, that famous point it is clear that Serena was right and had the right to complain. On the other hand as Jose Luis Clerc Espn Commentator pointed out she has a history of aiming these type of shots to her opponents body and players do not consider a sorry enough to remedy the situation. According to Frana and Clerc a player should not aim shots to the body of the opponent when there is free space in the court to win the overhead. They say it is an unwritten rule.

Surprised as everyone that Nole lost, I never saw triple PK doing it as their head to head suggested that. It seems he played great, his game remined me of Justin, that is the way he was moving in the court and giving depth and spin to his shots in spite of his lack of size.

As Master Ace said, Tim had already predicted Nole´s demise after the Madrid Marathon involving Nole and Rafa.

I look forward to Rafa´s and Verdasco´s matches tomorrow I just hope that Espn broadcasts Kolya Nando.

deeps...I am not sure about Fed/Safin..

The only time Safin defeated Fed in a GS was in 5 sets and it was 10-8 in the fifth. It was close and Fed could have won that day.

Based on that, I would say that Fed did manage to stop him from winning...maybe on a mental level..if its going to take 4 and a half hours and five sets to defeat a guy who is not dropping his level, how many times will you have the will to do it?

Nadal has done it because he is Nadal. Can Murray and Nole do it? Current stats in slams say NO. Not on a consistent basis.

@ 1.12, I meant Fed didn't stop Nalby, Safin from doing better at slams.

ladyjulia, I don't think they need to get 18 out of 21 - everyone expects Fedal to win a couple but they should be able to stop Fedal form repeating the 18 out of the 21 if they want to be in contention for the the strongest era ever.

Talking about Tsonga at Wimby, I need the Halle people - Tsonga, Nole in Rafa's half and a Tsonga-Rafa match and Murray in Fed's half. And them to actually make those appointments - now that would be fun.

but ladyjulia, Safin didn't really reach face Fed that much after that either. Its not like Nole who kept running in to Fedal consistently before this latest run of crappy slam results.

Andrew yes I concur with your comments on Nadal and his improvement as a player

I myself have said in the past "We have yet to see the best from Rafa"

People had already deemed him to be a good dirtballer?

The progression he has made on other surfaces has been incredible? won on every surface at present.

People are now acknowledging him for the Champion Player that he is.

deeps...ok, I got it about Safin. Yeah.

I think the era argument is deeply flawed. Nole/Murray have only played for about 2 to 3 years now? Fed has been playing for 10 yrs and Nadal for about 5 to 6 years?

Based on that, ofcourse Nole/Murray will stop Fedal from repeating 18/21.

I mean Fedal are not robots,no? They age,no?

So, we have to compare whether Nole/Murray will win 18/21 in their competition whatever it is...not stop Fedal from winning repeating 18/21.

If Fedal do win 18/21 AGAIN, we will have to investigate about extra-terrestrial life infiltrating earth.

No human being can do that.

I give Fedal era a year more at least. Then Rafa to dominate another year or two... till 2012 possibly. After that Rafa might continue to win slams, but won't be No. 1 for sure.

deeps, yeah, would love to see all those matches. Muzz-Fed on grass...oooh appetizing. Also, Tsonga-Rafa....if Rafa is on fire it'll be a barrage of awesome passing shots. And if Tsonga is on fire, we'll seem some great volleys. And if they're both on fire...ooh too exciting. Btw, does Rafa have the best passing shots ever? It's hard to judges 'cos ppl don't come to net as often. I wish we could've seen Rafa-Sampras at Wimby. Andre pushed Pete to 5 in his heyday, so I think Rafa could've done one better, but it is a different surface now.

Ok, this is more excitement than I can handle for a day. All brought on by Federer's wonderful play today. 'nite all.

deeps, you know imjimmy will disagree on that one. :) Seriously, will need a few min to respond. BRB.

Yeah...nite all from my side too...

*must remind myself not to get into weak era/strong era discussion next time coz it cannot be resolved*

BTW, deeps, I agree that Nole & Muzz don't need to win multiple Slams to add to the equation. Like you said they need to be consistent throughout the year, unlike Nalby & especially Safin.

lol ladyjulia - now that would be fun. Do the 18/21 get discounted then? Cos the way they play, I am not sure they aren't aliens - equipment can explain only so much.

I don't need 18/21 slams but I need them to continue to show top 5/ top ten form, be a threat at slams - something Nalby/Safin/Hewitt weren't able to do. That's what Courier/Becker/Agassi etc.. did well in the Sampras era - they didn't have the ridiculous consistency of Fedal but they were still very competitive. You weren't waiting for them to get into form for one week a year and hope it is a slam. Roddick is the only one who was really able to do that in the TMF era.

If I might jump in to the ongoing Fed/Sampras debate, with its Rafa- and Roddick- and Hewitt-based strands/branches.....

A point I'd mention concerns the closeness of the finals contested by various players. Slam finals measure the strength of both competitors, not just the champion.

In setting the stage for this discussion, I'll mention that I do think Federer would have had tougher sledding in terms of his overall slam title haul in the 1990s, but only slightly (perhaps 11 slams instead of 13 at this point), and that's only because Sampras would have split with him at Wimbledon.

Fed would have bagged a few Frenches in the years Kuerten didn't flourish (I can't see Bruguera or Courier taking down Fed in Roland Garros, and even Guga, being a right-hander, wouldn't have offered Rafa's lefty topspin), but his hauls for the other 3 slams would have been reduced.

With that said, the ability of many players to pick off major titles in the 1990s does not necessarily mean that the collective ATP field was empirically "better." I would indeed cite the ability to be consistent at a very high level as a prime basis for judging players, and by this standard, I'd put the career of Andy Roddick on a higher plane than the careers of guys like Michael Stich and Pat Rafter. I would also say that Lleyton Hewitt did more with his career than Yevgeny Kafelnikov.

I'm blurting out a lot of stuff, so let's cut to the chase with Sampras and Fed.

Sampras's 14 slam final wins had these scorelines:

4, 3 and 2;
6, 6, 6, and 3;
4, 4 and 3;
6, 4 and 4;
6, 6, and 0;
7, 2, 4 and 2;
4, 3, 6, and 5;
1, 4, and 6;
2, 3, and 3;
4, 2 and 4;
7, 2, 4, 6, and 2;
3, 4, and 5;
7, 6, 4, and 2;
3, 4, 7, and 4.

Federer's scorelines in his 13 slam final wins (using hyphens and not commas to separate each set):

6-2-6;
6-4-2;
6-5-6-4;
0-6-0;
2-6-4;
3-6-6-1;
7-5-0-2;
0-6-7-3;
2-6-5-1;
6-4-4;
6-6-6-6-2;
6-6-4;
2-5-2;

Both men had 5 four-setters and one five-setter. Sampras's 5-setter was against Ivanisevic ('98 Wimby), Fed's against Rafa (2007 Wimby).

Sampras's 4-set wins came against Agassi (twice), Courier, Becker, and Rafter.

Fed's 4-set wins came against Roddick (twice), Agassi, Baghdatis, and Nadal.

It's a very close comparison, but I'd note that since Federer has never lost a slam final to anyone other than Rafa--who, RIGHT NOW, has a career resume nearly as good as Agassi's, and who will likely eclipse Andre on a number of fronts by the end of the 2010 tennis season--Roger has been able to forge his achievements with his own will and skill. He got pushed just as hard as Pete did in slam finals--perhaps not much more, but certainly not much less, if at all. Yet, he closed down matches and titles with great regularity.

Just my 2 cents.... plus a 25 percent tip.

deeps...

okay...i got ur point...yeah, in that case Nole/Murray will have to win some SF streak like Fedal did.

So, its not a winning slam streak, but a SF streak. Sure,that makes sense.

But I won't just look at one year. I will see how they do for multiple years. Its easy to do it for a year. At least Fedal have made it LOOK easy to get to 4 SFs in a year, LOL!

Yes, Fedal have brought a new dimension to the word "consistency". I mean family emergencies/fights with girlfriends/motivation/day form/injuries/weather/hot streaking players are nullified.

okay, now I am really gone...

deeps, before I start lemme say that I fully admit Sampras wasn't a great clay-courter. That said, he was no slouch on clay, either. Here are the basta... I mean the players who took down Pete in RG from '92 to '96 (save '95, his worst showing during his prime):

'92 - Agassi
'93 - Bruguera
'94 - Courier
'96 - Kafelnikov

So Pete lost to the opponents who went on to win the FO that year or at least in their career, and all of 'em were in their prime back then. Not so shabby, isn't it? And Stephen Bierley (of The Guardian) once claimed that Pete never gave his all at RG after the monumental effort in '96 'cause doing so might have jeopardized his chances in SW19 later. (As you know Pete lost to Krajicek on the All-England lawn that year.)

FWIW I actually think Pete's best chance to win the FO was in '97 when he dispatched Santoro and Clavet in impressively routine straight sets, but he caught the stomach virus before the 3R match which might explain why he lost to an opponent he soundly defeated on clay only a few weeks ago. And true or not Pete says in his autobio that this is when he started doubting whether he could ever win the FO.

So yeah, I admit Pete isn't in Fed's league on clay, but he wouldn't have lost 10 out of 10 times, either. And it's not far-fetched to say Pete might've made a final or two in the '00s (sans Fed), though he most certainly would've gotten whipped by Rafa every time. Maybe even you'll agree. :)

Matt, you're right that the # of Slam winners doesn't necessarily mean the competition was tougher. But lemme point out that while the likes of Stich, Krajiceck and Korda weren't very consistent in Slams, there were quite a few of 'em during the '90s, which is why the field can be considered consistent if you spread them out over the years. And yes, I'd also put Roddick over Stich and perhaps even Rafter, though I think the latter two's best tennis beats Andy's best.

Matt Z,

Thanks for the stats. Gives 50 cent tip. I don't think anybody disagrees that Sampras would have been the only one in the Sampras era who could have stopped Fed from dominating. But collectively that era was stronger than 03-07 because the really talented ones like Safin were underachievers and the ones who made the next tier like Roddick, Hewitt couldn't match the talent of that era.

And I think Kafelnikov counts more in the post-peak era for Sampras. And I am with NP - Fed faces tougher competition in his post-peak than Sampras did once he came off his peak. So in the end it cancels each other out.

Other conclusion - the current era has the potential to eclipse both these eras and be in the same conversation as the eighties but it is still too early to call.

Deeps, NP:

Very accurate observations from where I sit.

Now I'm the one who has hit a wall. Talk to you and others tomorrow as this 15-day French festival continues...

NP, it was a joke. But thanks for listing all my personal 90s heroes. :)

Seriously I agree 1997 was his best shot but while he was not a mug, I think he would have struggled with the dominant clay courters in any era. He would have to be in a seriously weak clay era or get lucky and have some sort of bloodbath at RG that year.

And the other thing, Sampras struggled in all slams outside Wimby after 1996 - and I think that factored a lot also in him sort of giving up.

Nite, Matt.

deeps, you're quite welcome. :) Agree with you that Pete would've struggled on clay in any era. If he played like he did against Kafelnikov in the '95 DC finals he would've had a chance, but of course he very rarely brought his best game onto clay. And good point re Pete's form post '96.

NP: One more thing: The grass was considerably faster and the clay slower in the 90's - so a fair adjustment was required from clay to grass and vica versa. It would require a lot of versatility in one player (in the 90's) to dominate both the surfaces at the same time given how differently they played. Now with the clay-courting of SW19 it's easier for a player to use a similar style and win at both surfaces. (clay and grass)

deeps, here's the Bierley article if you're interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/may/20/tennis.comment

He makes the usual "Laver would've won 20 Slams" mistake, but otherwise he's pretty convincing. And Tiriac was criminally (I can't think of any other word to describe the guy) accurate when he said Sampras was "running on vapour." Pete looked like he was about to pass out after the Courier QF match:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVJzJ5xavRY

imjimmy, no one disputes that the Wimby grass was faster back then, but has clay really slowed down that much? I ask 'cause I haven't seen any stats that support your claim, not 'cause I don't believe ya.

imjimmy The clay was slower in the 90's? hey? what evidence hav e you got for that stat please?

I mean quickened, not slowed. My bad.

NP: If anything the claim is that the clay has become a trifle faster and grass considerable slower so as to narrow the differences between the two surfaces. The larger point being that the surfaces are getting closer to each other in terms of speed esp. with AO having slowed down a little too.

Will look for stats on change in speed at clay at another time for sure.

*stumbles in, yawning*

Novak? WHAT?

Did NOT expect that one...WHAT?

Gotcha, imjimmy. Will be on the lookout for those stats myself.

jewell, don't feel alone. I was absolutely gobsmacked when I saw the news yesterday.

*Matt Zemek: better seerving helps. I think I'm seeing a higher toss and that 10 degree extra knee flex, and I'm trying not to fool myself. Federer had the wide ad flat serve working late in the match, his payoff pitch.*

Andrew: I definitely think the old service motion reappeared in Madrid. I can recognize the fluency of it again.

Right from the horses mouth -- This is what Rafa had to say this year about the surfaces.
__________________________________

"""Most of the tournaments of the world are hard or indoor. The clay players can play very well in the rest of the surfaces, and the hard court players can play very well on clay because the surface (clay) is different, but not like before.'It's not really, really fast the hard, and the clay is not really slow.'""
____________________________________

NP & AM : There was an article which said that the clay was faster but the only evidence they presented was the consistent increase in speed stats for the service. Not sure how relevant is that. I would suppose that the faster surface takes off less from the ball in terms of it's momentum and thereby the faster service.

Anyway, the point about clay being faster has been ubiquitous in most tennis blogs and forums recently. I need to get some incontrovertible stats though. Will do so soon and report here.

Jewell: Morning! Agree about the shocker. Nole lost! *feels gutted*

In Europe where the clay has been played on a concsistant basis over the years again he comes down to the surface?

RG has a medium pace for example of course the weather can effect the surface sonewhat also has bearings of the weight of the balls.

I guess it's good news for Federer.

Ah, Djokovic, though. Sad.

NP, thanks for the article.

Rafa talked about clay becoming faster this year - it was while answering Murray's chances on clay. He said that with clay becoming faster, its easier for hard courters to translate a good game on to clay. I don't know whether it can be compared to Wimbledon becoming slower.

Another thing about the surface differences, the 90s were the only real era when surface specialists were the norm. The career slam was hard in any era but McEnroe was no mug on clay, Connors/Wilanders have grass slams etc... The current era with its all-surface players is more like the norm and the 90s were the exception when you look at tennis history.

Jewell I am also in Shock? though I didnt see the game at all.

imjimmy, should have waited for you :)

At the moment we have Rome which is deemed to be the Fastest True Clay surface

This new so called Clay surface which isnt a True clay in terms of its under surface is Fast also

The trouble with this surface it was played on too soon.It hasnt had enough time to be Played On for a start.

We saw during the tournament that it was watered? also causing players problems underfoot.

it will be interesting to see how it plays regardless of the altitude.

ah...he didn't like playing in the heat, maybe, according to the Times.

I was too tired to check the results when I got home last night, probably a good thing. ;-)

Looks like Federer may be coming into form too...I expected that. But not Djokovic losing this early.

Morning, imjimmy, NP, deeps and crazyone. :)

imjimmy, I can certainly buy that clay has gotten faster. I doubt even Dr. Ivo would've been able to fire off 55 aces on terre battue in the '90s. And I remember Rosangel saying they changed the balls a few years ago, which could explain in part the increase in serve speeds. But I haven't come across an article that says the surface indeed has been changed to make it quicker, while I've read at least a dozen or two articles that say the same about the Wimby grass. Again will look for the stats myself.

My last post I was refering to Madrid the blue clay of course lol!

MC is the closet surface to RG of course medium pace

Hamburg is the slowest pace clay court

Regardless of the balls on clay being lighter

Again the weather plays an important part here

For example in RG last year we had rain and sometimes overcast conditions,the surface becomes slower the balls heavier.

NP, deeps. And another good point re the 90s, though I'd also note that the FO did see a few one-time champions before the Sampras era.

NP: Of course my larger pt was that bcoz the surfaces were so different in the 90's it was harder to dominate both unless we talk of a truly versatile player. So given that, Pete's lack of success on clay is understandable. Too much effort and modification in his game to suit clay, might have jeopardized his chances at SW19.

Pete's game was picture perfect for grass. I don't think anyone could dominate Wimb. the way he did. Not even Federer, were he to replace Sampras in that era.

yes its all about being versitile thats why Rafa has shown he cannot only dominate on clay,he also can play on grass and h.court

Something other players like Sampras,Lendl,Edberg,Connors,McEnroe,Federer havent been able to do?

I will still leave out Roger who knows he could still win RG

imjimmy, on that large point we agree. As for Fed not being able to dominate Wimby in the 90s (sans Pistol Pete), I dunno. Becker and Goran at his best would've been the two biggest challenges, and Rafter, certainly Krajicek and maybe Agassi and an in-form Korda, 2. Don't think TMF would've had much trouble Courier and Pioline on grass.

Forgot the "with" after "trouble."

I just remembered that Fed's net play has been questionable lately, so perhaps he would've had a hard time dominating Wimbledon in the 90s. Pspace can confirm. :)

Looking at the OOP, seems to be something of a chance that Murray and Rafa will overlap. Could be a tough one for Murray.

Meh, supposed to be working, anyway.

jewell I feel Murray is lucky to be still in?

lets see what happens with his next opponent?

It was disquieting to see Djokovic today against PEHK. I don't think there was any fight left in Nole after being 2 sets down. Can you imagine Fed/Rafa (or even Muzz) going out tamely in straights in a slam in the 3rd rnd? It wasn't about physical issues/heat or anything like that. Mostly in the head (like he himself said)

Anyway, that's what a close Madrid loss does. As a lot of people predicted at that time, it would take time to recover. Nole's not Rafa after all :)

deeps @ 2:47 AM: No problem. We were both saying the same thing at the same time, I guess :) BTW thanks for the discussion on weak/strong era. I really enjoyed yours, NP, Matt and Andrew's comments.

On that note, 'Nite all. Looking forward to tomorrow's action!

jewell, Murray and Rafa will overlap? I'm sure you've seen quite a few comments recently that said Muzz and Rafa are in the same half. They will meet in the SF at the latest.

Cilic is definitely playing well...sad that the Tipsy match ended so early, I really thought Tipsy might've given Murray a properly hard time.

Nite, imjimmy. We Sampras KADs are a lonely group out here.

no probs imjimmy - and night - i loved reading you as always - i am hoping Nole makes up for this at Wimby/USO.