GASQUET JUST AS TALENTED AS THE SWISS??

WHAHAHA you tennis-X guys keep moving me on my chair,

yes he’s very talented but people said about Roger Federer when he was 12 he was the most talented player they have ever seen as such an age. When he was 18 they said he will win Grand Slams soon. Didn’t happen due to his mentality at that time, but he hit crazy shots even back then nobody could dream of.

Gasquet has got the game to match Federer in the near future when Federer has a slightly day off. But surely he isn’t as talented. He doesn’t hit the balls Federer hit when he was 18.

The Frenchman hits balls with power and precision, but not the out-of-the-world balls Federer hit when he was 19.

Difficult to go into arguments, personally, but as a pro trainer I can gaurantee you I know the difference between a ‘freak of nature’ and a special talented guy.

The first one is Fed, the last one is Richard.

Jean-Claude, Paris.

I agree with everything, except the Roddick part.
The dude finished nº 1 in 2003 and also won the US Open that year (against Ferrero!!) and 2003 fits in those years you know as “the weak years” in professional tennis.
That year Roddick won 6 tournaments: Sankt Polten, Queens Club, Indianápolis, Montreal, Cincinnat and the US Open. And despite winning Sankt Polten (Clay) he lost in firts round in Roland Garros.
And that year, his “big year”, he couldn’t win the TMC. Hell, even Lleyton Hewitt won the TMC, 2 years in a row! Boris Becker, inferior to Roddick by your account, won the TMC 3 times.

BTW, by no means I intend to diminish Roddick’s career. I think he is a very talented player and capable of much more. It’s just that I can’t see him in the same place as Agassi, Federer or Sampras. He still has much to prove.

ATP needs some varied competition - agree. Roddick is a pretty good player - agree. Federer and Nadal have dominated the scene 2005-6 - agree. Gasquet, Murray, Baghadtis and co. are up and comers - agree. BUT - that does not mean that Federer is playing in an era of weak tennis. As some critic says, he is so good he is leaving scraps for others to pick up.

Would one say that because Edwin Moses dominated hurdling, or Michael Johnson dominated 200/400m, that there were no good athletes running out there?

I just posted this at the previous forum:

More people play tennis today than 10 years ago.

there’s more money in tennis today than 10 years ago.

There’s more access to coaches/coaching academies today than 10 years ago.

More technology is used in coaching today than 10 years ago (video replays, etc.)

There’s more attention to fitness today than 10 years ago (nutrition awareness, training, etc.).

There’s more powerful racket technology today than 10 years ago.

There are more tennis courts today than 10 years ago.

There are more tennis tournaments today than 10 years ago.

Then how the heck can anyone argue there is less competition today than 10 years ago? Its a joke. the most stupid statement anyone can make.

Sean Randall is completely wrong. The facts are totally against his stupid rants.

if player “A” beats player “B” consistently, then either “A” is too good, or “B” is weak. But if player “A” beats everyone, beats 200 atp players, day in and day out, then it is nonsense to say that “Oh, those 200 players are too weak”. The only logical conclusion is that “A” is too strong.

Players like sampras come and go, about once every ten years. Lendl was therein the 80s. Before that Borg. Before than laver. But players like Fed come once in a century. When all is said and done, Fed would have erased every single record, and that too PLAYING IN AN ERA OF INTENSE COMPETITION.

The truth and reality is just the opposite of Sean (Hannity?) says - 2003 onwards has been at least as competitive as any 3 year span in history.

Sean Randall’s rants sound like the Fox news talking about Bush administration (or is it the other way around?). Biased, no substance, factually incorrect, twisting the remaining facts. Sean Randall deserves to be on radio with Rush Limbaugh - both make about equal sense.

Wow… Sean can actually read the minds of all these Tennis players… like Sampras and Agassi.

Agassi chose to play in this ‘no-competition’ era to get a bonus Grand-Slam… Pity that Sampras didnt think that way and CHIKENED out early. Probabaly he could have won a few more GS if he thought he could compete with ‘No competition’ or did his level of play drop below the level of these ‘non-competitors’..

Either way, he cannot be called Greatest then right Sean …??

Ha ha and Gasquet is as talented as Fed??? thats laughable …
He just has an excellent backhand.. rest of his game is so-so. His service actions isnt good, un reliable forehand(hez working on it), volleys not so well.. dunno what makes him as talented?? can agree, he more talented than rest of youngsters.. but nowhere near Fed.

Why dont we give credit to Andy Roddick for his year end No 1 ranking.. why do we think that he lacks the game. Hez a much better player than other one time GS winners during Sampras’s era.. yes, he lacks the game to beat Federer consistently, but so does all of them.. (Agassi included).

Anyway… seems like Sean should stick to one stance, rather than changing his stance everytime the debate rages on.
Early one he said.. ‘Sampras era is similar or a lil better than today’s era’ and now he says this era is an era of ‘no-competition’.

Comon mate.. take a stand.. and stick to it.

“Let’s face it, the fact that Pete Sampras won the US Open in 2002 is quite remarkable and often overlooked. The dude could barely win a match all summer and then he somehow flipped the switched, hit the gas, and took that title. Amazing, really.

Along the way to that win he beat Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Schalken and Agassi in his last career match. Schalken was a cup cake, but the other four wins were pretty impressive, and at that time, no one saw that Pete run coming. So how the hell did that happen. Well…”

Well he didn’t play Lleyton Hewitt during that run, who would have crushed him like he did a year earlier.

“Just ask yourself, how many big matches has Nalbandian ever won? Robredo? Davydenko? Haas? Blake? Ljubicic (he came through in D-Cup, but little else since)? Gonzalez? Ancic? Stepanek? And on and on. Collectively, aside from Roddick/Safin/Hewitt, it’s very few. And it’s not just about beating Roger and Rafa, it’s about beating the lesser players in big moments.”

What you’re forgetting is that there’s a lot more depth from the ‘lesser’ players in the top 100 than there was in Pete’s time. Pete himself admitted as much.

“And he’s equal to Wilander, Agassi, Kuerten and Courier in the history books on that page. That’s right, equal. Andy Roddick is in that conversation, like it or not. But is he a better player than those guys? Or, did he finish No. 1 that year because of weak-ass competition? You be the judge.”

Andy lost his #1 ranking 2 tournaments later. The reason he had more weeks #1 than Safin did is because the off-season counted as weeks for him in which he couldn’t lose the ranking. It doesn’t put him on the same level as the guys you mentioned like Agassi or Wilander though. There’s more to it than being #1 at the end of the year. He’s won far less slams than those guys have. Federer might have something to do with that.

”

Along the way to that win he beat Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Schalken and Agassi in his last career match. Schalken was a cup cake, but the other four wins were pretty impressive, and at that time, no one saw that Pete run coming. So how the hell did that happen. Well…

Just look what happened earlier in 2002. Thomas Johansson wins the Aussie, Albert Costa wins the French and we had that time capsule of a Wimbledon final between Hewitt and Nalbandian. The stage is set, anyone can win a Slam. And Pete just took what he could. Heck, Jiri Novak finished No. 7 that year!”

The fact that these guys pulled what they did is reaffirmation that there is more depth in the game than when Pete was around.

“And you can still see it in the results. Two veteran serve/volley players both pulled wins yesterday over top 20 players. The 35-year-old Wayne Arthurs beat world No. 8 and Shanghai contender Tommy Robredo, and Max Mirnyi, 29, beats Dmitry Tursunov. And today Tommy Haas needs three sets to beat a doubles specialist in Nenad Zimonjic.”

Like I said, there’s more depth in the top 100 than there was back then. Anyone can pull off upsets now. Whereas before, there were a handful of players who never lost except to each other. Is that because they were too good, or because the rest of the competition sucked? This is the point of contention in the Pete vs Roger debates. My money is on the latter. My belief is that Roger isn’t losing to top 100 players because he’s too good for them, but Pete didn’t lose to top 100 players because they weren’t good enough. Both are good players. Depth was greater in the top 10 in Pete’s era, but greater in top 100 in Roger’s. Don’t discount top 100 just because they’re lower ranked than top 10. There’s a lot more of them.

The main thing is… would Pete have won 14 slams against a strong top 100 competition like there is today? Or would he have taken upsets from players ranked 90? I think he would have had more upsets. His serve volley game certainly would have been less effective with slower courts.

Imagine if Fed and Nadal had never existed. Then there would be numerous players today w/ multiple Slam trophies … Nalbandian, Safin (3-5), Henman, Roddick, etc. Perhaps then these players and this era would look better to Sean.

I hope that history recognizes the dominance of Fed and does not forget these other great players b/c they lack Slam wins. Amidst such dominance, Slam finals and semifinals indicate greatness, too. Sean has missed this point, but hopefully history will not.

Just a case of sour grapes …

if you wanna compare the quality of past to present all you need is a player like hewitt who connects both. it’s pretty simple.

old hewitt has a WINNING record against sampras. this is a guy who’s only strategy was hitting loopy half court backhands until the opponent made an error. and he won a lot. and he dominated sampras.

hewitt is a much better player these days then back then - better serve, volleys. still, his lack of weapons means that plenty of low ranked players cut him up now. he’s struggling big time. federer would have more trouble against his ex fed cup girlfriend, who probably hits it harder. it just shows how far the standard of tennis has come.

For all you guys who are interested in the young guns: the russian mentioned above, age 18 is called Korolev, Evgeny. Not Koralev, and no, it’s not a typo, the name appears here and there over the page, but never correctly spelled.

As for the rest: Like someone mentioned once before, we should compare not only 90’s and 2000-2006 but also 80’s and have an argument over all three eras.
During the 80’s the Big Ones (borg, lendl, mcenroe, connors) were troubled only by themselves; during the 90’s, Sampras was troubled much by lesser players, whereas there were no great players comparable to the 80’s during the sampras-reign (apart from agassi). Conclusion back then: Competition has grown significantly among top100 players. Look, Sampras lost to a guy outside the top50.
Both during the 80’s and 90’s there were enough GS-titles left by one player to let others have a go. During the 80’s many of the “leftovers” were taken by great players. During the 90’s many of the “leftoveres” were taken by not so great players. It is legitimate to compare these eras’ competition.
From 2002-2006 there simply weren’t enough “leftofers” left because Federer was too hungry. You can’t tell (maybe never will), how many great players have been around from 2002-2006 because they had no possibility to prove themselves apart from beating federer (which apparently didn’t happen that often). So it ISN’T legitimate to compare this era to the earlier ones as far as competition goes.

By the way: Why is the no-competition-era starting only in 2002? what happened between 2000-2002? was competition better then? Hewitt won a lot, Safin too, but see, they are still around. They are injured: So what? Injury sadly is part of the game; if the pro’s can’t stay healthy you just have to insert the injury-factor into the mix of qualities of a great player. You never had to do that in earlier eras. Injury is the result of the extremly physical demand of tennis nowadays. It is key to adjust one’s game to this challenge, get enough rest and so on. Does that tell you that competition has gone?

SG : “my point is …great champions transcend time.”

and well.. we all know.. Federer has transcended sports(along with time). Hez being compared to likes of Woods, Schumi, Jordan apart from other Tennis greats. Hez winning Laureus awards 2 years in a row (beating the likes of Ronaldinho, Schumi, Alonso, Woods, Phelps, Armstrong) and difinitely a third one after such a successful year. He was also nominated in 2003. These awards are decided by world’s leading sports editors, writers and broadcasters from over 80
countries.

Well… seems like this competition is weak too… ha ha

I guess what Sean means is that after Sampras retired(or chickened out):
1. Agassi became OLD all of a sudden and had recurring back-aches
2. Moya lost interest in his game.
3. Kuerten got injured (anyway he dint win much outside of clay)

who else do u remember from pre-2002 who were good players and also lost their touch???

yah.. Rafter.. had a gud 4 years(at USOpen and Wimbledon) from 1997 to 2001(thats it)

regarding run to Finals or semis .. check during Sampras’s reign..

Todd Woodbridge reaches semis in Wimbledon
Pioline reaches finals at wimby
Andre beats Medvedev when he won his only French Open(in 5 sets) - lucky fellow..
Philiphousis reached a US Open final..
Rusedski reached a US Open final
Korda wins a AU Open
Gomez beats Agassi at French
Lot many others in Semis …

and all of them are not better than the Martin Verkerk, Rainer Schuettler,Gaston Gaudio.

Regarding the statement:
“The 35-year-old Wayne Arthurs beat world No. 8 and Shanghai contender Tommy Robredo, and Max Mirnyi, 29, beats Dmitry Tursunov. And today Tommy Haas needs three sets to beat a doubles specialist in Nenad Zimonjic.”

Sampras himself has lost to Paes in straight sets, who is a doubles specialist. So that doesnt prove anything to me.

If u read Agassi’s interviewd during this years US Open, his opinion.. Wayne Arthurs had the best serve (not sampras) that he faced.

But one thing is agree… most players do lack self belief when they face Federer(more so than Sampras) .. and they dont win BIG macthes cuz they finally end up meeting Federer before the finals.

THE PAGE OF NO SENSE:

The Age of No Competition (2002-2006)

THE BLOGGER OF NO WIT:

Sean Randall

“I don’t like to be reminded of the time we played at Wimbledon — he beat me fair and square and though it hurt, I knew he was a real talent,” Sampras said.

In Sunday’s Madrid Masters final, against Fernando Gonzales, who is world No.10 if you please, Roger Federer won his 17th 6-0 set of the year. In 1994, when Sampras won 10 titles, he had four 6-0 sets.

10 years on, the sport of tennis has only gotten worse, not better?

Obviously, Sean is a Sampras fan… but he needs to come up for some air once in while.

Actually I am beginnign to think that Sean Randall is just trying to rile up people…. I say ignore him and his illogical rants and it will eventually die down.

Let’s just ignore him.

People…This is not a Fed v. Sampras thing. Get over it. I like Fed. I am a fan of his. He’s an incredible player. I don’t like Sampras. I almost throw up when he won the US Open in 2002. And as I’ve said before, if Fed were to have played in the period of Pete’s prime, Fed’s No. 1, and he still wins multiple Slams.

I will also add that when Pete was playing in the late 90s, the competition was crap then, too. But in my mind it was not as bad as it is now when you got so many players who simply don’t know how to win when it counts the most.

Now, to answer some of your questions…

True Tennis Fan, can you prove any of those statements you made? Didn’t think so. Okay, to make it easy for you just prove this one: “There are more tennis tournaments today than 10 years ago.” That should be easy, just count em and get back to me. Assuming you can count.

Tejuz, Pete “chickened out”. He just had enough. He was cooked even before the Open that year, we all saw it. Give him credit, he got the fairy tale ending. Look at the Fed’s 2006 US Open draw, does Pete lose to any of those guys? And before you say Roddick slams him in the final, Pete wasted Roddick en route to his 2002 title. Sure Roddick’s a better player now, but you still got to give Pete a good chance, especially in a Slam final.

You also say Roddick is just as good as the other “one time” Slam wonders during Pete’s era. Fair enough. If he plays Richard Krajicek 10 times, or Michael Chang 10 times, I could see him ahead in each of those match-ups.

And “sour grapes”? For what? I just think the majority of players today are crap. Fortunately, that’s going to change in the next year or two (I hope).

Giner, you are probably right, Pete was fortunate to have not played Lleyton that year. But he did play Roddick, he did play Haas. What’s their excuse? I was sick that neither of those two could take Pete out.

I don’t get your No. 1 argument, but as I said before Roddick’s just one of 15 to ever finish a season No. 1. Safin, sorry. You were close but it didn’t happen for you, and probably never will. And yes, he’s on that page in history right along side Borg, Agassi, Federer, Hewitt, Edberg, McEnroe, Lendl as guys who finished the year No. 1. There’s no denying that one.

You say there was little depth back in Pete’s days. True, but there was even less in Borg’s days, right? I agree that there is more depth now and if Pete were playing or Lendl were still in the game right now they would suffer a few more shock first round losses, which Fed has remarkably avoided. However, the guys at the top who you have to beat to reach latter stages of events, and to win titles, are pretty weak right now. So I get your point, I agree with you, but it’s a question that if you’re a top player would you rather play in an age of 4-7 pretty good players with a bunch of average guys, or a one or two really good ones and a bunch of above average guys.

And this whole notion that serve/volleyers would have so much trouble today is a bunch of garbage. Last week Tim Henman, a far from peak Tim Henman, beat Fernando Verdasco and David Ferrer in front of their home fans on a slow indoor court in Madrid. Then he pushed another baseliner in David Nalbandian to three sets. In Miami this year he beats Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt. How the hell does that happen when the serve/volley is supposed to be an impossible strategy? The guy also reached the semifinals at the French in 2004? What hell was that all about, Giner?

JDC, okay let’s imagine if Fed/Nadal never existed. Without those two, Slam by Slam I got…
Federer:
2003 Wimbledon – Philippousis wins (you could argue Roddick)
2004 Aussie Open – Safin wins
2004 Wimbledon – Roddick wins
2004 US Open – Hewitt wins
2005 Wimbledon – Roddick wins
2005 US Open – Agassi wins (you could make a case for Hewitt)
2006 Australian Open – Bagdhatis (you could argue Haas I think)
2006 Wimbledon – Maybe Ancic? I don’t see Bagdhatis, not Bjorkman. Tough one
2006 US Open - Roddick

as for Nadal:
2005 French Open – Puerta
2006 French Open – I might go with Hewitt, but you could argue Ljubicic (Nalbandian was injured)

So without Rog/Rafa we give Hewitt a few more Slams, Roddick gets three maybe four more giving him around five Slams total. And perhaps Bag-man already bags one and maybe Ancic gets a sniff.

At the end of the day, Roddick though is probably the top player of this period, and going forward he would likely win a few more majors, ending his career six years from now with 7-9 Slams. Does that tell you, “Wow. With competition being as tough as it was back then Andy must have been a pretty good player to amass that many Slams” or does it tell you, “Wow. Things must have been pretty crappy back then if Andy could get that many Slams.” Luckily, we don’t have to deal with that outcome.

Luke, you say “hewitt is a much better player these days then back then”. Really? Are you completely insane?? His game is based on movement, and like Ferrero, he’s lost a step or two. I like your past/presents linkage, though. But take a look at Bjorkman, Santoro, Goldstein, Gimelstob, Dick Norman. Goldstein and Norman both hit career highs recently (the 35-year-old Norman this week) and Santoro and Gimelstob are not too far off. Explain that?

Critic, I started in 2002 because a bunch of guys like Thomas Johansson and Albert Costa won Slam titles that year. That why. Guys like Kuerten, Rafter, Sampras were past their prime. Hence you had Jiri Novak finishing Top 10 in 2002, you had Sjeng Schalken who had never advanced to a Slam 4th round in 26 prior tries suddenly reach a QF and SF that year (Schalken by with way finished his career reaching the 4th RD or better in six of his last nine Slams between 2002-2005). Competition must have been for that to happen!

And in 2004, you had Gustavo Kuerten rise up from the ashes to beat Federer in straights at the French. Kuerten was no where near his best at the time, but he still straight-setted No. 1 Fed who had won every Slam match that year except that one. Fed also had just won Hamburg so was in-form, but he couldn’t beat a banged-up Kuerten? What’s up with that? I’ll tell ya. Kuerten’s a champion, he’s a winner, he’s got heart. That’s what that is. He’s going to put up a fight, and he did it that day. Like Pete at the 2002 Open, these guys might not be at their best, might be banged up but when the chips are down it’s amazing how often they are able to rise up for big occasions. You saw Agassi do it the last few years at the Open.

Ask yourself, if you were in the US Open final and you could play an in-form Nikolay Davydenko, Tommy Robredo, Tommy Haas, James Blake or Ivan Ljubicic, would you rather play them or a past-his-prime Boris Becker. My answer, I’m taking the former, because you know Becker’s not going to go away easily. He’s gonna scrap, fight and claw and not be awed by the situation, and above all he knows how to win and he’s gonna play to win. These others guys, probably are going to come out playing not to lose. Big difference.

So how many players playing today really have that winning mentality? In my mind not many. Federer, Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin and maybe a few others. And it’s not about Fed beating these guys down. I mean, where was Fed when Ljubicic lost at the US Open? Where was he when Blake fell apart at Wimbledon, or when Nalbandian blew it at the Australian? How many games did the 5th-ranked Robredo win in his loss at the US Open last month? Was that Fed’s fault, too?

Thankfully with these new guys like Baghdatis, Murray, Djokovic, etc, we won’t have to deal with this much longer…

The thing is: Andre brought a joy to the sport that seems to be sadly missing with his absence now. There is something to be said for “soul” and although Roger is an amazing player (no matter who his opponent is), he is “flat.” Not his fault and I don’t condemn him for it. But it felt as if the tennis “balloon” had poppped the day Andre retired. The energy had left, the passion, the joy, the love of the game. That is what Andre projected and it was impossible to take your eyes off of him. Roger is amazing, no question; Rafa is great fun to watch and does some incredible things, no question. But it’s not who will replace Sampras or Federer (when that day comes), but who will bring the joy of the game back to the level it was when Andre played.

“JDC, okay let’s imagine if Fed/Nadal never existed. Without those two, Slam by Slam I got…
Federer:
2003 Wimbledon – Philippousis wins (you could argue Roddick)
2004 Aussie Open – Safin wins
2004 Wimbledon – Roddick wins
2004 US Open – Hewitt wins
2005 Wimbledon – Roddick wins
2005 US Open – Agassi wins (you could make a case for Hewitt)
2006 Australian Open – Bagdhatis (you could argue Haas I think)
2006 Wimbledon – Maybe Ancic? I don’t see Bagdhatis, not Bjorkman. Tough one
2006 US Open - Roddick

as for Nadal:
2005 French Open – Puerta
2006 French Open – I might go with Hewitt, but you could argue Ljubicic (Nalbandian was injured)”

I think you could revise things just a bit on there.
2004 US Open, Agassi Wins (Lost to Fed in Five)
2004 Aus Open, Safin Wins (Could Make a Case for Agassi, match up of previous year). All in all,
Agassi wins 11 slams rather than 8 and knocks on the door of best of all time.

well Jan, that is your opinion, your view. Yes, Agassi did bring some charisma to the game.. but i wasnt a big fan of him anyway.

I felt like how you do when Becker retired.. then tennis wasnt fun.. but it all changed when Fed won his first Wimbledon(or rather his semis victory against Roddick).

Sean, you cant point to a few losses of these players to say that they lose early. I bet most of the top players from 80s and 90s have lost on 1st or 2nd round. Becker has made lots of 1st round exits. It happens… first few rounds are the trickiest of all. Nalbandian has reached many semifinals.. Ljubcic has reached 2 semis this yr, Devydenko also 2 semis. These are consistent performers. If you dont see anything great in them.. thats your opinion. I think Ljubcic has a better game than Ivanesevic. Their only problem is Federer.. Ljubicic has taken Fed to close matches in Masters series and Masters Cup. Nalbandian certainly is a choker(also Blake).. but he has a good alround game. Roddick isnt pretty to watch, but hez effective. Why under-rate his achievements. He beat players like Agassi,Nalbandian and Ferrero to win his US Open 2003.

And regarding Kuerten beating Federer. Roland garros has been his home for sometime..and clay wasnt Fed’s fav surface. Fed wasnt confident abt his chances back then. Fed had a bad day, and lost 6-4 6-4 6-4. But doesnt say anything abt Kuerten’s fighting spirit. he lost the next round to hewitt i guess. Fed certainly has improved on clay the last couple of years.

You are talking abt the new generation coming up… well, if they cant dent Federer in the future.. they will also look like a weak competition.

This isn’t an age of no competition, it’s an age of extreme competition dominated by one man. Tennis is a much larger sport than it was say 10 or 15 years ago. Tennis became an olympic sport and it’s more global now than ever. The depth of men’s tennis is crazy, that why the number 80 guy in the work can upset the number 20 guy in the world. Also the writer of this article is retarded, top seeds are losing to lower ranked players now more than ever because it’s the end of the season and the tennis season is far too long. Partly due to the fact that, tournements make more money now then ever, and the atp wants to have as many as possible.

Ugh…this article is so terrible I’m actually going to spend time responding to it. And, sadly enough, I haven’t even read all of it yet, but I am prompted to respond!

Re: Pete’s win at the ‘02 US Open–”he could barely win a match”

Well, here’s where you yourself are “hammering” Mr. Sampras. Did you forget about the other 13 Slams he won? Was it REALLY that much of a shock? Sure, he was getting older, and not much was expected of him, but hindsight is always 20/20, and it’s not much of a shocker at all that the man who even at that time had the all-time Slam count record went ahead and won another one. Are you suggesting that he “got lucky” because of such “weak competition”?

Re: Thomas winning the AO and Albert winning the French…

Guess that must be a sign of the terrible weakness of the field (never mind that Agassi didn’t play that AO, Kuerten had sustained injury by the French, Juan Carlos–future Slam winner and no. 1–choked in the final)…Brian Teacher won the AO in 80–tennis was never weaker! Yannick Noah wins the French in 83–at a low point in tennis history! News flash–one-Slam wonders happen.

Re: “Jiri Novak finished the year at No. 7!!”

Karel Novacek finished 8th in 1991. Joakim Nystrom finished 7th in 1986. What the HELL is your point here.

Re: Andy Roddick finishing at 1 and his “equality” to the greats.

You point out that “on that page” he is equal, and that is the key. What a horrible logical mistake–do you really think in any other category people are comparing Roddick to Wilander, Agassi, Kuerten, or even people like Becker, Borg, McEnroe, etc.? And Roddick’s had a more successful career than Stich and you could argue he’ll have more success than Muster or Rafter. (By the by, none of these players has more than 2 Slams.)

Re: “weak-ass competition”

That year, Roddick went on the same summer hardcourt tear–beating all comers, including Ferrero and Federer–as Agassi did back in 95. Except Roddick actually won the US Open that year.

Re: your laundry list of surprise Slam performances

I’m not even going to bother responding to that, as I could fill an entire page of surprise semifinalists and finalists from the entire Open era. You write as if back in the “good ole days” it was the top 4 seeds in the semis at every Slam. Get real, and try learning about tennis or something.

Re: Wayne and Nenad

I’m not even sure you’re making a point here, but if you are, it’s the one contrary to the topic of your blog. Apparently it’s damned if you do or damned if you don’t–in the men’s game, even people outside of the top 100 are GOOD enough to beat top players, and according to Mr. Randall, that’s a problem. But I’m sure he’s just as busy complaining that there are only 5 women from Slam to Slam that can actually contend. So what exactly do you want out of tour competition?

Re: Dick Norman

Huh? Why did you mention this again? Achieving a CAREER-HIGH rank of 90 isn’t much to shout about, unless you illogically choose to make it so. Andre was 35 and in the top 10–must mean the tour is full of terrible players, not the singular nature of a single player and his ability!

Re: the “big matches” query

As in every era, there are players with high rankings that will reach a peak and be unable to go any further after that. That’s why, from any era, there’s only a handful of great, top players, and this “argument” you make wonderfully points that out. Thanks for noting that there are about 5 or 6 “greats” from this era, as there have been from any era (Borg/Connors/McEnroe, Lendl/Wilander/Becker/Edberg, Sampras/Agassi/Courier). Are you really trying to prove your own point here, or mine?

Re: Agassi’s reasons for sticking around

Couldn’t be because the guy is freakishly talented and in amazing shape. Must be because everyone else sucks and they folded when they played him. Yeah, must be that.

Re: The most foolish part of the article, the coronation of future greats such as Monfils, Djokovic, and Murray

Uh, really? Am I really reading this? Your position is that the sport will be saved by a bunch of youngers out of whom only ONE has been top 10 (Gasquet)??? Because you know, Monfils, with his hang-behind-the-baseline-and-hit-hard style is revolutionizing the game.

UGH then he makes the a-million-times-proven-wrong “X did more than Y at Z age” argument. Who cares when Federer started being good?? In 1993, would you say Agassi was a better player than Sampras because Agassi achieved more by 20 than Sampras did (pre his US win)?? How does that argument hold any weight?

Re: Fed needing “legit” competition

You’re paying him short shrift in the exact same way you say people are doing to Sampras. Way to come full circle. There’s just no way Federer is THAT good. Couldn’t be.

Well, this is by far the most terrible article I’ve read here so far. You guys should leave the tennis commentary (you know, the part that requires ideas and insight) to others and just stick with the “news and notes.” What a terrible, poorly-written, brainless article.

I meant agassi winning 2005 aus open, not 2004.
He also would have won another 3 masters series crowns had it not been for FED (2004 pacific Life, 2003 Masters Cup, 2005 NasDaq)

So minus feder and agassi could have
11 grand slams and 20 master series crowns. Best ever??

But to be the best you got to beat the best, who is federer.

I’m not going to say that the competition is less than it was 10 years ago. I believe now the atheletes are quicker and obviously hit the ball harder. The sport is evolving and physically the player is to, but unfortunately mentally they’re not. You can give a player everything they need to succeed on the tennis court(equipment, training, coaching). However, if you can’t execute or think of ways to win the match all those other factors really don’t matter. At that point it’s a lifestyle and a hobby. It’s still the greatest way to make a living if you can.

I agree with Sean.

Victory in tennis is not just about how hard you hit the ball. (otherwise Srichaphan & Gonzalez would be multiple slam winners.) It’s first and foremost about knowing how to win. Sampras knew how to win more than anyone but Federer is right up there.

The guys today have not show they know how to close the deal not just against Federer but even against each other. But I doubt anyone from Sampras’ era would have given Federer much trouble except Pete and Andre.

players nowadays are not weak. they’re good players, but i agree with sean randall that they don’t really have the heart to be champions. there are people who say that players come out beat by federer before picking up a racket. well its not just federer. blake has been bageled atleast twice that i know of in 5th sets. hes a great player, but he lacks the heart of a champion. federer, however, wants it more than anyone, i think, ever. he wants it so much that hes put himself so high above the rest of the field in the way he plays and how much he wins. nadal also wants it badly. he never goes away. agassi, even with his back problems and old age, knows that he must always play to win. when you’re a professional tennis player, its assumed u can be consistent so you dont have to be scared of missing in the net or out. look at the way federer hits his forehand. he runs around the corner of the baseline to hit a forehand when he could easily hit a backhand that would’ve been safer. so now hes hitting the forehand and hes not just aiming it inside out, hes aiming for the very line, the very corner of the court. and, most of the time, he hits an amazing shot. sometimes (Rome) he misses. hes not afraid to hit it though. and other players cant be afraid of winning. blake is afraid of winning. ljubicic is afraid of winning. nalbandian is inconsistent, sometimes he really wants it and it shows, but too often he lacks the heart. and as for gasquet being as talented as roger. definetly. no doubt in my mind. have you seen their monte carlo encounter? gasquet hits shots that federer hasnt even hit yet. just because he has the weirdest looking forehand ever and an ugly imitation of roddick’s service motion doesnt make him any less talented. hes growing, hes getting there. he has some great wins, beat federer, gives him a tough time when they play. but i do think the up and comers will bring desire back into the game. baghdatis, gasquet, djokovic, they see federer and his desire and they want it for themselves. they want to win, they no at the moment they have nothing to lose and everything to gain and theyr not gonna wait for it to come to them becuz they know that they have to go out their and claim those slams.

Tejuz, you are right in that some of the top guys do push Roger and Rafa, but they just don’t win, and then they can barely beat each other. Ljubicic, Davydenko and Nalbandian are all consistent players, I’ll give you that and I give them credit. But do they win big titles? Do they really come through in the clutch, like a champion??? If Roger and Rafael were to skip the Masters Cup next month would you really bet one of those three would take that title? I’d take Roddick or Gonzalez before those guys.

As for early losses, sure they happened back then in the 80s and 90s. Of course it did. That’s why I say what Fed’s done is amazing in that he’s avoided that early round upset bug. Incredible.

A thing to remember also that in the 80s, 90s the Slams seeded just 16. So the top seed could play No. 17 in the first round. Now with the 32 seeds the top guys are assured of not facing a top 35-ish player until the third round.

Fumus, can you elaborate on “tournements make more money now then ever”? Where do you get that from? Off the back of a cereal box?

Ryan, let me address your comments.

Regarding Sampras’ win at the 2002 Open, yes I was in shock when he won it. And I’m guessing there were a lot of other people who were also in some form of shock. Going into that event, who had Sampras winning that title? No one. As for him being lucky, sure there’s probably some of that, but more so that he just took advantage of the field. That’s all. Guys like Haas and Roddick should have taken him out but they couldn’t get the job done. After all, both Haas and Roddick beat Pete earlier in the year, why couldn’t they duplicate it when it mattered the most, at the Open?

News flash Ryan, one Slam wonders really do happen. I know. I agree. But I see Albert Costa/Tommy Jo as weaker one-Slam winners than others. Noah was a Top 5 player, and Teacher won the Australian when no one played it. You almost can’t count the Australian as a Slam back in the 70s.

On Roddick being “on that page”. “That page” refers to the page which lists the year-end champions. Listed on “that page” you will find Roddick’s name alongside Wilander, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and the rest of the 15 year-end No. 1s. But overall, is he really among those elite players? Of course not, but thanks to – in my mind - some weak competition and a fortuitous hot streak during that summer he stole the 2003 year-end No. 1 ranking. Good for him! I give him a lot of credit for pulling that one.

As for Dick Norman, he started playing in the early 90s. And after turning pro in 1991 why is it that now is when he reaches a career high? Last I checked players don’t peak at age 35. An answer could be that maybe he simply wasn’t good enough back in the 90s to reach a ranking of say No. 90. Maybe the tour was tougher back then, but now in 2006 he is good enough and/or perhaps it’s not that tough. That’s what I’m saying.

Re: Big Matches. Sure, every era has guys that manage to get into the top 10 or win a Slam that might not be all that. Karel Novacek, Alberto Berasategui, Jonas Bjorkman, Jay Berger, Karol Kucera, etc. But in my mind this period simply has more. Look at 1986, you had Lendl, Becker, Connors, Wilander, Noah, Edberg all in the Top 5. Those cats could win big matches. Are you going to tell me that mentally Ljubicic and Davydenko and even Roddick are up there with those guys, or even anywhere close?

And yeah, Agassi is freakishly talented, a once-in-a-lifetime like Federer, but he also did the math. Andre talked about winning Slams, that’s why he kept playing. And Andre loves playing guys that simply hammer away from the baseline with little spin and slice and give him rhythm. Which is something just about everyone in today’s game does.

You bring up “folded” which is exactly what Bag-man did at the US Open. In the fifth, Marcos got tight, couldn’t handle it and started cramping. Benjamin Becker almost did the same thing, and probably would have had he dropped that fourth set. As I said, Andre is a freak but I also think he knows – and it showed at the Open – that there are just not that many players who can close these days. Look at Blake a year ago, punishes Agassi only to fall apart.

An no I’m not short changing Fed. This is not a Fed thing. Fed would still be dominant even if the other players were better, he’s that good. Again, if Fed played in the 90s he’s still No. 1 and still racking up Slams. Doesn’t matter who’s across the net.

As for me being foolish in saying that guys like Gasquet, Monfils, Djokovic, Murray, etc, are going to save the sport? Perhaps I am, only time will tell. But I’ll take them over the current guys like Robredo, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, etc. Obviously you see a lot of mental toughness and heart in the latter group that I just don’t see.

Forecasting future stars can be tricky, but when you look back at guys in their teens who crack the Top 20, they usually end up with pretty good careers. That’s why I make the Gasquet/Federer comparison. Even Federer said at Wimbledon this year that Gasquet ”reminds me a bit of me sometimes.” I guess Fed’s wrong, too…

And “true tennis fan”, I’m still waiting on your proof that there are more tournaments now then back in 1996. Thanks.

“Again, if Fed played in the 90s he’s still No. 1 and still racking up Slams. Doesn’t matter who’s across the net.”

Thank you, Sean Randall, didn’t expect to hear that from you.

What is there to add? Nothing, the statement says it all.
Whatever the opponent, eventually Federer will figure out a way to beat him. Let’s hope he will stay strong enough to handle the young guns.

Today i watched him play Garcia-Lopez; even though there was no tension/excitement whatsoever concerning the outcome, it was great watching. If Sampras has got the best running forehand, Fed for sure has the best running backhand. Full speed, down the line, crosscourt, whatever you need.
Enjoy!
I believe Fed’s defense is most underrated. Check youtube for some samples. e.g. vs. Roddick, his “defensive smash”, vs. Agassi: defensive lob, vs. Nalbandian: squash hit; several shots around the net post (forehand, backhand, whatever you can think of)
Never would you see Pete chase a short ball across the whole court. He’s got a nice jump-smash, though

to me the axis of this debate centers on Is Roger Federer too good or is the competition too weak…….

THe problem that I have with the assertion that

1) prev greats from the past including Sampras are confirming his technical abilities his strategy and his mental toghness and pure shotmaking………past greats would not be fooled if ROgers was a top dog in a weak field…..moreover past tennis greats are tipping him as one of the greatest talents

2) ROgers and Pete both have all round games….without glaring or gaping weaknesses….ROgers, I would say, game is more technically sound than Pete’s ,,,,,,It is not a coincidence that both of these players were heralded as mental giants and technical geniuses both dominated in their eras…….If Pete Sampras had a more complete clay court game he would have dominated even more Federesquely

Sampras ain’t winning that 2002 us open if agassi didnt do him a fevor and beat hewitt.

I think sean you are so off base- what you cant see is that the players of the 90 were so bad returners and that is why sampras won so many slams.

Agassi isnt 1 class returner for me, that is just you amricans wanting to give him respect as pete was the beast server and agassi was his “revial” so he must be the gretest returner. No is not he is in the best 5 for me.

when those guys of the 90 started to face the great returners the started to lose. the s and v guys would lose so much this days right and left players will pass them.

fed, safin,nalbandian,muray hewitt are the best reurners.

I do agree that agssi won most of his slam only when peat form went down but it started in pete era not fed and agssi won his slams befor fed eara began in 2004.

Fed losing to guga in 2004 Frnach: fed didnt know that he is going to win 2 more slams that year. he was 22 years old all alone, did you forget that in the start of 2004 he wants choch less. and clay was he weakest slam, and guga best slam and he know how to play on it.

NoW dont comper players like nikoly and robredo to nalbandian, nalbndian is a great player he will be top 10 in evey ear is just need his head to get streat. he sould have won 2003 us open and 2002 wimbeldon. robredo is in the top 10 because he got luckey on tms on clay as fed and nadal werent there by that time next year he is out of the top 10 and he surly doesnt deserve to be there, but some players were injerd and some lack of from but he wont be there next year.

the real top 10 for me:

1.Fed
2.safin
3.nalbndian
4.roddick
5.nadal
6.gusqet
7.marray
8.tomas b
9.djoko
10.blake

Now the reason the other player cant beat fed, and remember this sean is Fed slice, is the best slice the game of tennis has ever seen, and they dont know how to dell with it. and that is the reason that fed would have won wimbeldon no mater what era he was playing in, and would have beating beat every time, the slice the bigest weapon on greass is also Fed best weapon.

The upsets this week: player are trierd that is it.

About gusqet, as fed fan I CAN can say as I call him baby fed, he has tennis skilles and he is close to fed then any other player, but as tennis talent all around skilles fed is the best.

I would say : fed, gusqet, nalbandian, bgdandis.

the problem with nalbandian and gusqet is that the nalbandian fitnce and 2 serve and gusqet fitnce and sometimes not ofancive enoght doesnt have the best retrne (althought it good).

gusqet dosnt have fed 1 serve, 2 serve, slice.

althought gusqet can hit more winners with his bh fed can do with the bk more things.

so gusqet if you want to be the next no1 when fed retires go and modale your game to fed game.

the next young guns are great but what would you say if fed keeps winning. I almost feel sorry for them because if he does only the 14,13 of this day will be able to have fun again.

I think that the new guns are just less or more a version of the top players of fed ear:

gusqet is less of a FED
nadal is more of a hewitt
tomas B IS A LESS OF A safin
bgdahdis is less or more of nalbandian
marruy is a lot of hewitt mix with nalbandian

pathetic blog… I can’t believe a person this dense is being allowed a blog here.

You, like a lot of other people, are stuck in the Sampras era — it is understandable that you were awed by his brilliance.

And, it is also understandable that you are taking Federer’s wins personally as an attack against your favourite.

But… I have to say, learn to have an objective eye and judge each era by its own merits. Tennis, like many other sports, is constantly changing and one might even say improving as the physicality of the game is increasing.

I am sure that in a couple of decades a person with the medical conditions of Sampras cannot dominate like Sampras did.

However, you probably haven’t changed your opinion by my comment so go ahead and watch the Sampras v Pioline final, the Connors run and marvel at how the old guys are making runs and how the competition is so tough

IIRC Sampras himself said that the competition had improved by the tail end of his career — I will take his word over yours thank you.

I am just wondering how you think that people are going to win titles if Federer is winning all of them.

You accuse Davydenko, Ljubicic, Blake et al of not winning majors but how are they going to do it if the best player in the world, arguably ever, Federer, is at the other end of the net all the time.

Seems a bit circular to penalise Federer’s era for the brilliance of one man.

And you talk about the strength of Sampras’s era, that is laughable. Sampras was never dominant outside of slams and he didn’t even perform at the AO. People like Rusedski, Pioline, et al made finals of slams.

You ask how Wayne Arthurs beat Tommy Robredo — I ask you how 41 year old ‘no weapons’ Wilander was able to beat Sampras in the middle of his peak, on a hard court no less?

why cant we all just get along? i hate how those of you who defend sampras insult federer and those of you who defend federer insult sampras. whether its them directly or their competition. seriously, both of them are tremendously great out of their minds. if federer’s competition looks weak its because hes making it look weak, same goes for sampras. the only problem is federer is more dominant than sampras was so his competition looks weaker. that doesnt mean sampras wasnt dominant tho. its not like sampras never performed out of this world shots. and he did make it look easy a lot of the time. and he was great off the baseline, too, he wasnt just a pure serve and volleyer. he outplayed the great agassi off the ground plenty of times. the current top 10 does lack flare though. they lack the desire and ambition that players like becker, agassi, chang, and especially sampras had. but there are players who have that desire. roddick definetly has it. everyone knew going into the final there was no way roddick could win. but the middle two sets were really close and until that one bad game on his serve at the end of the third set, it was anyone’s match. blake going for a backhand winner down the line when hes down match point against roger? thats pretty ambitious right there. im not saying blake all of the sudden has the heart of a champion, but i think hes learning. nadal has the heart of a champion, no question. nalbandian has proved to have the heart of a champion, beating roger at the masters cup, but he doesnt have the desire to be number 1 or anything. robredo, ljubicic, davydenko, these guys dont have the ambition of the others, but they are good players without a doubt. ljubicic and davydenko have given roger a run for his money enough times to say that theyre threats to him when theyr playing well. baghdatis is young but he wants to win and hes a future champion no question. gonzalez, hes basically the stereotypical ball basher of today. but he wants to win, just lacks the skill to win big. gasquet is a future champion without a doubt, he is baby fed. but hes young, still mentally fragile, but im sure he’ll get there. hopefully berdych will, too. unfortunately berdych is baby safin and we all see safin’s not doing too great right now. nonetheless, safin has the heart of a champion. of course hes the biggest underachiever in the history of tennis and its a huge shame, but when hes playing his best, we get some of the greatest matches ever. had safin lived up to his talents, him and federer would have definetly created the greatest rivalry ever. too bad tho. hewitt has the heart of a champion too but hes getting rusty. too many distractions.

10s Expert, you say I am “so off base” because players in the 90s “were so bad returners and that is why sampras won so many slams.” And players return better now? Maybe you are right. Ya got any data to back that claim up? Maybe players hit fewer aces now than a few years back. Not really sure how to measure that one.

Expert Analyst/Sasidharp, I first have to ask you when/where did a 41-year-old Wilander beat Sampras? According to the ATP database that match never happened, but perhaps they along with everyone else simply missed that one. Guess that’s why you are an “Expert Analyst”.

As for Davdenko, Ljubicic, Blake not winning majors argument. Then take Federer and even Nadal out of the equation the last three years and tell me which majors those guys win in their absence. I couldn’t find one, neither could Ben. Just read above, then add your thoughts. If you think Blake would have won the US Open this year or that Ljubicic would have taken the Australian Open crown I’ll listen. But tell me.

And you’re right. Rusedski was a crap player, and Pioline was nothing great. But Martin Verkerk is no world beater, neither is Rainer Schuettler. Point is, there’s always going to be some flaky Slam finalists, that happens in every era. So what.

True, that Sampras never was that dominant outside of Slams like Fed is today. Pete simply didn’t care much for the lesser events back then. He was playing to wins Slams. That was his priority. Does that make him less a player? You could argue that, and I would probably agree. But that was his deal.

Rob/True Tennis Fan/Nick and the other 1,000 aliases you try to use. I am still waiting on your proof that there are more tournaments now than there were in 1996. Show me. Also, read below, print it out and staple it your forehead.

To you Federer fans, let me write again. I like Federer. I like Federer much more than I like Pete Sampras. I couldn’t stand watching Pete as I found him very boring. Whereas Federer is a joy to watch. Again, I am not a Pete fan, but I do respect what he accomplished. That’s my opinion. If Fed played in Pete’s time, Fed still is No. 1 and he wins multiple Slams. Please make note of that. Thanks.

Why is Sean Randall writing for tennis-x??? He is hardly an expert, his integrity is shot, and the quality of his work is that of a struggling high school student. Seriously, I expect so much more from this site. The main page is good, but this collumn is just pathetic.

I think it’s an issue of perception — the current crop is perceived as weak because too many of them play the same style (110+ mph serve, whack topspin from the baseline, done). The rally-heavy approach eventually burns them out too soon, so people forget about them quickly (Marcelo Rios, anyone?). Space age racket technology and sending children to tennis clinics as if they’ve been drafted into the army only worsens the problem.

(And why all the love for Gasquet? He moves like a refrigerator.)

Put a wood racket in everyone’s hand and Fed’s still #1. Sampras would have been successful too, but with occasional Colin Dibley moments.

“I don’t get your No. 1 argument, but as I said before Roddick’s just one of 15 to ever finish a season No. 1. Safin, sorry. You were close but it didn’t happen for you, and probably never will. And yes, he’s on that page in history right along side Borg, Agassi, Federer, Hewitt, Edberg, McEnroe, Lendl as guys who finished the year No. 1. There’s no denying that one.”

Finishing the year #1 means nothing. It means for the past 52 weeks you held the most ranking points. It doesn’t matter if it happened in the middle of the season, or during the Master’s Cup. The effort and achievement is the same. This in no way puts Roddick in the same league as Agassi, Federer, McEnroe, et al. It takes more to be compared to them than to end a year as #1. How long you stay there is a more telling tale. Roddick only narrowly edged out Federer, and lost it two tournaments later. But I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue for Roddick’s case when your contention is that today’s competition is worse than it was back then.

“Giner, you are probably right, Pete was fortunate to have not played Lleyton that year. But he did play Roddick, he did play Haas. What’s their excuse? I was sick that neither of those two could take Pete out.”

True. They should have beaten him. But neither of those players had matured enough to prove themselves yet at that point. Roddick hadn’t won his USO or reached #1 yet.

“I agree that there is more depth now and if Pete were playing or Lendl were still in the game right now they would suffer a few more shock first round losses, which Fed has remarkably avoided. However, the guys at the top who you have to beat to reach latter stages of events, and to win titles, are pretty weak right now. So I get your point, I agree with you, but it’s a question that if you’re a top player would you rather play in an age of 4-7 pretty good players with a bunch of average guys, or a one or two really good ones and a bunch of above average guys.”

You could win a slam back then if you could avoid upsets from lesser players, and the stronger competition gets upset. In my opinion Hewitt had very lucky draws. Today, you can win doing the same, but it’s harder to avoid the upsets. That’s why these fairy tale runs keep popping up. Federer has done well to avoid these upsets, and he should have lost a lot more than he did, somehow. But I digress. In my opinion it’s harder to beat a field of 100 players who could on their day play the match of their life and beat anyone (than it is to beat a handful of ‘esteemed’ players who might have an off day and blow their tournament). That’s why you get players like Nalbandian reaching a Wimbledon final in his first ever grass tournament.

If you get extremely lucky like Hewitt does in your draw and string together a few opponents who suck or choke (or just plain avoid any noteworthy player because they get upset by unnoteworthy players), you could also reach unexpected depths in a slam like Henman or Bjorkman or Youzhny. The draw makes a big difference. Suppose Nadal had a tough draw and lost in Paris, Roger Federer might have been the first man to win the Grand Slam since Rod Laver.

“Last week Tim Henman, a far from peak Tim Henman, beat Fernando Verdasco and David Ferrer in front of their home fans on a slow indoor court in Madrid.”

Last I heard, Madrid was still one of the faster courts. Nadal himself admitted that it wasn’t his best surface. He won last year because many formiddable players skipped the event, and Ljubicic choked. It’s far from slow. And if the surface is a tough one for Nadal, it’s going to be a tough one for Verdasco and Ferrer also. I don’t blame you for not knowing the speed of the court since TV coverage probably sucks in the US.

As for Tim Henman’s fairy tale run at the French Open… let’s see who he beat. Saulnier, Burgsmuller, Blanco, Llodra (barely), Chela. With a draw like that, who wouldn’t? The only player there that should have beaten him was Chela. And while I do think that top 100 players are strong, that doesn’t mean they’re consistent. They can go deep and then have a meltdown. Does that make the competition worse than it was before, because we have a bunch of talented guys who can’t win when it counts? No. The reason the competition is still tougher is because there’s more players who can play well at any time. All they have to do is play their best and they can pull off an upset (a guy ranked 128 had no chance of beating Sampras). They don’t have a shot at winning the slams, but they can pull off early upsets (see: Ivo Karlovic). The sheer number of them means it’s hard for any player to negotiate their way through 7 consecutive matches.

Speaking of Karlovic, it would be interesting to see Sampras pitted against him.

I’ll definately concede to you that Pete had unbelievable runs this century and the players that lost to him should have beaten him (esp. in 2001 USO).

Sean never said Roddick is in the same league you fool. He said that if you look at the records of players to finish the year number 1 you will find Andy Roddick (2003) next to someone like John McEnroe (1981, 1982, 1984). Too difficult for you to understand? And finishing number 1 makes a big difference because at the end of the year despite what everyone else has lost or accomplished, you proved to be the most accomplished. Winning the most points means you won the matches worth the most points meaning you accomplished the most. And if you look at Roddick’s slam results in 2003 it is true. 2 semis and 1 win and 1 first round loss. More than Federer at the time, more than Ferrero, and more than Agassi. I think there are a lot more tremendously talented floaters in the top 100 that could create those upsets but that’s the thing. Let’s say there are 25 super talented players today and there were only 10 in 1993. In 1993, you knew who those super talented players were because they were all in the top 10 winning slams and everything. Nowadays you might have 3 super talented players in the top 10, a total of 8 in the top 20, and the rest are scattered throughout the top 100. Why? Are they bad or weak players? Physically, techincally, skillfully, no. But they’re weak mentally that creates this “age of weak competition”. I’m not saying Federer is lucky or anything, I think he would still be just as dominant if Blake and Ljubicic were CONSISTENTLY mentally tough. The difference would be that Federer would beat blake in a close 5 setter instead of winning 6-0 in the third set (this is referencing their Indian Wells encounter). It took Blake like 5 or 6 tries to get a set off of Federer. If he was mentally tough and knew how to really grind it out, he’d have atleast 6 sets off of Federer by now. I’m sure Federer would’ve still won their encounters, but they would’ve been much closer. You can’t say lucky draws are the key to success. I personally consider Hewitt an overachiever but I blame him for that. He’s the one who had the heart to fight for every point and it proved to be very benefitting for him. Nadal isn’t number 2 on the most talented list of players today, but he’s number 2 when it comes to heart. Number 1 when it comes to showing it, but we’ve all seen how much heart Federer really has.