Roger VS Rafa.

[kingjulian]

Also being a big Pistol Pete fan (who wouldn't be, after growing up on Sampras special slam dunks), i take a bit of offence to the idea that somebody drove him out of the game.

Safin, Hewitt and Federer defeated him comprehensively, with Safin going close to embarrassing him but a lot of it was due to age being a factor not only because he came across superior players.

Agassi fought till the end like a champ too. Love them both.

 

[Delinquent]

It's a pretty accurate list, notwithstanding your inclusion of Blake and Gonzalez, which frankly, is laughable. I would also argue that Ferrero deserves to be included in it. And Agassi was still going strong when Federer burst on to the scene (he won the Austrlian Open the year Federer rose to prominence and lost a memorable US Open final against him in 2005), and didn't retire until 2006 (when he was still making Masters finals every year).

You're also forgetting that it was Hewitt who knocked Sampras off his perch, and stole his number 1 spot from him. This while Sampras was still very much a force to be reckoned with (as evidenced by his US open win in 2002). It was a turning point for the game of tennis, as far as I'm concerned.

And with regards to Federer, if Nadal is the 'only credible challenge who came around', (incidentally the same Nadal who is now being touted as Federer's natural sucessor,) then it's hardly a stick to beat him with, is it? The greatest player who ever lived is now being succeeded by, quite possibly, the one who will be considered the greatest in the future.

Nadal was hopelessly outclassed and outmuscled in his early encounters with Federer, and to his credit, has adapted his game, and his physique, to overcome that. He is one of the most dedicated sportsmen on the planet, and he's had to be to get where he is. Again, I think you're underestimating Nadal's achievements in the same way you have Federer's.

But like I said, this debate will always split the room, so it's probably not worth labouring on.

 

[Avmenon]

2002 was very much Pete Sampras' last hurrah though.

He'd been written off, and it was a fitting swansong.

I was a bit sad, since I'd been following his career since its beginning...in many ways it reminded me of McEnroe's last hurrah when he reached the Wimbledon semis (losing to eventual champion Agassi) and winning the doubles with Michael Stich in 1992

(wIMBLEDON men's final 1992 is also probably my favourite EVER tennis match)

 

[kingjulian]

Gonzalez i agree...i was trying to remember a hard hitter. His name came in my head for some reason. I saw him live in Australia a few years back. That could be the reason.

James Blake was a serious talent though. Why he has under achieved the way he has is a big mystery to me.


anyway back to the argument....

I'm not convinced on three things with your argument....if you still had some interest in debating this.

1. Which player from the Federer era would have hugely benefited had he played in a different era in terms of accomplishments. I really don't see any standouts in terms of ability, that give credibility to the idea that it was Federer's ability that made the talent pool look dry.

2. Conversely, on what basis are we to believe that greats from other era would not have made it in Federer's era? Because i have not seen, for example, a serve and volley expert like Pete in Federer's era. I have also not seen a player who plays just inside the baseline and execute shots on the volley or half-volley like Agassi was able to do. I don't see anyone returning serves as well as Agassi did either. It's not as if the serve/speeds accuracy has changed much either. We have seen a particularly strong influx of highly mobile players in Federer's time but players like this (like Chang) were still around in the past. It's not a new phenomena as far as i see.

3. I have forgotten the third point while writing the first two...it was quite pertinent though, i swear.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41879.msg1174688#msg1174688 date=1284550198]
3. I have forgotten the third point while writing the first two...it was quite pertinent though, i swear.
[/quote]

1st set to the king

 

[ibromurph]

Pretty much agree with everything Del has said on this thread. Some great posts.