Tennis Forever

[omega]

wow...beautiful discussions going on...hats off... federer the best tennis player of all eras..suras...puras.... hats off

Bull is the best ever. Never before & never again!!

[omega]

Great, so at the end of a career it would be who owned who is what will be remembered and not their overall achievements & how versatile they were...Excellent!!
Again for 1000th time, Fed's resume & owning by Nadal only says how good Fed was in Clay. Had he been a little weak on clay ( say like a Sampras) he wouldn't have met Nadal in those Clay matches (15 of their 31 meetings), the H2H would have looked much better, but actually would have meant Fed was not good in clay.

A 32nd ranked player way back when he was just 17 in 2004 won against the then No.1 player in their very first meeting (Miami Masters) on his least favourable surface (Hard court). So this guy clearly had something to unsettle the No.1 on his best surface. But somehow he avoids meeting the No.1 on any of the Hardcourt Grandslams until 2009, clearly when the other guy is on his decline. Remember by this time they have already met 19 times (10 times on clay, 4 on Hardcourts, 3 on Grass & 2 on indoor Hardcourts).

[omega]

too bad....actually the reason why delpo lost is because of the surface being too slow and it suits hewitt who is a marathon player like nadal....they should change the surface next year so that the likes of delpo can win matches....

So much for the Strong era player being beaten by an outdated/injured/old Weak era player!!

[JamesDap]

"My point is, at least with Pete, he never allowed anyone to 'own' him during his playing career. Off course, in clay courts everyone owned him, but in Grass and Hard courts, he was close to unstoppable. Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, et all all posed different threats (if you can include the likes of Chang/Courier w ho both were lighting quick from the baseline) and Sampras always had answers. "

That depends on what you mean by letting somebody owning him. People cite head to head to argue that Nadal owns Federer. By the same token, Sampras trailed Hewitt 4-5 and Kraijeck 4-6. So it's not true that he always beat all of his opponents on hard and grass court. There were some players who bothered him as well. But none of those players had the consistency to also win lots of slams, unlike Nadal. Speaking of which...

"I remember this match clearly, Pete thumped Hewitt in the semifinals and was swept away by Marat Safin in the Finals. This was 2000 US open. Yes. Exactly the reverse happened the next year. Sampras conquered Safin in the SF and subsequently lost in the finals to Hewitt.

But, the point i am trying to make is Pete Sampras taught Marat Safin a lesson or two about S&V in the SF of US Open 2001 and conquered his conquerer of last year with this trademark and delightful S&V. "

I remember both tournaments well because as a Sampras fan, I was upset to see him lose to these 'upstarts' after working hard to reach the final. So...I never said Safin or Hewitt owned Sampras. You seem to have jumped to that inference of your own. I don't think Hewitt or Safin can begin to approach one of the all time greats of the game that Sampras was. So the point, rather, was that the game had evolved. Even decent, talented players like Hewitt or Safin had begun to beat Sampras before all the fuss about slowing down the courts began. It's the racquets. And I want to bring in another late 90s player into the discussion that people forget about..as in, the full spectrum of his achievements. Gustavo Kuerten. Without ever winning a hard or grass court slam, Kuerten still finished 2000 as no.1. I think he was the first clay court specialist in years and years to achieve that. Borg or Lendl were always good on grass and hard court respectively. Kuerten beat both Agassi and Sampras in the year ending championships to achieve this feat. 2000 was a pretty seismic year in tennis but nobody really noticed because they couldn't think of any of these players as 'great' and therefore dismissed these feats as 'one offs'. Even I am wise only with hindsight. But in my defence I was just getting into junior college then and didn't really analyse tennis.

[JamesDap]

"actually the reason why delpo lost is because of the surface being too slow and it suits hewitt who is a marathon player like nadal."

On the other hand, Delpo is a pretty good clay court player and it's Hewitt who loved playing on fast surfaces. He used to just wait for serve and volleyers to come in and pass them. He doesn't have big groundies unlike Delpo so the longer the rally the harder for him to win. But Delpo lacks patience and also doesn't move up and down the court much at all. Djoko lacks Delpo's physical attributes and yet he steps in a little inside the baseline to take the ball early. Delpo just hangs back and wants to fire winners from way behind. Doesn't always work. I for one am glad Hewitt won as is his game is more interesting and tactical and he relies on SHOTS rather than brutal physical power to win.

[JamesDap]

Great, so at the end of a career it would be who owned who is what will be remembered and not their overall achievements & how versatile they were...Excellent!!
Again for 1000th time, Fed's resume & owning by Nadal only says how good Fed was in Clay. Had he been a little weak on clay ( say like a Sampras) he wouldn't have met Nadal in those Clay matches (15 of their 31 meetings), the H2H would have looked much better, but actually would have meant Fed was not good in clay.

A 32nd ranked player way back when he was just 17 in 2004 won against the then No.1 player in their very first meeting (Miami Masters) on his least favourable surface (Hard court). So this guy clearly had something to unsettle the No.1 on his best surface. But somehow he avoids meeting the No.1 on any of the Hardcourt Grandslams until 2009, clearly when the other guy is on his decline. Remember by this time they have already met 19 times (10 times on clay, 4 on Hardcourts, 3 on Grass & 2 on indoor Hardcourts).

Agree with more less everything you said here. It is just a bad match up for Fed. On the other hand, Nadal used to lose to players like Gonzalez or Youzhny until 2008 when not only Fed but all the earlier generation players began to go off their peak.

[ajithfederer]

Omega Need your thoughts on this article.

First, there are issues from a purely entertainment and traditional point of view. What makes tennis so unique is the variety of surfaces and the way in which the surfaces compare and contrast against each other. It forces players to come up with different game-plans on different surfaces against different players and means that total domination is next to impossible due to the rigors and difficulty of adapting to each and every surface. Even Federer at his very best was routinely beaten by many a player on his least favorite surface. And it comes as no surprise that Novak Djokovic’s spectacular year – arguably one of the best and most consistent seasons in history – has come in 2011 as most major surfaces have become almost identical.

But it is far from just an aesthetic and cosmetic problem. Traditionally, clay is by far the most grueling and toughest surface on the body, and the faster surfaces have always provided a heavy contrast to the red dirt – allowing players to shorten points, attack and somewhat protect and preserve the body. The slowing down of the courts has taken this away, with most courts coming glorified clay court. It means that players are having to put their bodies under immense pressure day in and day out and it’s leading to increasingly more injuries. Again, it’s no surprise that after a long and grueling season, this US Open broke the record for most withdrawals and retirements in a single tournament.

http://www.tennispanorama.com/archives/20595

[JamesDap]

^^^ Incidentally since that article, ATP introduced a stricter time violation rule - you lose a point for taking more than 25 seconds between serves. That has probably already ensured we won't see a repeat of the gruelling 2012 AO final.

[raagadevan]

Surface Tension

How big a role has court technology played in tennis's current golden age?

By Brian Phillips- Grantland, June 27, 2013

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...age-men-tennis

[VinodKumar's]

:P