US Open 2019

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I was expecting this.....

I can see him being competitive, but I don't see him really putting a dent in the other three. I didn't day he would not compete, but the poster I was quouting seemed to suggest he'd be winning a lot more slams. That I cannot at all see..

Hasn't a chance in France vs. Nole/Nadal or Fed. They have far too much....May push Fed really close...

SW19: No way he hangs with any of them.....A 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011 version of the three hammer him.

All at peak and Agassi clearly suffers...

Best chance is Oz...

He won the first three matches vs a Federer that was maybe 4 years pre prime for Roger.

All at the height of their powers see Agassi losing to the three regularly.

I don't really see where you're getting any of this from. If he grew up with today's game, his strength, stamina, conditioning would be better, as would whatever else goes with today's preparations.

Otherwise, in terms of actual skill and talent, I don't see how the "big 3" are superior. Splitting hairs really, as with the top talents from any generation

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yep, so players just stopped using serve and volley by pure coincidence then? A method of tennis that proved very effective on all surfaces but clay right up until the early 2000s.

The rallies just got longer by pure coincidence too.

The science comparing speed and height when the ball bounces from the 90s to the present day are all lies too.

Exactly .

Anyone denying the fact that the courts and balls have been slowed down considerably since the 90's is frankly deluded.
The science is overwhelming .

Now, if (to borrow your hypothesis narrative) the surfaces were wildly different, as they were in the 90's, what's not to say that Nadal (and Djokovic) would not have adapted to those courts as well? Who knows

You think Nadal standing 10 yards behind the baseline at the US Open and hitting winners would have worked in the 90's ?
Do you think his grip and huge topspin would be anywhere as effective with older rackets on faster courts with lower bounce ?

The fact is the Big3 have all competed under the same conditions - why the need for hypothesizing otherwise?

Yes they have ,conditions that give the advantage to the more defensive type of player .
The strings,balls and court manufacture all contribute to this .
Its not opinion its science .

Golf is another sport where technology has played a huge part .
Modern technology means US golf competitions have largely become a putting competition as the drivers are so forgiving that its a bombers paradise .
Ball striking is no longer as important as it used to be as the clubs are so forgiving .
The ball has also been changed like as in tennis .
You cant change the courses though like what has happened in tennis ,to make them faster/lower bounce etc .

Ah Christ, it's pathetic really - the levels to which Fed fans will go to convince themselves that he is the best, whilst Nadal & Djokovic are mere pretenders, when all the facts and stats are beginning to say otherwise. I like Fed every bit as much as Nadal & Djoker, but I am actually hoping that Nadal (or even Djokovic) surpasses Fed in the slam count - just to see the excuses and goalpost-shifting that will come from Federer fans if it happens! The mind boggles as to what they will think of to undermine that achievement :rolleyes:

Hector Savage wrote: »

Saying if Djokovic shoulder is still injured which is likely as shoulder injuries are absolute feckers to get rid of...

Ya, I've just seen a report on reddit that he could be going for surgery on the shoulder...must be serious

walshb wrote: »

If this if that...

I can’t see much change for Andre. Is he suddenly going to be so much faster and stronger?

Talent wise with a racket he is up there. Fed is superior, though. Athlete wise I think all three are superior, eras notwithstanding.

The big three are outliers; not even generational. Agassi was just another top player in his era. These three are above that.

Like Bolt in the sprints....an outlier......not much to do with era. Just special.

Bolt is an outlier? Possibly, possibly not. But in this scenario, we just happen to have 3 outliers in the history of the sport at the one time? And in 20 years, another few? Everything improves over time, generation to generation, even to minute details, ways of practice, consistency at the top etc. Everything today is the "best ever" more or less, if we go down that road.

If you think these 3 are just 3 freakish players who would destroy the likes of Agassi or Spamras, or Borg or whoever, then so be it. I think it's a ridiculous assumption, particularly when we see how competitive Agassi actually was against Federer in his pomp. You accuse me of "if this and if that", but that's all you have too, hypotheticals.

walshb wrote: »

Agassi won sets and matches against a young Fed..

All competing together at their prime, and Agassi would need clear improvements to be successful against them. They are simply too strong in all areas..

And let’s not pretend Agassi is ancient and was competing in a far away era..

As for Borg.....not really worth considering...

Sampras’ baseline and ground-stroking would be brutally exposed..

Recency bias. It's easy for people to forget just how good those players of the past were, with inferior technology and different courts.

Agassi took Federer to 5 sets at the US Open in 2004 and pushed him hard in the 2005 US Open Final. Both those US Open's Federer went on to win.

Granted it was an exhibition series but I remember Sampras coming out of retirement to play Federer 3 times when he was world number and he won one of them.

Not sure why you are so dismissive of Borg. He won the French Wimbledon double 4 times back when the courts were complete polar opposites. That's far more impressive than achieving the feat today. Give Federer and Nadal a wooden racquet too and see how they get on. Would love to see Nadal hit winners from way behind the baseline with a wooden racquet.

walshb wrote: »

Agassi won sets and matches against a young Fed..

All competing together at their prime, and Agassi would need clear improvements to be successful against them. They are simply too strong in all areas..

And let’s not pretend Agassi is ancient and was competing in a far away era..

As for Borg.....not really worth considering...

Sampras’ baseline and ground-stroking would be brutally exposed..

You can't just pick a guy out of another era and place him in today's era, say he'd get destroyed and consider no external factors. You grow up with the game of your day. The game and conditions Agassi and Sampras grew up with were vastly different to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Sampras would be brutally exposed on today's courts or on 90's courts? Except in serious exhibitions, Federer has yet to "brutally" expose him for example, on far slower courts. If Sampras grew up today, he wouldn't be playing a serve and volley game to begin with. I don't think you're fully grasping this concept.

All we can really compare is the raw talent across generation, and how under the same conditions for every generation, how it would hypothetically play out. And when it comes to raw talent across the top players from each generation, you're splitting hairs

I think Hewitt is the analogy here. Very good player, similar to Andre..

Hewitt’s game was very tough for a still very good Sampras. He beat Sampras several times, when Pete was still 30 or below, and when Hewitt was young.

I cannot see any Sampras having an easier time with Nole or Nadal, who were both clearly stronger than Hewitt..Sampras would be punished more..

Whatever game Sampras decides to play today, he is still Sampras, and his weaknesses would still be heavily punished by theee monsters of the game. Outliers.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Jessie Owens is like slow motion sprinting in comparison to Usain Bolt. Meaningless really. Different tracks, footwear, training knowledge etc between the eras. Same for tennis.

They compared this recently and estimated that Owens would be within one stride of Bolt if running under similar conditions.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not sure why you are so dismissive of Borg. He won the French Wimbledon double 4 times back when the courts were complete polar opposites. That's far more impressive than achieving the feat today.

Couldn't resist that last bit, could you.

Get a grip..

They’re elite tennis players...

Should be able to play on any surface....under any conditions..

Difficulty level is not relevant here...

Borg did FO and SW19 several years in a row...

Absolute no different than anyone else doing it..or doing any other combination..

Chivito550 wrote: »

How come in the 90s the French Open champions often didn't even bother showing up at Wimbledon. How come the likes of Sampras and Ivanesevic were nobodies on clay. Clay and grass were like 2 different sports. One involved rallies of 3-4 shots, the other 15-20 shots. Nowadays the surfaces are far more similar.

For Borg to win on both surfaces during such an era for so many years is a grossly underrated achievement. It's the equivalent of winning the 100m and the 800m simultaneously.

I never claimed there were no differences between surfaces...

And it’s why Sampras can never be considered the greatest. His poor clay record..

Nadal and Nole and Fed would have won on any surface in any era under any conditions. That is my point. They are that exceptional..

Put the three of them into the 90s and Sampras likely wins 3-4 slams max..