US Open 2019

walshb wrote: »

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.

After Hewitt's initial burst onto the scene, he regressed year after year, as niggling injuries, then serious injuries, hampered his pace and ability to run. With his low center of gravity and pace, he was an exceptional returner who could, to a point, deal with the Sampras serve better than most.

But if Hewitt, circa 2006 for example, came up against Sampras in his prime, Hewitt would of got some serious tanking's off him too. Ye Hewitt in his prime beat Sampras, then again Hewitt in his prime beat Federer too, after Federer had won grand slams. So no, I don't think Hewitt's a great analogy.

walshb wrote: »

I used Hewitt v Sampras to make a comparisons as to how prime Nadal and Nole would fare against Sampras. Nole and Nadal are absolutely stronger than Hewitt, as well as both clearly bettering him in their H2Hs

Prime Nadal and Nole vs Sampras you say .

Sampras was at the end of his career when he first lost to Hewitt ,he was 29 ,he retired 2 years later .
Thats not a fair comparison .

Hewitt was a very average player mentioning him in the same breath as Agassi is laughable to be honest .

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

You think Nadal would be able to beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the US Open on those fast courts ?
On todays courts ,yes he'd definitely beat him but on the 90's courts ,thats a completely different scenario.
Federer and Sampras would be a good match up ,Nole would do better than Nadal but his return of serve is definitely inferior to Agassi ,who returned most shots flat.
Djokovic can play a more aggressive game ,he did when he first came on the scene ,but he has changed more to a grinding style in latter years so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

walshb wrote: »

Yes, why not?

Far too much being made of "slower" courts today....

And so what, Nadal still has the game, speed, strength, court coverage, stamina, array of shots....

What do people think here? That Nadal suddenly won't be near as effective because the balls are traveling that little bit faster?

Apart from a better serve and volley, where can Sampras really win? He won't out-rally Nadal, and Nadal is clearly a stronger player than any of the 90s guys that Sampras was beating.

Sampras has the advantage only when serving, and he will be hard pressed to win these games if he isn't getting in a high 1st serve percentage. When Nadal serves the game will be a rallying type game, and I dont care what speeds exist, Sampras won't beat Nadal here, unless he can get to the net effectively, and avoid the passing shots...

Ehhh there were no rallies on those courts in the 90s. There's a reason why clay courters got nowhere on grass and hard court back then.

Irrelevant that Nadal could out rally him as rallies like we know them today did not exist back then.

walshb wrote: »

So, you are saying that Nadal could not force Sampras to rally?

You do know what a rally is? It doesn't have to be 30 + shots.....

But if it was, with Nadal and Sampras, I'd be confident that Nadal is winning the vast majority, as is Nole and RF.

If it was that easy to force serve and volley players into rallies on grass and hard courts, then the clay court players of the 90s would have done so.

It's a completely different sport now to what it was then.

walshb wrote: »

Ok, SW19 is a little different. Faster than hard.

Still, Nadal on those SW19 courts is staying back on his serve. Forcing Sampras to rally more than he is comfortable with. If he comes in, he either wins the point or does not. I see him losing it more than winning it.

The strings were different back then. NOBODY back then stood way behind the baseline like they do now. Winners from way behind the baseline simply did not happen then. You can't apply modern day Nadal to 90s tennis unless you give him the 90s equipment. With 90s equipment and 90s court speeds Nadal has to play differently.

Nadal has a poor record on indoor hard courts, the fastest courts in today's game, courts that pale in comparison to the speeds of the 90s grass, hard and carpet courts. I struggle to see how he achieves much success in such an era.

1992 saw a baseliner win SW19. A great baseliner.....one of the greatest

Nadal is even greater. Nole, too!

I get all that.....

Still a baseliner....

This is what folks aren't getting. They are tennis players, all them....tennis is a lot of different things.....

But most important is that Nadal and Andre were baseliners....

Nadal's baseline game skills, and his other all around court skills, were for me too strong for Sampras and his game....

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He explained the difference and you reply "still a baseliner"? Really? So all baseliners must be great simply because they are baseliners? You're basically choosing to ignore everything you don't agree with and retort "the current 3 are 'outliers'" anyway.

Where did I say all baseliners must be great?

I am well aware of the style differences, but a baseliner is still a baseliner..

And no, not all baseliners are great. Agassi was great. Nadal is great.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He pointed out major differences in how they returned, you basically point blank ignored this, and replied "they are still both baseliners". So are you saying that the style of all baseliner's are similar and therefore must have similar results, with Agassi being an analogy of how good Nadal would be in another era? Or is it a mute point seeing as they are two completely different players?

I am aware of their tennis style differences, and have said this several times.

Both supreme baseliners. Both very good all rounders as well...

lostcat wrote: »

one can only reasonably rate players who have played against each other.

in this decade (2010-2019) the winning count is:

Slams Djokovic 15 Nadal 12 Federer 5
Master 1000's: Djokovic 28 Nadal 20 Federer 12
APT year end finals: Djokovic 4 Nadal 0 Federer 2
Year end No Ones (not inc 2019) Djokovic 5 Nadal 3 Federer 0

Head to Head - haven't worked it out but would assume that Djokovic would have a decent lead on Nadal and Federer (they would have had a lead on him pre 2010)

What that says to me is that Djokovic slightly > Nadal, and Federer can reasonably be said to have at least one leg in the previous decade

The overall legacies of the 3 are yet to be settled

Pretty flawed approach this. Basically cuts off all of Federer's best years in his physical prime. You are counting Federer's achievements from 28 years of age onwards.