Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 154 Posts

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
23,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Few of us remember our discussion at ATP World, where I suggested that recent successes of Agassi and Sampras, as well of some players ( Johansson, Costa ) who are not anywhere close to Grand Slam calibre is a direct result of the fact that the new generation of players - Safin, Federer, Ferrero, few others, with exception of Hewitt - are actually well on course of becoming a Generation oN ( Nobodies ). And three monthes that went from the moment that thread was started didn't let us any hope that it is not so.

It is not that Sampras, Agassi or Hewitt are extraordinarily good. Comparing Agassi-2003 and Agassi-2000 at respective AO, Agassi-2000 wins hands down, In year 2000 he had to beat a very in-form Sampras and Kafelnikov, and the quality of those matches was indeed extraordinary. In year 2003 he was only challenged by hardly in-form Escude, and even that was tough for him. I would not even get into comparing Sampras-2000 and Sampras-2002. Even Hewitt never looked same impressive at USO-2001.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,449 Posts
YS, you know you're heading into bulls-eye category as most posters here disagree with this assessment.

I, myself, am looking at Generation N2 (Gasquet, Nadal) as GN are full of mental softies. (Hope the next 3 slams prove me wrong :eek:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,449 Posts
Rebecca said:
A tad soon to get excited about the Grand Slam potential of Nadal and Gasquet, don't you think? ;)
Imagine this is April 1985 and we're talking about a young kid named Becker... :wavey:


*Off-topic* What happened to all of your rep points?
 

·
psychotic banana
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
ys said:
Few of us remember our discussion at ATP World, where I suggested that recent successes of Agassi and Sampras, as well of some players ( Johansson, Costa ) who are not anywhere close to Grand Slam calibre is a direct result of the fact that the new generation of players - Safin, Federer, Ferrero, few others, with exception of Hewitt - are actually well on course of becoming a Generation oN ( Nobodies ). And three monthes that went from the moment that thread was started didn't let us any hope that it is not so.

It is not that Sampras, Agassi or Hewitt are extraordinarily good. Comparing Agassi-2003 and Agassi-2000 at respective AO, Agassi-2000 wins hands down, In year 2000 he had to beat a very in-form Sampras and Kafelnikov, and the quality of those matches was indeed extraordinary. In year 2003 he was only challenged by hardly in-form Escude, and even that was tough for him. I would not even get into comparing Sampras-2000 and Sampras-2002. Even Hewitt never looked same impressive at USO-2001.
You just wait..Safin, Federer, Fererro, and those few others will start fulfilling their potential, whatever that may be. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,273 Posts
Are you including Costa and Johanson in the same generation as Agassi and Sampras :eek:
I guess it's too much if you were talking about Stich or Bruguera but Costa....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Quite frankly, there's no point in going into a long debate about the failures of this generation when we've yet to see whether they will become failures. Big deal, they're not multiple Grand Slam winners at the ages of 21 and 22. I for one prefer to be a little more patient and to have a little more faith in them. And frankly, if they don't end up dominating tennis in the way Sampras and Agassi did, all the better. It's fine to have them winning the big titles fairly regularly, but a little variation would not hurt at all. Tennis needs its journeymen just as much as it needs its bright stars.
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
23,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Hendouble said:
Quite frankly, there's no point in going into a long debate about the failures of this generation when we've yet to see whether they will become failures. Big deal, they're not multiple Grand Slam winners at the ages of 21 and 22. I for one prefer to be a little more patient and to have a little more faith in them. And frankly, if they don't end up dominating tennis in the way Sampras and Agassi did, all the better. It's fine to have them winning the big titles fairly regularly, but a little variation would not hurt at all. Tennis needs its journeymen just as much as it needs its bright stars.
It's not that they are not multiple GS winners by 21 or 22. It's that they look worse players than they were two years ago. And the way GS went recently, the way WHAT kind of people are winning Slams nowadays, the kind of resistance/opposition Hewitt and Agassi met on their way to their most recent Slam titles, it's all suggests that the sport no longer provides the same kind of motivation as it used to provide for younger players. I don't know for how long old men will keep winning Slams by default of those who are supposed to win them now, I don't know who will be winning Slams after Agassi is 50, but it no longer looks pretty. If Agassi reaches #1 playing probably the worst tennis of his career, what can I say..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
I don't think they're worse players than they were two years ago - even Safin is only being troubled by injuries, not because his game is poorer than it was in 2001, and both Federer and Ferrero have improved greatly.

I don't like the suggestion that older players are not supposed to win Slams - was there anything wrong with Johansson and Costa triumphing at the age of 26? If anything that's a good thing, as it means that some of these older players get a chance to achieve their full potential and do something great before they retire.

Agassi reaches no. 1 "playing the worst tennis of his career"? What planet are you on? Everyone has noted this year that he's probably in his best ever form. Remember that little slump of his back in 1997, when he had seven or eight consecutive first round losses and won less than a dozen matches all year? Now that was the worst tennis of his career.
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
23,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Hendouble said:
I don't think they're worse players than they were two years ago - even Safin is only being troubled by injuries, not because his game is poorer than it was in 2001, and both Federer and Ferrero have improved greatly.
And that being proved by..?

I don't like the suggestion that older players are not supposed to win Slams - was there anything wrong with Johansson and Costa triumphing at the age of 26?
They are not "older" players. They are players who are simply not supposed to win Slams. And who will never again come close to repeating.

Everyone has noted this year that he's probably in his best ever form.
Agassi in best ever form? What planet are you from? Yes, he hits the ball clean, but he always did. But his movement, by his own standards, is poor. Yesterday's final, the quality was so pathetic, it was worth a match of #51 against #56, not #1 against #6. He is NOT playing his best, and he never will. It's just the rest of the field are all headcases, and the time of great champions is over. He is winning by default, by simply managing keeping his mind together, while all his opponents think about somethin else.

If we talk about his best form, it was unquestionably 1994-1995. His game maybe was not that mature tactically, but his physical form was superb, his striking power was incredible, and he was fast as a lightning. And no wonder that that form allowed him to successfully challenge not only the best player of the decade, but the whole bunch of other all-time greats such as Edberg, Becker, Courier. And not only challenge, but even rise above them. On his current form he would not even have made Top 5 back in 1995. Leave alone #1. I think that he came pretty close to that form in late 1999-early 2000. Close, but still not as good.

It's just that there is no great players nowadays. And the players who are gifted wih great talents see nothing bad in losing to nobodies. And then they call it "depth".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,449 Posts
propi said:
Are you including Costa and Johanson in the same generation as Agassi and Sampras :eek:
I guess it's too much if you were talking about Stich or Bruguera but Costa....
Costa? Johanson? Pfftt. Those were lucky journeymen who haven't done anything since. Please let's keep them out of the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,449 Posts
Hendouble said:
I don't think they're worse players than they were two years ago - even Safin is only being troubled by injuries, not because his game is poorer than it was in 2001, and both Federer and Ferrero have improved greatly.

I don't like the suggestion that older players are not supposed to win Slams - was there anything wrong with Johansson and Costa triumphing at the age of 26? If anything that's a good thing, as it means that some of these older players get a chance to achieve their full potential and do something great before they retire.

Agassi reaches no. 1 "playing the worst tennis of his career"? What planet are you on? Everyone has noted this year that he's probably in his best ever form. Remember that little slump of his back in 1997, when he had seven or eight consecutive first round losses and won less than a dozen matches all year? Now that was the worst tennis of his career.
I think when we last talked about this, there was some cut-off for winners of 1st slams. If you hadn't won by a certain age (26, what it Becca? Eggy?) then you're chances doing so dropped precipitously. And if you hadn't repeated a slam in 3 years or so???, you were probably going to be a one-slam wonder.

I think Costa and Johanson are exceptions that prove the rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,582 Posts
It's just that there is no great players nowadays. And the players who are gifted wih great talents see nothing bad in losing to nobodies. And then they call it "depth".
Please, ys. Speak for the players that you follow (Safin, for example), and not for all of them. I have read just about all of Ferrero's interviews in the past two years, and unless he puts up a really good front he hates losing to the Hewitt's, the Safin's, the Agassi's, and most certainly the "nobodies".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,582 Posts
Tennis Fool said:
I think when we last talked about this, there was some cut-off for winners of 1st slams. If you hadn't won by a certain age (26, what it Becca? Eggy?) then you're chances doing so dropped precipitously. And if you hadn't repeated a slam in 3 years or so???, you were probably going to be a one-slam wonder.

I think Costa and Johanson are exceptions that prove the rule.
This "rule" was created by Eggy, or at least first introduced to me through him. It's not one that I have agreed with, because Eggy seems to take it as if it's gospel, casting off anything that proves it wrong as an "exception" and insisting that tennis will forever be this year. This could be a gross misunderstand of his point of view, mind you, and I'm sure he'll be around eventually to clean up what I've said.

One important fact that seems to be totally eluding some of you is that sport EVOLVES. Hockey has, athletics have, gymnastics has.. tennis is no exception. Looking back and crying "where are the champs? We want Becker and Edberg, Mac and Borg, etc. back" is like bitching that you miss the 80's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,449 Posts
1jackson2001 said:
You just wait..Safin, Federer, Fererro, and those few others will start fulfilling their potential, whatever that may be. ;)
Yeah...I can already see it.

Year 2005:

Safin: In jail for assaulting a chair umpire
Federer: In child court denying fatherhood of La Kournikova's first child
Ferrero: In a supporting role as a racquet-wielding villian in the next Bond film

Meanwhile Gasquet, Nadal and Muller deul for the #1 spot with...Pete Sampras :eek:
 
1 - 20 of 154 Posts
Top