A question for the old-timers!

[Front242]

Easy answer: Since Fed was born and to present have all been weak competition

 

[huntingyou]

Hunting: since Laver, only one player had won a career slam (Agassi) until now we have two and maybe soon three.

So, "Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s" is true and false:

Lendl didn't win "ALL the hardware."

Wilander didn't win "ALL the hardware."

And so on through the list.

Why not?

No, you are playing with semantics.

Laver won the Slam. Agassi won his Calendar Slam in 1998. Federer won his in 2009 followed by Rafa in 2010.

First of all, the data it's not suficient to make any claim what one or the other. What I see here are exceptional players in Agassis, Federer and Rafa that managed to accomplish an amazing feat. I already stated that both Rafa and Roger are ANOMALIES as in anomalies that we have TWO amazing players in the same era, thus obscuring perception.

I meant that the players in 80s who were GREAT won all the hardware in a very high clip. Borg didn't win the calendar Slam because he got unlucky with Connors and JMac. If he wouldn't have retired then maybe he would have won it. It's not like he had no chance at the UO. In addition, "different" styles and surfaces had nothing to do with his inability to win more. It was JMac basically who did it...another GREAT. Do you understand now? The field had no chance just like today..............

 

[shawnbm]

Some of these posts are just going off into too much detail. My opinion (in answer to El Dude's original post) is that when you compare the top tier of the 1970s and 1980s--when Open tennis really came into its own--with now, the difference is the top tier of the day today is heads and shoulders above the rest on a circuit that, because of balls, strings, etc., rewards increased homogenization not so much in terms of court surface, but style of play. There is less variety of style of play and the four that have the best tools in THIS kind of game are dominating like nobody has since the Aussies dominated all the events around the world with serve and volley tennis (on a serve and volley/chip and charge tour) on the (mostly) grass courts of tennis. Everybody played like them and guys like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales (I know he wasn't from Down Under), Hoad, Emerson, etc. were just better at that game and took turns handing trophies back and forth to one another. It is sort of like that now with the Big Four over the last decade.

Now, in the Connors-Borg-McEnroe (and later Lendl) era, you had more contrast on tour than you did now. You had serve and volley/chip and chargers with big services who could make a run at Wimbledon against a Borg or Connors or Lendl but would not make a dent against a Borg or Lendl in Paris on the red clay. You had baseliners who would perform reasonably well on European clay and on the hard courts of North America and in New York, etc., but have a tough go of it on the grass against a Cash or a McEnroe or a Gerulitis. Baseline tennis started coming into its own in the Seventies, but you still had loads of folks "schooled" on grass court tennis attacking the net against the Donnay and Wilson T-2000 wielding champions (Ellsworth, do you agree?) So, I have always felt the greats of that era were more prone to the unexpected loss now and then than the guys today because they could run up against a hot hand, who played quite differently than they did. Today? A Rosol or Isner or Nishikori or whomever gets hot and the question is whether his best is going to outdo the clearly better Federer or Nadal or Djokovic--who are playing largely the same style of tennis as the upstart. The lesser players can't pull the upset as often as the styles are not dissimilar enough over the course of a match. The great player can play his way in and usuually does or the lesser player reverts back to his inferior game that is of the same mold. Sometimes back then the other player's hot hand was so dissimilar to a great's game they could sneak the win before adjustments could be made. That is my thought on it, and now I am beginning to think I may be way off base; maybe this crop of greats are simply that damn good.

 

[Federberg]

^Perhaps you're right, hunting, perhaps. It's always difficult in these discussion to extract a truly objective view. For my part, I'm going with my personal observations. I will continue to maintain that Borg's channel slams were an order of magnitude greater achievements than what Rafa and Roger have done in recent times. Just my view...

Re: JMac.. he had only one success on clay in 1984, excluding the runners up at RG. Make of that what you will...

 

[huntingyou]

^Perhaps you're right, hunting, perhaps. It's always difficult in these discussion to extract a truly objective view. For my part, I'm going with my personal observations. I will continue to maintain that Borg's channel slams were an order of magnitude greater achievements than what Rafa and Roger have done in recent times. Just my view...

Re: JMac.. he had only one success on clay in 1984, excluding the runners up at RG. Make of that what you will...

Well that's ok, Borg had some challenges that Rafa and Roger did not but in the other hand Roger and Rafa were dealing with themselves.

JMac was a fast court player and his S&V game was hard to master on clay thus his results in that surface. Lendl in the other hand was more consistent in all surfaces including carpet and clay. I know he never won SW19 but he got very close to it more than once. He was great on grass because he was an overall great player.

I'm not denying contrast of styles and surfaces, my point is today greats are facing challenges that their old peer didn't have to deal with and I consider those challenges greater to master. We'll see what happens after the TRIO retires.....you might be right but it remains to be seen.

 

[Kieran]

Hunting: since Laver, only one player had won a career slam (Agassi) until now we have two and maybe soon three.

So, "Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s" is true and false:

Lendl didn't win "ALL the hardware."

Wilander didn't win "ALL the hardware."

And so on through the list.

Why not?

No, you are playing with semantics.

Laver won the Slam. Agassi won his Calendar Slam in 1998. Federer won his in 2009 followed by Rafa in 2010.

First of all, the data it's not suficient to make any claim what one or the other. What I see here are exceptional players in Agassis, Federer and Rafa that managed to accomplish an amazing feat. I already stated that both Rafa and Roger are ANOMALIES as in anomalies that we have TWO amazing players in the same era, thus obscuring perception.

I meant that the players in 80s who were GREAT won all the hardware in a very high clip. Borg didn't win the calendar Slam because he got unlucky with Connors and JMac. If he wouldn't have retired then maybe he would have won it. It's not like he had no chance at the UO. In addition, "different" styles and surfaces had nothing to do with his inability to win more. It was JMac basically who did it...another GREAT. Do you understand now? The field had no chance just like today..............

JMac reached one FO final. Connors reached none. Borg and Connors did great at Wimbledon during the last great S&V crisis. When S&V returned in the 80's, nobody got near from the baseline again. Agassi was an anomaly, but how are Federer and Nadal "anomalies?" Rafa was almost a DOUBLE anomaly in Oz, Nole almost became an anomaly last year in Paris - and may again some time. Fact is, all the great players of today seem to be anomalies, whereas the greats of the past weren't.

What's changed?

 

[huntingyou]

Hunting: since Laver, only one player had won a career slam (Agassi) until now we have two and maybe soon three.

So, "Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s" is true and false:

Lendl didn't win "ALL the hardware."

Wilander didn't win "ALL the hardware."

And so on through the list.

Why not?

No, you are playing with semantics.

Laver won the Slam. Agassi won his Calendar Slam in 1998. Federer won his in 2009 followed by Rafa in 2010.

First of all, the data it's not suficient to make any claim what one or the other. What I see here are exceptional players in Agassis, Federer and Rafa that managed to accomplish an amazing feat. I already stated that both Rafa and Roger are ANOMALIES as in anomalies that we have TWO amazing players in the same era, thus obscuring perception.

I meant that the players in 80s who were GREAT won all the hardware in a very high clip. Borg didn't win the calendar Slam because he got unlucky with Connors and JMac. If he wouldn't have retired then maybe he would have won it. It's not like he had no chance at the UO. In addition, "different" styles and surfaces had nothing to do with his inability to win more. It was JMac basically who did it...another GREAT. Do you understand now? The field had no chance just like today..............

JMac reached one FO final. Connors reached none. Borg and Connors did great at Wimbledon during the last great S&V crisis. When S&V returned in the 80's, nobody got near from the baseline again. Agassi was an anomaly, but how are Federer and Nadal "anomalies?" Rafa was almost a DOUBLE anomaly in Oz, Nole almost became an anomaly last year in Paris - and may again some time. Fact is, all the great players of today seem to be anomalies, whereas the greats of the past weren't.

What's changed?

You are not following me brother.

Roger and Nadal playing in the same era IS an anomaly......for all purpose we are watching the two greatest players that have grace our sport.

Winning the Calendar Slam in the open era remains a rarety because only 4 players have done it. Novak it's close but so was Pete, JMac, Borg, Lendl and even Edberg. Wilander couldn't win at Wimbledon but yourself pointed out how good he was on grass at the AO

 

[Kieran]

Some of these posts are just going off into too much detail. My opinion (in answer to El Dude's original post) is that when you compare the top tier of the 1970s and 1980s--when Open tennis really came into its own--with now, the difference is the top tier of the day today is heads and shoulders above the rest on a circuit that, because of balls, strings, etc., rewards increased homogenization not so much in terms of court surface, but style of play. There is less variety of style of play and the four that have the best tools in THIS kind of game are dominating like nobody has since the Aussies dominated all the events around the world with serve and volley tennis (on a serve and volley/chip and charge tour) on the (mostly) grass courts of tennis. Everybody played like them and guys like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales (I know he wasn't from Down Under), Hoad, Emerson, etc. were just better at that game and took turns handing trophies back and forth to one another. It is sort of like that now with the Big Four over the last decade.

Now, in the Connors-Borg-McEnroe (and later Lendl) era, you had more contrast on tour than you did now. You had serve and volley/chip and chargers with big services who could make a run at Wimbledon against a Borg or Connors or Lendl but would not make a dent against a Borg or Lendl in Paris on the red clay. You had baseliners who would perform reasonably well on European clay and on the hard courts of North America and in New York, etc., but have a tough go of it on the grass against a Cash or a McEnroe or a Gerulitis. Baseline tennis started coming into its own in the Seventies, but you still had loads of folks "schooled" on grass court tennis attacking the net against the Donnay and Wilson T-2000 wielding champions (Ellsworth, do you agree?) So, I have always felt the greats of that era were more prone to the unexpected loss now and then than the guys today because they could run up against a hot hand, who played quite differently than they did. Today? A Rosol or Isner or Nishikori or whomever gets hot and the question is whether his best is going to outdo the clearly better Federer or Nadal or Djokovic--who are playing largely the same style of tennis as the upstart. The lesser players can't pull the upset as often as the styles are not dissimilar enough over the course of a match. The great player can play his way in and usuually does or the lesser player reverts back to his inferior game that is of the same mold. Sometimes back then the other player's hot hand was so dissimilar to a great's game they could sneak the win before adjustments could be made. That is my thought on it, and now I am beginning to think I may be way off base; maybe this crop of greats are simply that damn good.

Good post, Shawn. But the less variance in the speeds of surface and balls and technology etc, as well as styles, gives men a better chance to nail all the Big Ones. But that's a great point about the near-uniformity of the game during the old B&W days of yore...

 

[Kieran]

Hunting: since Laver, only one player had won a career slam (Agassi) until now we have two and maybe soon three.

So, "Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s" is true and false:

Lendl didn't win "ALL the hardware."

Wilander didn't win "ALL the hardware."

And so on through the list.

Why not?

No, you are playing with semantics.

Laver won the Slam. Agassi won his Calendar Slam in 1998. Federer won his in 2009 followed by Rafa in 2010.

First of all, the data it's not suficient to make any claim what one or the other. What I see here are exceptional players in Agassis, Federer and Rafa that managed to accomplish an amazing feat. I already stated that both Rafa and Roger are ANOMALIES as in anomalies that we have TWO amazing players in the same era, thus obscuring perception.

I meant that the players in 80s who were GREAT won all the hardware in a very high clip. Borg didn't win the calendar Slam because he got unlucky with Connors and JMac. If he wouldn't have retired then maybe he would have won it. It's not like he had no chance at the UO. In addition, "different" styles and surfaces had nothing to do with his inability to win more. It was JMac basically who did it...another GREAT. Do you understand now? The field had no chance just like today..............

JMac reached one FO final. Connors reached none. Borg and Connors did great at Wimbledon during the last great S&V crisis. When S&V returned in the 80's, nobody got near from the baseline again. Agassi was an anomaly, but how are Federer and Nadal "anomalies?" Rafa was almost a DOUBLE anomaly in Oz, Nole almost became an anomaly last year in Paris - and may again some time. Fact is, all the great players of today seem to be anomalies, whereas the greats of the past weren't.

What's changed?

You are not following me brother.

Roger and Nadal playing in the same era IS an anomaly......for all purpose we are watching the two greatest players that have grace our sport.

Winning the Calendar Slam in the open era remains a rarety because only 4 players have done it. Novak it's close but so was Pete, JMac, Borg, Lendl and even Edberg. Wilander couldn't win at Wimbledon but yourself pointed out how good he was on grass at the AO

I also pointed out why he was never gonna get it at Wimbo - the surface was too fast...

 

[huntingyou]

I also pointed out why he was never gonna get it at Wimbo - the surface was too fast...

Yes you did.

I think it was more a matter of prestige than court speed. SW19 it's The tournament...in the 80s the AO was still kind of "whatever".

 

[Kieran]

My big problem with all this is......being called an old timer!

:lolz:

 

[Ricardo]

Hunting: since Laver, only one player had won a career slam (Agassi) until now we have two and maybe soon three.

So, "Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s" is true and false:

Lendl didn't win "ALL the hardware."

Wilander didn't win "ALL the hardware."

And so on through the list.

Why not?

No, you are playing with semantics.

Laver won the Slam. Agassi won his Calendar Slam in 1998. Federer won his in 2009 followed by Rafa in 2010.

First of all, the data it's not suficient to make any claim what one or the other. What I see here are exceptional players in Agassis, Federer and Rafa that managed to accomplish an amazing feat. I already stated that both Rafa and Roger are ANOMALIES as in anomalies that we have TWO amazing players in the same era, thus obscuring perception.

I meant that the players in 80s who were GREAT won all the hardware in a very high clip. Borg didn't win the calendar Slam because he got unlucky with Connors and JMac. If he wouldn't have retired then maybe he would have won it. It's not like he had no chance at the UO. In addition, "different" styles and surfaces had nothing to do with his inability to win more. It was JMac basically who did it...another GREAT. Do you understand now? The field had no chance just like today..............

JMac reached one FO final. Connors reached none. Borg and Connors did great at Wimbledon during the last great S&V crisis. When S&V returned in the 80's, nobody got near from the baseline again. Agassi was an anomaly, but how are Federer and Nadal "anomalies?" Rafa was almost a DOUBLE anomaly in Oz, Nole almost became an anomaly last year in Paris - and may again some time. Fact is, all the great players of today seem to be anomalies, whereas the greats of the past weren't.

What's changed?

You are not following me brother.

Roger and Nadal playing in the same era IS an anomaly......for all purpose we are watching the two greatest players that have grace our sport.

Winning the Calendar Slam in the open era remains a rarety because only 4 players have done it. Novak it's close but so was Pete, JMac, Borg, Lendl and even Edberg. Wilander couldn't win at Wimbledon but yourself pointed out how good he was on grass at the AO

nobody has won the Calender Slam since Laver. btw, Becker was not far away either (losing to Edberg in the semi) and would've also been a fav against Chang - as far as i remember he always tended to handle Michael easier than Edberg, better matchup for him for some reason.

 

[Rose]

My big problem with all this is......being called an old timer!

:lolz:

I am an old timer, but back in the day I didn't pay any attention to players' rankings.

 

[Kieran]

My big problem with all this is......being called an old timer!

:lolz:

I am an old timer, but back in the day I didn't pay any attention to players' rankings.

No, Rose, I think of you as young, regardless of when back the day was...