Mr. Andy Murray have won just 1 maters after joining with Mr. Lendl ( Two years)

[Kieran]

None of which I disputed, my friend. As I said, he chose to drop the two-hander specifically so he could succeed at Wimbledon. Reaching the finals at both RG and Wimbledon back then was a gigantic achievement, let alone winning both. So Pete wasn't alone in being great on one surface and relatively poor on the other.

In fact, that was default for virtually all great players.

And yes, I agree: "these days players have it easier because the game has been homogenised." Players succeeding everywhere isn't proof that they're better than Sampras or other greats - it's proof that the homogenisation has helped them...

 

[Kieran]

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere.

As opposed to Sampras who altered his game significantly on every surface? Pete was versatile. He can attack the net, he can rally from the baseline as well as anyone, he can play first strike tennis, etc... But his game wasn't that different on each surface.

Likewise, saying Djokovic isn't versatile verges on the ridiculous. Yes, he doesn't attack the net that well because as you mentioned, times has changed. But the game can play first strike tennis, hit amazingly well off of both sides, defend as well as anyone in history, counter-punch like nobody's business, turn defense into attack, play controlled aggression, etc...

Djokovic is only "not versatile" if we look at tennis in shallow terms such as "baseliner," "S & V player," etc... But when you analyze different aspects of his game, I'd say he's one of the most versatile players in history.

Right. He's versatile. From the baseline. Just don't go giving him any awkward overheads, or expect him to come to the net much. Obviously, he has versatility within his game, but he's not an all-rounder like Roger, who truly is versatile.

And they're not "shallow terms!" They're aspects of the game. I know the lines get muddied between what players are doing and it's simplistic to define players too narrowly, but even still, these terms are valid...

 

[brokenshoelace]

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere.

As opposed to Sampras who altered his game significantly on every surface? Pete was versatile. He can attack the net, he can rally from the baseline as well as anyone, he can play first strike tennis, etc... But his game wasn't that different on each surface.

Likewise, saying Djokovic isn't versatile verges on the ridiculous. Yes, he doesn't attack the net that well because as you mentioned, times has changed. But the game can play first strike tennis, hit amazingly well off of both sides, defend as well as anyone in history, counter-punch like nobody's business, turn defense into attack, play controlled aggression, etc...

Djokovic is only "not versatile" if we look at tennis in shallow terms such as "baseliner," "S & V player," etc... But when you analyze different aspects of his game, I'd say he's one of the most versatile players in history.

Right. He's versatile. From the baseline. Just don't go giving him any awkward overheads, or expect him to come to the net much. Obviously, he has versatility within his game, but he's not an all-rounder like Roger, who truly is versatile.

And they're not "shallow terms!" They're aspects of the game. I know the lines get muddied between what players are doing and it's simplistic to define players too narrowly, but even still, these terms are valid...

Djokovic is absolutely not an all-around player. No question there. Very few players are these days. And yeah, Federer is the one that stands out as an exception. I just think there's a difference between being versatile and being an all court player.

 

[Front242]

Haas and Stepanek are two of the oldest successful all court players remaining.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Haas and Stepanek are two of the oldest successful all court players remaining.

Haas, certainly. Stepanek, not sure. His baseline game, while adequate, gets seriously exposed against the better player. Stepanek is far from being one dimensional, but I think he's one of those guys who, in addition to a classic net rushing game, gets by on his "veteranship" so to speak. He knows how to throw opponents off (not referring to his antics), how to break rhythm, when to chip and charge, etc...

 

[Front242]

Haas and Stepanek are two of the oldest successful all court players remaining.

Haas, certainly. Stepanek, not sure. His baseline game, while adequate, gets seriously exposed against the better player. Stepanek is far from being one dimensional, but I think he's one of those guys who, in addition to a classic net rushing game, gets by on his "veteranship" so to speak. He knows how to throw opponents off (not referring to his antics), how to break rhythm, when to chip and charge, etc...

For sure as the rankings would imply Haas is the better player at this stage but Stepanek had some good wins last year against the likes of Del Potro. Ok, it's possible he was still wrecked after that mammoth Olympic match with Federer and then the match against Djokovic but still, Stepanek is capable of some good wins. But I agree he gets by more on being a wiley clever old guy who can use some surprise tactics, rather than Haas who is still content to rally a lot with the younger guys and having more success with it too.

 

[huntingyou]

Edberg, JMac, Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Borg, Laver

What do these players have in common?

- They played the game before or/and during Sampras time
- They all won RG/SW19 or at least made Finals in one and won the other

Why insist on the myth that just a few years ago (90s) players had to commit their style of tennis to a specific surface and therefore give up hopes of success in the other surface?

Although I admit grass has change in comparison to the 90s, it's still grass and the unique aspect of this surface and demands placed on the player that wants to succeed in it are still there. No need to cheapen what both Rafa-Roger did by insisting clay and grass play similarly....or the field somehow it's weaker.

Did Agassi change his game after winning RG in 1999 in order to make the final at SW19 a month later? What about Courier? Wins RG and then makes final on grass and even takes a set from Pistol Pete? I can say the same for JMac but in the reversal.......he made finals at RG and came very close to win it and then went on to win Wimbledon. Edberg? Dito Lendl? Yes and of course the great Borg did it from the baseline and a two-hander better than anyone in history.

Let's be honest, it's a coincidence that both Rafa-Roger played in the same era. Outside of Novak, I don't see anybody in the foreseeable future pulling off the channel-slam.......outside of Novak I don't even see anybody on tour that can make finals in the same year at both Slams.....forget about winning it.

 

[Kieran]

What's seldom was wonderful, eh?

And now it's not so seldom.

Still wonderful, though, but only when Rafa does it...

 

[huntingyou]

What's seldom was wonderful, eh?

And now it's not so seldom.

Still wonderful, though, but only when Rafa does it...

Borg did it 3 consecutive years. I would still call it seldom.......2008, 2009, 2010. Three consecutive years as well. Hasn't happen in the last three years though

 

[Kieran]

No, and it didn't happen between Borg and Agassi, either. Edberg, Mac, Courier, Lendl - they all reached finals and lost. These were noteworthy and exceptional runs. It was Lendl who first said "grass is for cows," but he put himself out trying to master it in his wooden toy way. He was sorely exposed by true grasscourt specialists in the final each time.

Now, in the last ten years chaps reach the finals and semis of both as a matter of course - because they can. Things have changed, as Bob Dylan puts it...

 

[DarthFed]

This Djokovic, in the 90's, WOULDN'T have been good on both hards and clay? Why not?

If you say if he were a product of the 90's, his game might have looked different, you'd have a point. But then how would that make him LESS versatile now?

I can understand the argument that adjusting to grass is easier nowadays, and it's a valid one. But how is adjusting to clay easier? It's still slow, you're still required to slide, you still need to play long points, be physically fit, etc... what has really changed?

Where did I say he wouldn't be good on both hards and clay in the 90's?

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere. It's not like Nole can flick a switch and become a great net player. He's functional in that part of the game.

All players now can play basically the same game on hards and clay, and make small adjustments to play on grass. Hence, we're not gonna be massively stunned if yet another player - or 2 - in the Big Four completes the FO-Wimbledon double. It's not because they're so versatile - it's because the games needed to win both aren't completely alien to each other. But they used to be! That's the point. And a great player like Sampras made an objective decision to drop the two-hander so he'd be more effective at Wimbledon. I'm not saying he would have won the FO, but I am saying that with players they were either/or. Very few players even reached both finals, let alone won both.

Nowadays, getting both titles in the bag is far more accessible to great players, because the extremities have met somewhere in the middle...

Bingo!

We can all agree to disagree about Sampras' worth on clay but this is part of the explanation as to why some would say he was poor on that surface.

No. He was poor on that surface because his results were poor on that surface. Now, if you want to compare him to today's players, and say these days players have it easier because the game has been homogenized that's fine. But Pete wasn't poor on clay simply compared to today's players. He was poor on clay compared to others of his generation. It's that simple really.

I don't disagree that he stunk on clay, but Kieran's point is legit. It was a lot harder to adjust the game back then, different surfaces and different styles. A good baseliner today is almost always going to be good on every surface, no questions asked. That was far from a given back then. But Kieran and Emma are naturally going to go overboard in trying to defend the ugly clay resume, doesn't mean some points aren't valid

 

[Kieran]

I don't think I defended Pete's clay resume. I was more outlining that the game was different back then, compared to now. Pete was a child of his times, and he would be a child of any times he'd play in, I believe, even these times we're in now...

 

[tented]

I think Andy will face huge pressure to retain Wimbledon. He didn't cover himself with glory at Flushing Meadows when trying to retain his title there, and I wouldn't be so confident that he can do as well on grass next season...

I doubt he will face the sort of pressure that he has faced in the past. I don't believe him failing to defend his title at the US Open had anything to do with pressure. He clearly wasn't fit enough to play the tournament. It's no surprise that he had surgery soon after. I doubt you gave him much of a chance last year at Wimbledon. I'll be hoping Andy can prove the doubters wrong AGAIN.

It may not be as much pressure as he's had in the past, now that he has won it, but there will still be a lot. It will be an interesting challenge for him, but between the Olympic Gold and last year's championship he has demonstrated he can win there, while beating big names along the way.

But first, there's Queen's Club, which will also be interesting. I'm anxious to see how he does there first. If he stumbles early, it could be a bad omen; if he defends, it will be a positive sign that he's already confident and playing well. The other question is whether or not he will go to RG next year, instead of skipping it, like he did this year, which gave him additional rest.

I'm not suggesting there won't be pressure. Only that it won't be as intense as what he has felt in the past. He has said the same himself. Defending Wimbledon will be a huge challenge but I see no reason why he can't do it. Wimbledon has always been his most consistent slam. Defending Queen's would be good but he did lose early in 2012 and still made the Wimbledon final.

Skipping RG was not a decision Andy took lightly. He will play in 2014 if he's fit and well. It's worth remembering that although he was well rested when Queen's started he wasn't able to practice as he would have liked. He did skip RG for a reason.

I can't remember, but was he having trouble with his back when he withdrew from RG? Or was that a different problem?

Also, in case I wasn't clear I wasn't trying to suggest you meant there wouldn't be any pressure to defend Wimbledon, nor was I trying to suggest he skipped RG without good reason.

 

[huntingyou]

No, and it didn't happen between Borg and Agassi, either. Edberg, Mac, Courier, Lendl - they all reached finals and lost. These were noteworthy and exceptional runs. It was Lendl who first said "grass is for cows," but he put himself out trying to master it in his wooden toy way. He was sorely exposed by true grasscourt specialists in the final each time.

Now, in the last ten years chaps reach the finals and semis of both as a matter of course - because they can. Things have changed, as Bob Dylan puts it...

all those guys did what pete failed to do, despite being "children of their time" .............

 

[Iona16]

I think Andy will face huge pressure to retain Wimbledon. He didn't cover himself with glory at Flushing Meadows when trying to retain his title there, and I wouldn't be so confident that he can do as well on grass next season...

I doubt he will face the sort of pressure that he has faced in the past. I don't believe him failing to defend his title at the US Open had anything to do with pressure. He clearly wasn't fit enough to play the tournament. It's no surprise that he had surgery soon after. I doubt you gave him much of a chance last year at Wimbledon. I'll be hoping Andy can prove the doubters wrong AGAIN.

It may not be as much pressure as he's had in the past, now that he has won it, but there will still be a lot. It will be an interesting challenge for him, but between the Olympic Gold and last year's championship he has demonstrated he can win there, while beating big names along the way.

But first, there's Queen's Club, which will also be interesting. I'm anxious to see how he does there first. If he stumbles early, it could be a bad omen; if he defends, it will be a positive sign that he's already confident and playing well. The other question is whether or not he will go to RG next year, instead of skipping it, like he did this year, which gave him additional rest.

I'm not suggesting there won't be pressure. Only that it won't be as intense as what he has felt in the past. He has said the same himself. Defending Wimbledon will be a huge challenge but I see no reason why he can't do it. Wimbledon has always been his most consistent slam. Defending Queen's would be good but he did lose early in 2012 and still made the Wimbledon final.

Skipping RG was not a decision Andy took lightly. He will play in 2014 if he's fit and well. It's worth remembering that although he was well rested when Queen's started he wasn't able to practice as he would have liked. He did skip RG for a reason.

I can't remember, but was he having trouble with his back when he withdrew from RG? Or was that a different problem?

Also, in case I wasn't clear I wasn't trying to suggest you meant there wouldn't be any pressure to defend Wimbledon, nor was I trying to suggest he skipped RG without good reason.

He retired in the 2nd round of the Rome Masters with a back injury. He then flew back to London to meet with specialists. On medical advice he withdrew for RG.

No, you were very clear Tented. Apologies if my reply suggested I thought otherwise.

 

[Kieran]

No, and it didn't happen between Borg and Agassi, either. Edberg, Mac, Courier, Lendl - they all reached finals and lost. These were noteworthy and exceptional runs. It was Lendl who first said "grass is for cows," but he put himself out trying to master it in his wooden toy way. He was sorely exposed by true grasscourt specialists in the final each time.

Now, in the last ten years chaps reach the finals and semis of both as a matter of course - because they can. Things have changed, as Bob Dylan puts it...

all those guys did what pete failed to do, despite being "children of their time" .............

They did. But they didn't do everything Pete did, him being the best child of his time...

 

[huntingyou]

No, and it didn't happen between Borg and Agassi, either. Edberg, Mac, Courier, Lendl - they all reached finals and lost. These were noteworthy and exceptional runs. It was Lendl who first said "grass is for cows," but he put himself out trying to master it in his wooden toy way. He was sorely exposed by true grasscourt specialists in the final each time.

Now, in the last ten years chaps reach the finals and semis of both as a matter of course - because they can. Things have changed, as Bob Dylan puts it...

all those guys did what pete failed to do, despite being "children of their time" .............

They did. But they didn't do everything Pete did, him being the best child of his time...

but that's not argument here. my point stands. thank you.

 

[Kieran]

No, and it didn't happen between Borg and Agassi, either. Edberg, Mac, Courier, Lendl - they all reached finals and lost. These were noteworthy and exceptional runs. It was Lendl who first said "grass is for cows," but he put himself out trying to master it in his wooden toy way. He was sorely exposed by true grasscourt specialists in the final each time.

Now, in the last ten years chaps reach the finals and semis of both as a matter of course - because they can. Things have changed, as Bob Dylan puts it...

all those guys did what pete failed to do, despite being "children of their time" .............

They did. But they didn't do everything Pete did, him being the best child of his time...

but that's not argument here. my point stands. thank you.

Thank you too sir! I enjoyed your point, as ever...