Which retired star could make a comeback into top 20?

[Moxie]

Would Sampras' groundstrokes/movement be worse than Raonic's groundstrokes/movement?

Yes.

Really? Do you mean because Pete is 42, or because the game has evolved beyond him? Or that Raonic is so deft?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Would Sampras' groundstrokes/movement be worse than Raonic's groundstrokes/movement?

Yes.

True...I actually watched them live in their exho... Sampras stayed close in the first set because he could still serve. Second was a route. Milos's strokes and movement were way better. Cannot fight time.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Would Sampras' groundstrokes/movement be worse than Raonic's groundstrokes/movement?

Yes.

True...I actually watched them live in their exho... Sampras stayed close in the first set because he could still serve. Second was a route. Milos's strokes and movement were way better. Cannot fight time.

But what if Sampras practiced? I remember hearing Sampras say he hardly touched a racquet before the Federer exhibitions. So I doubt he'd have practiced for Raonic. The fact Sampras was so close for a set (tie-breaker) vs Raonic, isn't exactly an endorsement for Raonic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Would Sampras' groundstrokes/movement be worse than Raonic's groundstrokes/movement?

Yes.

Really? Do you mean because Pete is 42, or because the game has evolved beyond him? Or that Raonic is so deft?

I mean at this particular point in time, Raonic's ground strokes and movement are obviously better than a guy who's been retired for 11 years, not that they're better than what Pete's groundies/movement were back then.

 

[Moxie]

Would Sampras' groundstrokes/movement be worse than Raonic's groundstrokes/movement?

Yes.

Really? Do you mean because Pete is 42, or because the game has evolved beyond him? Or that Raonic is so deft?

I mean at this particular point in time, Raonic's ground strokes and movement are obviously better than a guy who's been retired for 11 years, not that they're better than what Pete's groundies/movement were back then.

I figured that's what you meant. Just checking.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Sampras 2 years after retirement would still have been a slam title contender. Sampras 5 years after retirement would still have been a non-slam title contender.

 

[Front242]

And Sampras at age 42 would have trouble winning challenger circuit matches, let alone titles. That's just how it is.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I wonder how long it will take Nadal to not be a clay title contender. We've never had a player as dominant as Nadal. Very hard to predict.

 

[Front242]

Great movement is one of the main keys to success on clay so I guess as soon as he slows down enough for people to hit him off the court. For now he's still very fast.

 

[Moxie]

I wonder how long it will take Nadal to not be a clay title contender. We've never had a player as dominant as Nadal. Very hard to predict.

I'm pretty sure that's not on-topic.

And it seems that we're bringing no players back from retirement, eh?

 

[Front242]

It's gone from fantasy to talking about players not only still on tour, but a player who will be number 1 again any week now. The only player who even comes close to being classed as a player coming back from retirement is Soderling as his almost 2 year absence from the daily grind of intensive ATP matches makes him pretty much back from retirement since he wasn't able to play at all due to zero energy levels.

So we'll soon see how a former top player can make a comeback.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Its more on-topic than Sampras. Sampras has already gone past the timeline. Nadal, we'll find out in future. And the endlessly dominant Nadal may present the best chance of a player winning a slam after a comeback.

 

[tented]

It's gone from fantasy to talking about players not only still on tour, but a player who will be number 1 again any week now. The only player who even comes close to being classed as a player coming back from retirement is Soderling as his almost 2 year absence from the daily grind of intensive ATP matches makes him pretty much back from retirement since he wasn't able to play at all due to zero energy levels.

So we'll soon see how a former top player can make a comeback.

Is it certain that he will play in Paris? I know that's when he said he wanted to return, but I'm trying to figure out if they're actually letting him play. I looked at their website, and it doesn't say anything.

 

[Front242]

Endlessly dominant? He's dominant in 2013 yes, but I could cite lots of times when he wasn't but what's the point.

 

[Front242]

It's gone from fantasy to talking about players not only still on tour, but a player who will be number 1 again any week now. The only player who even comes close to being classed as a player coming back from retirement is Soderling as his almost 2 year absence from the daily grind of intensive ATP matches makes him pretty much back from retirement since he wasn't able to play at all due to zero energy levels.

So we'll soon see how a former top player can make a comeback.

Is it certain that he will play in Paris? I know that's when he said he wanted to return, but I'm trying to figure out if they're actually letting him play. I looked at their website, and it doesn't say anything.

Haven't heard anything since actually. Hopefully he'll get a wildcard. Certainly deserves one.

 

[tented]

Its more on-topic than Sampras. Sampras has already gone past the timeline. Nadal, we'll find out in future. And the endlessly dominant Nadal may present the best chance of a player winning a slam after a comeback.

That's ridiculous. The title of the thread even contains the word "retired" -- that would mean Sampras (i.e., on-topic), not Nadal (i.e., off-topic). If you want to discuss Rafa's potential future, open a new thread.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Endlessly dominant? He's dominant in 2013 yes, but I could cite lots of times when he wasn't but what's the point.

Nadal is the only man ever to win slams for 9 years in a row. And the streak appears to have plenty more years left.

 

[Front242]

Endlessly dominant? He's dominant in 2013 yes, but I could cite lots of times when he wasn't but what's the point.

Nadal is the only man ever to win slams for 9 years in a row. And the streak appears to have plenty more years left.

I dunno, to me dominant means winning where no one stands a chance not 9-7 in the 5th. I mean I'd hardly say Fed dominated everyone he played last year at Wimbledon either, 'cos frankly he didn't. He won the title but he wasn't dominant.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Endlessly dominant? He's dominant in 2013 yes, but I could cite lots of times when he wasn't but what's the point.

Nadal is the only man ever to win slams for 9 years in a row. And the streak appears to have plenty more years left.

I dunno, to me dominant means winning where no one stands a chance not 9-7 in the 5th. I mean I'd hardly say Fed dominated everyone he played last year at Wimbledon either, 'cos frankly he didn't. He won the title but he wasn't dominant.

I dunno, Nadal was limping during the first half of 2013, as he was feeling recovery pains. He didn't fully recover until after Wimbledon. Roland Garros 2013 was just a bonus slam. Nadal in his current physical form would absolutely have wrapped that semi up in 3 or 4 sets. His movement is way better right now than during the clay season.

 

[Front242]

Endlessly dominant? He's dominant in 2013 yes, but I could cite lots of times when he wasn't but what's the point.

Nadal is the only man ever to win slams for 9 years in a row. And the streak appears to have plenty more years left.

I dunno, to me dominant means winning where no one stands a chance not 9-7 in the 5th. I mean I'd hardly say Fed dominated everyone he played last year at Wimbledon either, 'cos frankly he didn't. He won the title but he wasn't dominant.

I dunno, Nadal was limping during the first half of 2013, as he was feeling recovery pains. He didn't fully recover until after Wimbledon. Roland Garros 2013 was just a bonus slam. Nadal in his current physical form would absolutely have wrapped that semi up in 3 or 4 sets. His movement is way better right now than during the clay season.

Well if you consider RG 2013 just a bonus slam it comes across as he was lucky to win it (not my words btw, just how that comes across) and therefore hardly endlessly dominant as you said earlier. He played great when it mattered but he wasn't dominant in the tournament by any stretch of the imagination compared to previous years.