Wimbledon 2011

[destinydude]

Regarding aces, you have clearly never played on wood. Or grass come to that.

And you're quite wrong about serve and volley. If that were true then Henman would probably have won Wimbledon and Nadal wouldn't.

Consistency matters. I know that Agassi won a lot of slams playing base line hard hitting stuff.

But Henman and Sampras are in a different class when it comes to serve and volley.

You can win both ways like Nadal and Federer do but the level at which you play matters too.

[Neil Young]

See my edit.

[CJ]

era's here are pretty close so you probably can take an educated guess and I think it would be tight between Sampras and Federer, Nadal I think is in general too much for Federer and probably would have been for Sampras.

But without them all playing at their peak together it's hard to say, you could chuck in Borg, Mcenroe, Connors etc.... to this though

i was being a tad sarcastic.

though the changes in balls,courts and racquets could point to whilst in years its close the game is very different

[RichC]

It's not close.

The problem with comparing eras is that the evolution of any cultural activity is not just Darwinian, it's Lamarckian. In other words, later generations learn from the breakthroughs made by their predecessors.

So players like Murray and Djokovic now might well play at a higher level than someone like, for instance, Borg. But if Borg were at his peak now he would definitely beat the Borg at his peak then.

If you see what I mean...

They're quite close, Sampras won his 14th slam in 2002 Federer his first in 2003, a gap granted but not huge.

I do indeed, sport evolves if you have the talent and ability you'd adapt to the enviroment.

I agree Borg if peaking today as you mentioned would certainly beat the Borg of when his peak was and would also potentially be challenging the guys at the top now as well.

[CJ]

Regarding aces, you have clearly never played on wood. Or grass come to that.

And I think you're quite wrong about serve and volley. If that were true then Henman would probably have won Wimbledon and Nadal wouldn't. You can't examine serve and volley versus baseline play without taking surface, the type of ball, etc. into account.

serve and volley wouldnt work with a cricket ball would it neil

[Neil Young]

They're quite close, Sampras won his 14th slam in 2002 Federer his first in 2003, a gap granted but not huge.

I do indeed, sport evolves if you have the talent and ability you'd adapt to the enviroment.

I agree Borg if peaking today as you mentioned would certainly beat the Borg of when his peak was and would also potentially be challenging the guys at the top now as well.

Thanks to all the changes in the grass and the balls and, especially, the racquets, Wimbledon and Roland Garros are much more similar now than they were when Borg was winning them. Back then they were so different it was regarded as almost impossible for someone suited to one to win on the other. For Borg to do the double time after time really was phenomenal.

And remember Borg wasn't the most naturally talented player of his era. McEnroe was.

But then McEnroe is the most talented player of all time. Only Federer comes close.

You're really underestimating the ability of these guys from earlier eras.

[Craig_H]

The difference between Sampras and the top four now? The surface is different. The clay is quicker, the grass courts and hard courts are slower.

Sampras more or less didn't even train on clay. He knew that with his all out attacking style he had more or less no chance on the very slow clay courts.

Sampras was the best player in the world on quick surfaces, almost unbeatable, but he wasn't even in the top 20 on clay.

The top four today is much more complete players than Sampras, the reason being that they must be that because of the surfaces. You must be an excellent attack and defensive player now to reach the top.

Sampras wasn't that great defensive player but probably the best attacking player ever, even better than Federer.

As I said, he more or less didn't even train on clay. IIRC he didn't even win one title on clay, not a single one.

The serve and volley players have almost no chance now because of the changes made to the clay, grass and hard courts.

My goodness Arn, you sure as heck go a bit hyperbole crazy when you try to make a point

[RichC]

Thanks to all the changes in the grass and the balls and, especially, the racquets, Wimbledon and Roland Garros are much more similar now than they were when Borg was winning them. Back then they were so different it was regarded as almost impossible for someone suited to one to win on the other. For Borg to do the double time after time really was phenomenal.

And remember Borg wasn't the most naturally talented player of his era. McEnroe was.

But then McEnroe is the most talented player of all time. Only Federer comes close.

You're really underestimating the ability of these guys from earlier eras.

I think you miss understand what I am saying, I think the players of earlier era's would certainly be giving the current crop of "stars" a run for their money.

[Neil Young]

Oh, OK, you're right I didn't think that's what you were saying.

[Reece]

TheRealJackDee Jack Dee
Can everyone just **** off telling me I sound like Tim Henman.

[Scratch]

Did Sampras and Federererer play a few exhibition matches last year, or am I imagining that??

[Norbs]

TheRealJackDee Jack Dee
Can everyone just **** off telling me I sound like Tim Henman.

I thought it was Jack Dee commentating the other day

[Mostar]

Tough match for Novak today. Hasn't really played well but did just enough to get through.

That kid from Australia Tomic had a very good game. Took out Soderling in 3 sets.

First 18 year-old to get into last 16 in past 6 years.

[Daniel 7]

I started this

Sorry

But Murray would have ****ED Sampras and jizzed all over his ma



EDIT - pissed posting....

[Buzzo]

G'wan Big Andy...!!!