Wimbledon 2011

[Arn]

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.

[destinydude]

Sampras would have eaten all the top players of now. People talk about Federer getting through tough games using his serve/aces.

You should have looked at Sampras. He probably hit a lot of aces even with his second serve.

Terrfic player and all this is coming from a guy who hated Sampras as I was an Agassi fan back then.

[Arn]

Sampras would have eaten all the top players of now. People talk about Federer getting through tough games using his serve/aces.

You should have looked at Sampras. He probably hit a lot of aces even with his second serve.

Terrfic player and all this is coming from a guy who hated Sampras as I was an Agassi fan back then.

His serve wouldn't have been as effective now. The reasons being different type of balls and different surfaces. He would hit a lot fewer aces and get much less quick and easy points on his serve. It is now longer rallies and that wasn't Sampras strength, it was his weakness.

[Neil Young]

F*ck Sampras and all these very talented athletes.

McEnroe was a genius.

[CJ]

rod laver .

[Neil Young]

Wimbledon is a lot better now it's not totally vulnerable to the weather. When are they going to put a roof on number one court?

[Neil Young]

rod laver .

Great player. A bit too Australian though.

[RichC]

Sampras was probably the best server I've ever seen, it was such a huge weapon but much more to his game that just that.

I'd imagine he'd fit in pretty well with the current "top 4" and most certainly would win a good few slams as he did anyway, perhaps Fed and Nadal would have his number more often than not but hard to say - I don't think though the same could be said for Murray and Djokovic quite yet both great players but not in the same league as Sampras, Nadal and Federer.

[CJ]

have we reached the point were someone says its impossible to compare players from different eras?

[Neil Young]

Sampras was good but not as good as Merckx or Pele. And Bradman was good too but he was too Australian.

And what about Bob Dylan?

[destinydude]

have we reached the point were someone says its impossible to compare players from different eras?

Yes. It is.

[RichC]

have we reached the point were someone says its impossible to compare players from different eras?

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

[destinydude]

His serve wouldn't have been as effective now. The reasons being different type of balls and different surfaces. He would hit a lot fewer aces and get much less quick and easy points on his serve. It is now longer rallies and that wasn't Sampras strength, it was his weakness.

Surfaces hardly have anything to do with aces. Most of the aces is about placement with decent power. You don't have to be Roddick hard to hit aces.

It is about longer rallies now because players don't come often to the net anymore and are dependent on their physique rather than technique.

Serve and volley wins over longer rallies/base line shots most of the times.

[Neil Young]

I take it you meant where! 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

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...

[Neil Young]

Surfaces hardly have anything to do with aces. Most of the aces is about placement with decent power. You don't have to be Roddick hard to hit aces.

It is about longer rallies now because players don't come often to the net anymore and are dependent on their physique rather than technique.

Serve and volley wins over longer rallies/base line shots most of the times.

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.