**Official 2007 US Open***

Early on Agassi actually handed out some brutal beatings to Federer and I think he is the only I've ever seen completely dominate Federer.
I'm thinking especially of their meeting in the 01 US Open which was pretty brutal.
Of course Federer started improving and Agassi going downhill a little and roles later would most often be reversed.

Their matches in the Masters Cup 03 was the turning point.
They played two matches and in the first one, highly entertaining btw, it looked like it was business as usual.
Agassi was the only one, already at that point, Nadal and Djokovic can kind of do it now, who was able to hang with Federer tempo wise in the rallies and up until that point Federer just couldn't seem to deal with that and would very often end up making errors.
But he somehow turned that match around and when they later met again, it was a round robin format, in the final, I think we for the first time saw the Federer we've been seeing since and he absolutely destroyed Agassi in straight sets, handing out a 6-0 in the process.

His movement, getting in great position for every shot, and his defensive skills on the backhand side, which Andre of course used to pound, at some point just became incredible.
The shot making and genius touch he had always possessed and I think it was the following year his serve went from very good to excellent as well.
He became a phenomenon basically.

But anyway what I really wanted to post something about was the different eras and since I watched sick amounts of tennis in the 90s and early 00s I feel like i should come up with some input at least. I'm just not sure where to start...
I feel like it's very difficult to compare competition because the skill level and level of greatness of the different players from different eras interact so much when trying to make a valid comparison turning making it, at least for me, very confusing and hard to find an overview.

What I CAN say though that most of the top players now, and easily Djokovic, would absolutely destroy a Kuerten (clay would be competetive) and with the greatest ease in the world, a Courier.

I'm not saying they're not greater players than a Djokovic.
At this point they clearly are but the way the game has progressed, and how complete these current players are, there would be little room for the glaring weaknesses that players like Kuerten and Courier AND most of other players from yester years, even very recent yester years, had.

Rafter would be interesting cause he was such a unique player who matches up entirely different to these guys but I am certain that right now he would have a much harder time on most surfaces than he had in his heyday where he could even make it difficult for opponents on clay.
But players now just get in great position to all shots.
And they seem to master virtually all kind of shots to.
Even good approach shots get absolutely killed these days.
Certainly a prime Edberg with his pretty feel game would look like a completely fool now.
Federer vs Nadal is a great example cause you would think Federer would have the ideal style to just crush Nadal.
Nadal is so far back. So defensive in some ways. You just give him an angle, make the court smaller, attack and he is toast right?
Not so of course. He like many others is so fast and so strong that he can turn defence into attack no matter how hard he is pressed almost.
Federer as scary as it is can virtually do the same.
And you have to be SICK good like Federer is to even think of actually executing that on paper absolutely ideal style against these players.
Even when he was almost as good as he is now players like a Nalbandian or Hewitt would beat him.

Almost everyone is serving in the 190s too. Even players not considered big servers do it.
but even with that they're not making anywhere near the amount of aces the players serving at those speeds did in the 90s.
That's another good indicator of how the game has evolved.

But lets look at the competition:

Sampras had:

Agassi
Courier
Becker
Chang
Ivanicevic
Rafter
Krajicek
Kafelnikov
Korda
Henman
Rios
"clay courters": Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Moya

then came the likes of Safin, Hewitt and Roddick who together with the older Agassi overlapped into the Federer era where we have:

Nadal
Djokovic
Nalbandian
Ferrero
Ljubicic
Davydenko

and well a bunch of very talented but not yet very accomplished players.
There is definitely not a lot of grand slam titles in the "Federer mix" and those that have, managed to get them just before Federer became really good.
The exception being Nadal but he only did it on clay and of course the great rival that should have been Marat Safin who even beat Federer in non clay grand slam final.
What a great match that was btw.

I think with how good Federer is, the only player on that list who could win a grand slam title besides Nadal, would be Djokovic.
The thing with Sampras was that he just wasn't as complete.
Sometimes he wasn't that fit either and would only rely on his serve pretty much.
That Sampras was sometimes seen in the beginning of the year in the Australian Open which he missed too a couple of times too and players like Becker and Kafelnikov could take advantage.
Boris as great as he was only won that one grand slam title during the Sampras era and that was despite him improving and becoming a better and better player imo.
Watch the epics he had with Sampras at the end of the 96 season for evidence.
Actually until Safin and Hewitt arrived you could say that the only ones of his rivals who would better Sampras in slams were Agassi and Rafter (Krajicek being unhittable when he won Wimbledon that year did it too if I remember correctly but he was hardly, mainly due to injuries, a constant top player).
Kafelnikov only beat him on clay in Paris when he won his first grand slam.
Ivanicevic, Becker and Henman (like Agassi) would come up short in Wimbledon time and time again.
And Courier really was only truly a top player for a very short time which of course Sampras had a lot to do with.
Maybe if that epic match in the Australian Open, where Sampras was bursting into tears during the match, had gone the other way, some things would have turned out different for him.

I don't even know if all that leads to any conlusion at all but what I perhaps should have just said without all the blabber and what already has been pointed out by previous posters, is that Federer is just better than anything we've ever seen.
AND unlike Sampras, because of better fitness or better luck who knows, has just been constant and not missed anything.
Sampras though he mostly came through often had great, and very entertaining btw, struggles with lesser players in the earlier rounds.
Federer just completely dominates.

Also while Becker and Agassi hung around and were competetive, especially Agassi of course, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, the leftovers from the Sampras era just haven't been able to do that.
Safin is a great underachiever and on top of that has struggled with injuries. He is probably after Federer the 2nd best player I've ever seen which makes the whole thing even more tragic.
Roddick has simply seen everyone improve much more than he has and for me Hewitt eventhough he has been injured and all, the game I think has just moved in a direction which isn't good for his style at all.
Sort of the same thing that happened to, although he was a completely different player, Edberg.
There are just too many players out there now who has the game to break him down. Not least Federer of course.

So that basically leaves us with Nadal, Djokovic and players to emerge which I'm sure will happen eventually since the talent pool is so deep.

Really we're only seeing the beginning of the Federer-Nadal rivalry and that he was able to push Federer at Wimbledon like he did, more than Agassi usually pushed Sampras, is a very good sign I think.
I still think Federer will win Wimbledon as long as he wants to pretty much but everywhere else, I'm sure Nadal will be a very tough match.
Djokovic right now in a way is kind of like the young Federer was to Agassi.
He is the only one I think, Nadal is a different animal, who can match Federer in the rallies. Impose and execute his play at his will and on his terms.
Of course as we saw tonight he still has to improve tactically and mentally to truly match Federer but there is no reason that shouldn't happen.



edit: Error. Safin beat Hewitt in the final and his win over Federer was in the semi final.
I just completely remembered that match as the actual final.

[pokergrader]

I agree completely, I don't think anybody but Nadal, Rfed or Djokovic is going to be winning any majors anytime soon.

I mean players like Davydenko and Blake have no chance. I feel like Roddick maybe can compete in the US Open, but certainly nowhere else.

Djokovic has improved so much this year, and he can definetly grow from this loss. I mean the way he fought back in the 2nd set shows that he has what it takes to play with the big boys. A lot of other players would go out with a whimper after the first set. He just has 1 more hurdle to go.

And frankly, the last 3 major finals have not been entirely easy for Rfed. He lost the french, should have lost wimbledon, and definetly was pushed in the US Open.

I think next year's slams will be interesting.

[thedarknight]

I think tennis is dead (or dying). When you have a cyborg like RFED who basically sucks all the drama out of all his matches, no one bothers to even watch. NO one can touch this man. At least we got to see Pete puke on the court and cry and play through pain. RFED is like as close as you can get to a God. He's the best ever, and he's practically so freaking good he's killed the game. It seems messed up but it's the truth. I don't really enjoy a lopsided straight set match (not particularly directed to the U.S. Open final).

Bjorn I like your input. I think if you put the primes of the Beckers, Rafters, Edberg into today's era with today's technology, fitness, etc. they would be one of the top players. Djokovic has a glaring weakness in his game and that's the net. We saw Gonzo make a run into the Aussie finals, and he has a pretty weak backhand. So i'm not sure your claim that this era's game is better than the previous is entirely correct, then again I'm not qualified to analyze talent.

I think a serve and volley game is still possible in today's era. It's just that no one can freaking serve and volley. I think a prime Sampras would match up great against Fed. He would keep the points short and RFED out of rhythm. He would be putting constant pressure on Rfed as well. The only sets Rfed lost at this tournament were against streaky servers that had some semblance of a net game.

[Wondercall]

I starting playing tennis after the first time I saw Fed play. I suck but thats how awesome it is to watch him.

[Fadook]

NOt sure I agree with your remarks about how complete players are today versus previous eras. Part of the problem with modern day tennis is the lack of variety. So many guys play as if they came out of the same baseline drill school. The net games of some of the top players in the world are frankly embarassingly bad. I remember a couple of years ago Sampras somewhat wistfully saying that he reckoned he could still beat many of today's players due to his all-court game, particularly his serve-volley ability. Watching Haas play Blake made me feel that a really good serve-volleyer would still be very formidable.

[SmileyEH]

night, I don't think RFed is having a negative impact on the game - in fact I feel it's quite the opposite.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
When you have a cyborg like RFED who basically sucks all the drama out of all his matches, no one bothers to even watch. NO one can touch this man.

[/ QUOTE ]

there was hardly anything separating Federer from Roddick and Djok in their first 4 sets. Nadal is already a bit better on clay, and a 20 yo Djok could improve enough to have a great rivalry with Fed on hard courts. this summer he's been nearly his equal.

[Snafu'd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you have a cyborg like RFED who basically sucks all the drama out of all his matches, no one bothers to even watch. NO one can touch this man.

[/ QUOTE ]

there was hardly anything separating Federer from Roddick and Djok in their first 4 sets. Nadal is already a bit better on clay, and a 20 yo Djok could improve enough to have a great rivalry with Fed on hard courts. this summer he's been nearly his equal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with the Roddick statement. Roddick played the match of his life, served great, and never once looked like he had a chance to actually win the match. The score was close, yes, but if you watched the match I just don't think you could have ever thought Roger was going to lose. Djokovic is the only player right now who has a chance to defeat Roger on a hard court; but I still think he's another year or two before he really begins to be a thorn in Fed's side. Djokovic played a great match but he's just a little inexperienced right now. And you have to admit that Roger was certainly not on his A game Sunday.

[aceskay]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a serve and volley game is still possible in today's era.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty ignorant statement. The overall return of serve, ground strokes, and passing shot abilities of the average player on tour, let alone the top players, is WAY too good for anyone to play a serve and volley game as their main strategy.

There is a reason no one in the top 50 plays that way. With Tim Henman retiring, Max Mirnyi is one of the few who still plays that way, and he is no where near the top of the men's game.

Even guy's with the biggest serves on tour, Roddick, Ljubicic, Federer, don't serve and volley. Heck, the giants like John Isner and even Ivo Karlovic only uses it about 50% of the time.

The racket and string technology has improved the ability to take full swings from any position and still control the ball with amazing precision, and this has made the ground strokes that are being hit today, better than anyone was hitting them 15 years ago.

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a serve and volley game is still possible in today's era.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember watching one of the men's matches, and that was a "viewer question". The analyst said that it wasn't possible anymore because the game is too fast; the serve and return are both much faster than before, and it prevents the server from consistently having the necessary time to get to the net. Seemed logical to me.