Our Great Era Debunked!

First topic message reminder :

Now is a good time to reflect on the previous seasons and get a better understanding of what happened to our game in the last 5 years. We hear of course all the fans of Nadal, Murray, Djoko and even some of Federer say that we are experiencing the strongest era in tennis and they support their belief by belittling the players of the past, particularly the time when Federer was dominant and had no opposition outside clay.

Nowadays, the players we perceived as great in 2006 such as Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Ljubo even are no longer remembered that great and compared to Nadal Djoko and Murray seem inconsistent and erratic. There is something about the way Nadal, Djoko and Murray consistently reach the last rounds of slams, all slams!, that certainly make them look very good even if in Murray’s case, he has not won a slam yet.

However as some of us explained in other threads, the main difference between now and then is that the game is simply played differently and the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then. To compare the 2 “eras” I have highlited 2 matches played by the best players of those eras from the USO (06 and 11) and highlighted how the game and conditions have changed.

In short I have clocked the number of shots (length of court) played (that is how many times the ball travels the length of a court) on a few rallies and worked out the average time to get a more precise result. And here are the staggering results that you can check for yourself on youtube:


Nadal v Djoko USO 11
# rallies / seconds / time the ball takes to complete a length on average(ex: 1.32sec)
22 in 29s 1.318182s per length
22 in 29s 1.318182
31 in 44s 1.419355
14 in 18s 1.285714
Average 1.34s per length of court

Djokovic Murray AO 2011

14rallies in 19s 1.357142857
12rallies in 16s 1.333333333
18rallies in 26s 1.444444444
Average 1.38s per length

Federer v Blake USO 06
18 in 22s 1.222222
12 16s 1.333333
8 8s 1
12 13s 1.083333
13 15s 1.153846
13 16s 1.230769
8 7s 0.875
Average 1.13s per length of court

What this table says is that the rhythm played in 06 was nearly 20% faster than in 2011!! In some shorter rallies over 50% faster, helped by taking the ball earlier and hitting much flatter. This is a huge difference!!!

So what does that mean? It means that the players then, the best ones were the sharpest ones. Great reflexes, taking the ball early and flat and they were trying to take time away from their opponent to dictate and rushed the opponent into mistakes as opposed to today’s tennis where the retrievers push the opponent into mistakes by giving them smaller targets thanks to amazing retrieving skills that were unseen up to 2006.

But that’s not all. The game was faster, cause the conditions were faster, and that generation learnt their game with natural strings while spin was harder to generate and not as beneficial as hitting flat and shortening the point. Tennis was played at a smooth rhythm and everybody then was playing within the 20s rule. It was understood that there was no other choice so no need to learn a different tennis that could not be sustained over long distances, especially on those fast surfaces where taking risk was rewarding.

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What a lot of people here fail to realise is that the game has seriously changed and the skills are different but certainly not better. When the courts were fast in 2005/06, Nadal was being beaten by Blake…..3 times in a row in fact. Yet Nadal was good enough to have 2 FOs. The very talented Davydenko could not take time away from Blake. The latter holds a 7/0 H2H against the Russian cause whom could take the ball earlier and inject pace was simply better at that time. Davydenko could not handle Blake or Federer but we know he loves Nadal’s slower pace as long as he can handle a fair bit of running with the Spaniard.

For those reasons above, I think it is ignorant to believe that 2003-06 was a weak era. In fact in terms of tennis played under the rules and on fast conditions, it’s been the best tennis we have had and we don’t know how Nadal or Djoko would fare in those. Well I am certainly more optimistic about Djoko’s success than Nadal, especially if we were to apply the 20s rule but I would expect Djoko to lose more often than he did in 2011 being rushed by players who spent their life learning to take time away from their opponents (Nalbandian, Blake, Safin and others). We have to stress as well that in those days, there was no recipe to run as long and as fast while keeping UEs down, so no-one had a choice to play differently than taking risk and the more talented were the better at it. And Federer was simply the best when it came to “skilled” tennis. We wii never know how great his peers would have been without him. But on fast surfaces, it was not Nadal that stopped him from accumulating his slams. It was other very talented players trying their best but falling short. Saying it was a weak era, is as stupid as saying Nadal had a weak era on clay cause no-one was physical enough to fight with him there and noone won anything significant on clay bar Nadal. But as we have seen this year, it’s changing fast now that we have another physical player.

In conclusion, the game evolves and I don’t want to fall in the trap of some posters here, that is belittling today’s era, but we have to recognise that the game changed thanks to a few factors and those changes are extremely important is changing the scenery of tennis when we know small margins can have a huge impact on a game, a match and a career.

Source:
Federer Blake USO 2006 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8
Djokovic Nadal USO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYkXZwhdRBk
Djokovic Murray AO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQpKJYhjEcA
Difference obvious to the naked eye.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Er, Nore, you've used the total match time, but then extrapolated from the small sample of points Tenez provided, to the whole match. I.e. you've assumed d) as the average rally length of the whole match, which isn't correct.
Which kind of completely invalidates you're whole assumption...

Let's follow this lead...

The small sample of points Tenez provided is either representative of the whole match or it isn't.
a) If the small sample of points is representative of the whole match my conclusion is correct.
b) If the small sample of points is not representative of the whole match the conclusion of the Original Post is incorrect.

In both circumstances the debunker has been debunked.

Exactly! Nore Staat has proved this article wrong!

If you don't know whats going on, Nore Staat earlier proved that the court speeds are faster, USING Tenez's information. However Tenez and his friends hit back by saying he can't reach this conclusion as Tenez has only used a few points. But surely that also disproves the article.

Double standards from some I sense

So... you're saying that the courts today are faster than they used to be?

Seriously?

Just to be clear.

I am not sure how NS got that worked out. But the amazing thing is that he has an audience.

The fact that a 13 shot rally between Fed and Blake could be played in 15s while a 14 shot rally between Djoko and Nadal would take 18s shows for NS that the conds are now faster.

That's interesting reasoning.

No but Nadal hits with more topspin the surface is still faster. Nore Staat has worked it out perfectly.

"The surface is still faster"

This is the moment when you utterly trashed your credibility.

Look up any commentary by tournament directors of the events, or commentators, or pretty much anyone.
There is nobody associated with the sport saying the courts have speeded up.

Well I'm just following Nore Staat's stats.

So you don't believe what you wrote? Or you don't have any idea whether they are faster or not? Or you think they are faster?

Which is it?

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Making fitness the only reason for their success, whilst ignoring your man's equally as important great fitness record - is why people think that you do know about Tennis, but choose to use this knowledge to castigate a great trio of players

Honestly, what a poor argument again Banbro. You recognise that fitness plays a role but you don't think that it is that important?

What do you think is the difference between Nadal kicking Murray's bum in the last 3 slams and Murray bagelling Nadal a few weeks later in Japan? Or even Nadal losing v Mayer in Shanghai?

Please explain! Maybe I am missing something

Has anyone noticed how Banbro left the discussion by the back door here? A kind of "i'll get my coat" !

And why exactly should the courts be speed up, who determines what condition is best for tennis. Up until now, no one has come up with in credible evidence and support rather than totally unsubstial claims of court slowing down in slams. It was well documented this year how the balls were changed at the FO this year with even less dressing on the clay effectively making it fast and condusive to hard court players yet the only response from the defending champion was to go on and win. The courts at the AO were changed in 2007 and this was also documented. Funny enough the court was actually changed to speed it up from the more slower rebound ace to a faster plexicushion due to complaints from top players like Hewitt the court was playing too slow.

www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/australian-open-court-surface-is-speeding-up/2007/11/19/1195321694990.html

No change to the court or the size of the balls had been made since then and remained the case since it was made faster in 2007.

Wimbledon changed the composition of the grass in 2001 and since then only the balls were believed to have changed even though the officials denied this.
The U.S.T.A has confirmed the courts have not changed since the decision was made in 2003 to slow down the courts at the USO . I don't see from the end of Federer last winning the USO in 08, the organisers would have come with a clever ploy to slow the courts down supposedly to help Nadal.
Seems to me Federer seems as less knowledgeable about this as his fans. You could read through almost all his interviews and opinion over court conditions in 09 and you will not find a single reference to the speed of the courts in slams. From 2010 after professing how Nadal couldn't win at USO because the court was fast, he has suddenly changed his tone that they are slow this year

www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/sports/tennis/us-open-speed-bumps-on-a-hardcourt.html?pagewanted=all

Baseless assumptions used in pointless debates regarding speed of courts, i find rather amusing and a waste of time by these key board warriors.

So many words, so little point.

Well BanBro thinks Reed as an execptional tennis blog writer, do you want me to say any more than that Tenez?

I dont blame him/her , anybody who follows Reed and not Tennis will think Murray as the greatest Tennis player of all time and Federer as some ball boy who had a few good runs in some small tourneys.

Don't be too hard on yourself Boggo in the face of facts. Didn't mean to hurt your Federer feeling with that post

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Er, Nore, you've used the total match time, but then extrapolated from the small sample of points Tenez provided, to the whole match. I.e. you've assumed d) as the average rally length of the whole match, which isn't correct.
Which kind of completely invalidates you're whole assumption...

Let's follow this lead...

The small sample of points Tenez provided is either representative of the whole match or it isn't.
a) If the small sample of points is representative of the whole match my conclusion is correct.
b) If the small sample of points is not representative of the whole match the conclusion of the Original Post is incorrect.

In both circumstances the debunker has been debunked.

The points chosen can by representative of the match in terms of the time per 'court length travelled', but not, of course, in terms of the average number of strokes per rally. Now, you can argue that other rallies might show different times per 'court length travelled' (although you didn't argue that, and if you do, you need to provide evidence), but mathematically, you can't take the points Tenez produced and arrive at the results you did - it's just mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Well BanBro thinks Reed as an execptional tennis blog writer, do you want me to say any more than that Tenez?

I dont blame him/her , anybody who follows Reed and not Tennis will think Murray as the greatest Tennis player of all time and Federer as some ball boy who had a few good runs in some small tourneys.

Indeed. What I like about Banbro is that he can recognise a "level-headed blogger" when he sees one.

PS - Ok, i'll stop the digs (though he started them). I would not like him to retreat to safer forums of the blinds where the one-eyed is king!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Don't be too hard on yourself Boggo in the face of facts. Didn't mean to hurt your Federer feeling with that post

That post isn't even internally consistent. Actually, it's barely in English.

I know English isn't your first language but if you're going to converse in it you need to tighten it up so others can discuss with you properly.

the submissive come back. Yah seems you were hurt there.

Simple_Analyst wrote: the submissive come back. Yah seems you were hurt there.

@ SA, whats the intention now? to windup another poster ? or discuss tennis pro-actively?

Henman Bill wrote:Actually, a good response from Tenez. I was aware of some of that detail but not all of it. But.. it does seem rather convenient that Nadal and Murray happened to catch Federer on an off day or a tanking data or a tired day where players like Blake and Ljubicic and many others apparently never did!

Amritia I didn't see Tenez call you armpit but overall he is normally a very civilised poster and I've seen you Amritia use more insults in three days than I've seen Tevez use in three years. Anyway not trying to take sides as I more in the middle, but let's all try and be more civilised.

You must be talking about a different person if you think that Tenez is a civilised poster!! I fail to see why we shouldn't get immensely frustrated with his constant need to prove that Federer is the GOAT, particularly as he basically insults the other three.

By dismissing them by suggesting they just rely on physicality and refusing to recognise any skill - he's far more insulting to the game of Tennis than any poster is to him

Tenez does indeed often write in a civilised way, but I think too many are taken in by his daft arguments because he presents them well. He's the David Icke of these boards!!

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Making fitness the only reason for their success, whilst ignoring your man's equally as important great fitness record - is why people think that you do know about Tennis, but choose to use this knowledge to castigate a great trio of players

Honestly, what a poor argument again Banbro. You recognise that fitness plays a role but you don't think that it is that important?

What do you think is the difference between Nadal kicking Murray's bum in the last 3 slams and Murray bagelling Nadal a few weeks later in Japan? Or even Nadal losing v Mayer in Shanghai?

Please explain! Maybe I am missing something

Has anyone noticed how Banbro left the discussion by the back door here? A kind of "i'll get my coat" !

I tried following the discussion from the Sainsbury's bargain bin - but sadly failed!!

Simple_Analyst wrote: the submissive come back. Yah seems you were hurt there.

wtf are you on about?

invisiblecoolers wrote:Well BanBro thinks Reed as an execptional tennis blog writer, do you want me to say any more than that Tenez?

I dont blame him/her , anybody who follows Reed and not Tennis will think Murray as the greatest Tennis player of all time and Federer as some ball boy who had a few good runs in some small tourneys.

Don't put words into my mouth!! I praised him in jest and maintain that he's not that bad and obviously not that good either. I know he occasionally makes the error of not being constantly gushing about Fed (the requirements to be a good commentator) - but I supposed it's a free country!!

Anyway, back to this thread.........

Lol getting frustrated over the internet. Boggo, call it a day. You not strong for this. Come back refreshed tomorrow.

Well Reed just came with a blog today on his season awards and his standout players for the year are Federer and Djokovic. He does know how to make Federer fans happy ,i give him that.

I'd have given it to Djokovic and Tsonga myself.

Not Federer, as no Slams and just the WTF is a bad year for him. And not Nadal because becoming the personal possession of another player with a 0-6 record automatically rules you out.

Agreed. In terms of titles won, it was a relatively poor year for Nadal overall anyway. Djokovic obviously...but also Murray for getting to all the semis of the slams and some good wins during the Asian leg.

bogbrush wrote:I'd have given it to Djokovic and Tsonga myself.

Not Federer, as no Slams and just the WTF is a bad year for him. And not Nadal because becoming the personal possession of another player with a 0-6 record automatically rules you out.

Nadal lost 6 - 0 v Djoko this year? Nadal who was number 1 for half the year? ouahh must heart! But hey I am sure he fought very hard and gave 100%. Good on him. His fans must be proud.

Give it a rest Tenez, you're like a broken record yipping and yapping about Nadal all the time - infact I'd say you talk about the guy more than any of his staunchest fans ever do!

Where's Laverfan to do an update analysis of % of your posts that mention his name. Have you considered going cold turkey for a few days whilst you tuck into some real turkey?

End of debate conclusion:

Federer himself has admitted that the competition is now harder than it has ever been for him. Nadal's 2004 Miami win also disproved Tenez's theory completely. After that all Tenez could come back with was weak insults and name-calling, and saying that Ljubicic is as good as Sampras. Another comical high-point was one Fed fan raving on about how Baghdatis would thrash Nadal if they met in 2006 on grass (on another thread)- oblivious of the fact that they had already met and Nadal won in straights. Comical stuff all round.

amritia3ee wrote:End of debate conclusion:

Federer himself has admitted that the competition is now harder than it has ever been for him. Nadal's 2004 Miami win also disproved Tenez's theory completely. After that all Tenez could come back with was weak insults and name-calling, and saying that Ljubicic is as good as Sampras. Another comical high-point was one Fed fan raving on about how Baghdatis would thrash Nadal if they met in 2006 on grass (on another thread)- oblivious of the fact that they had already met and Nadal won in straights. Comical stuff all round.

Sampras himself said he played the best in 2002 , inspite of his best years, he could only muster 1 slam in 2 years, which says competition in 2002 was of much higher scale than mid 90's, so end of debate, 90's era the weakest.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:End of debate conclusion:

Federer himself has admitted that the competition is now harder than it has ever been for him. Nadal's 2004 Miami win also disproved Tenez's theory completely. After that all Tenez could come back with was weak insults and name-calling, and saying that Ljubicic is as good as Sampras. Another comical high-point was one Fed fan raving on about how Baghdatis would thrash Nadal if they met in 2006 on grass (on another thread)- oblivious of the fact that they had already met and Nadal won in straights. Comical stuff all round.

Sampras himself said he played the best in 2002 , inspite of his best years, he could only muster 1 slam in 2 years, which says competition in 2002 was of much higher scale than mid 90's, so end of debate, 90's era the weakest.

Good post, shows how weak it is to rely on a players statement about his level.

Never heard a player say anything other than he's playing better than ever. To rely on that to draw conclusions is really limp.

For those who are interested, I did a quick comparaison of "pace of play" :

Make your own conclusions though I only have taken a couple of rallies regarding the FO 11 semi. Might need further investigation:

Wimby 11 Djoko Nadal
10 14 1.4
10 14 1.4
12 16 1.333333333
12 16 1.333333333
14 19 1.357142857
Average 1.36s per length…or between shots.

Djoko v Federer FO
8 10 1.25
14 17 1.214
Average 1.23s per length or between shots
Of course not enough data but it seems that Djoko Federer on clay play faster than Djoko Nadal on grass.

Either grass is slower than clay or Djoko Nadal decide to play really safe....maybe a bit of both. It also shows something very interesting! That despite Nadal taking the ball earlier in SW19, the game is as slow as in the USO....if anything slightly slower. That in my view is down to the ball slowing down fast towards the baseline.

What do WUMs want?

If a player wins all matches and dominates then era becomes weak.

If the same player playes badly and starts to lose then he is finished and fit for nothing.

So technically a player should not win or lose to satisfy wums, which in tennis never gonna happen, may be one day, we have to wait till then Bog

Yeah I know Sampras said that but I really do not believe him at all...nor do others, I dont think any independent observer would say his best form was 2002...I mean he lost to unknown Bastl at Wimbledon for pities sake, and the guy was obviously a yard or two slower, so much so he was S&V'ing on all 2nd serves - at USO 2002 he was averaging over 120MPH for 2nd's such was his need to rely on the serve (and what a srve) - I think his serving definitely got better and suspect he's biased by that serving into thinking it was his best play. Admittedly he played a great USO02 but had a kind draw and was lucky enough to meet "old man" Agassi in the final, a guy with whom he was comfortable playing at USO. I simply think his nostalgia got the best of him, and he wanted to talk up his retirement culminating in his best play. For me his best year/play was clearly '99.

But lets not get into the final years of Sampras or I'll be here all night arguing with people, lol. Needless to say IMO he was a shadow of the guy in the 90s after 2000, much of it to do with his blood disorder and lack of practice, motivation, etc, therein. I always wonder what else he could have done in the game but for his blood disorder. Anyway, sorry thats off topic.

IMO the 80s was the strongest "era" - say 81-88...

lydian wrote:Where's Laverfan to do an update analysis of % of your posts that mention his name. Have you considered going cold turkey for a few days whilst you tuck into some real turkey?

My apologies, but can I do it when a bit more 'calm' prevails on 606v2. I do not want add fuel to the fire.

I dont believe that grass is actually slower than clay for a second. Djokovic and Nadal play a different game of cat/mouse compared to when they both play Federer.

A good metric for court speeds is the number of TBs played across whole tournaments for 01 vs 05 vs 08 I think, I did some analysis on this on 606 and it was very interesting - and very plausible. The data is hard to get though. The theory being the faster the court the more TBs as a trend you tend to get.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

If the same player playes badly and starts to lose then he is finished and fit for nothing.

I have never claimed this- Fed is still a great player. Fed himself said the competition is harder now than it was before- I'm just backing him up.

lydian wrote:Yeah I know Sampras said that but I really do not believe him at all...nor do others, I dont think any independent observer would say his best form was 2002...I mean he lost to unknown Bastl at Wimbledon for pities sake, and the guy was obviously a yard or two slower, so much so he was S&V'ing on all 2nd serves - at USO 2002 he was averaging over 120MPH for 2nd's such was his need to rely on the serve (and what a srve) - I think his serving definitely got better and suspect he's biased by that serving into thinking it was his best play. Admittedly he played a great USO02 but had a kind draw and was lucky enough to meet "old man" Agassi in the final, a guy with whom he was comfortable playing at USO. I simply think his nostalgia got the best of him, and he wanted to talk up his retirement culminating in his best play. For me his best year/play was clearly '99.

But lets not get into the final years of Sampras or I'll be here all night arguing with people, lol. Needless to say IMO he was a shadow of the guy in the 90s after 2000, much of it to do with his blood disorder and lack of practice, motivation, etc, therein. I always wonder what else he could have done in the game but for his blood disorder. Anyway, sorry thats off topic.

IMO the 80s was the strongest "era" - say 81-88...

Agree, and the same goes for Federers similar statements now imo.

Yes he lost to Bastl because it was the year Wimbledon was extremely slow. Again you come up with a name like Bastl to try to cut any sensible discussion. 2002 was the very slow pace year and Sampras suffered like he often did on slow courts. In 97 in his hey days he had a tough 3 setter v Dreeekman on fast wimbledon. So what?

What you fail to see is that though there is a huge difference between 14 slams and none...tennis wise there isn;t much. The proof is that it is the same player who accumulated slams on grass and hard and could not get close on clay.

Yep I think career-end, or near career-end, self-appraising statements should come with pinch of salt sachets. They seem to lose a bit of objectivity about themselves which is weird, and I think their egos dismiss any thought of possible decline. Probably is part of what makes them great champions to start with...the rest of us may know we're declining but these guys have that inner belief they are always getting better....when results speak otherwise.

Reading The Education of a Tennis Player makes me wonder, if Laver knew what was coming. Perhaps Bud Collins coloured it and made it less melancholy.

Unless there is a sudden exit like Borg's, the players know, even if their egos do not.

So savour every moment that I can. It is never coming back, be it Fadalovicurray or anyone else.

I disagree again. Sampras knows better when talking about his own game. He says clearly he was not as consistent and could not commit as much as he did when young but he is entirely correct when he says players were getting better and it was tougher. That's teh way the game goes. He is also very correct when he says Pete 2002 would beat Pete 97. Just watch teh 2002 USO final. It's bloody clear.

If Carl Lewis can clock his quickest time at 30, I can;t see why Pete could not either. We have had this discussion before.

Tenez, dont tell me what is and isnt sensible discussion after the howlers you've been sprinkling all over the forum today about the nu-GOATs Ljubicic and Blake.

You seem, once again, to be in denial about actual FACTS. Sampras won 64 titles...in his last 3 seasons he won 3 despite hardcourts still being fast, yet he was suffering on them. If we look at the fast Cincy event, he lost in 2nd round in both 01 and 02 after previously always getting to W/SF/QFs. You are in denial the guy was fairly washed up, not practising, losing motivation, moving slower, recovering slower (have you read what I posted about his thalassemia or not? and how it also affects Dolgo, or are you in denial about that too?) and carrying injuries. This is the guy who was S&V'ing on all 2nd serves because his movement was getting slower (as Rusedski and Kafelnikov famously commented)...and he was doing this against Federer in 2001 as well. That is not the way he used to play. But I know you want to big up the end of his career for obvious reasons.

Tenez Hasn't he given up yet

Good points made by Lydian once again

Yes he played well at USO'02...it was his swansong and he played better than fortnight than the rest of the previous 100+ weeks. But I'll never believe he was a better player in 02 than the 90s. Not a chance.

@ Lydian, I thought u were a meaningful poster, your posts in this thread completely documents otherwise, now fate of v2 tennis section is decided i guess.

Thanks for making the judgement invisible. Nice of you...and I'm supposed to say what back?
I note you never comment negatively on anything Tenez ever says.
We're all entitled to opinions...if you dont agree then comment otherwise, but leave your judgements about me to yourself please.

amrita, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Lydian and Tenez fight like cat and dog but they both know loads about tennis and you'll not insert yourself into their thing by sniding up like that.

Lydian and I disagree loads but it's always in good faith.

nitb is a Nole fan but she's perhaps the best of us, and now she's leaving the forum because of the joke you've made of the main page.

If you want to join this forum for real you need to rethink your approach. You can still be vigorous, but you really don't need to be looking to Simple as a role model. That'll win you one friend to chat with and an otherwise hostile board.

lydian wrote:You seem, once again, to be in denial about actual FACTS. Sampras won 64 titles...in his last 3 seasons he won 3 despite hardcourts still being fast, yet he was suffering on them.

Sampras winning titles is not the measuring stick of his form nor of the level of the opposition. You are the one in denial cause in your equation you only consider one side of it: Sampras. Sampras played against an opposition (the other side of the equation). This opposition is as important as Sampras. The game evolved from 97 to 2002. Sampras knows this and again you are teh one in denial if you think Sampras is now talking bull'ck. He is not the only one who has said they played their best at 30. Plenty of players and track racers have.

It's hilarious that when it comes to Federer, you are the first to recognise that he plays as well now as back in 2006 and that he is losing more often now because the opposition is better (I say more physical). And you call me biased[??????? Frankly, be sensible....I insist!