• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Tennis Thread

Cabinet96

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
He'd undoutably have loads of grand slams if he was playing 10 years earlier. Very rarely get knocked out of slams by anyone other than the holly triad.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
one of his best performances in Slams was actually Roland Garros this year tbh. Great tournament from him there
 
cpr

cpr

International Coach
Lillian Thomson said:
Proper fans certainly do realise it. Those who think tennis takes place two weeks a year probably not. I used to say to people who mocked Tim Henman as a loser that we should enjoy having a contender because another won't come along for a long time. I was proved wrong with Murray coming along, so hopefully there'll be someone to follow him.
Click to expand...

Thing with Henman was Rusedski came along a couple of years earlier (as in made the big breakthrough first, Tim made the 2nd week of Wimbledon before Greg did) and caught the imagination. Big serves, Grand Slam Finals, he had the game that Mr Dependable/Boring Henman didn't. By the time Henman did reach a final (Indian Wells) or win a masters (Paris), Rusedski had already done both at the same venues - not that the general public really knew much about these tournaments as they do today, mainly because Murray's success makes the Masters series get more column inches.


Agree with the Murray sentiments though, clearly one of the greatest British players ever (thats including Perry, Austin et al). However I don't jump on the 'Could've won more in another era' bandwagon. Each decade seems to have its 2, maybe 3, huge dominant names.
00's - Federer/Nadal
90's - Becker/Edberg, then Sampras (mid-late 90's probably could've done with another challenger really)
80's - McEnroe/Lendl
70's - Bjorg/Connors
60's - Emerson/Laver (and the rest lost to the Pro ranks)
etc etc.

Think its a big jump in faith to say Murray would automatically sit at home with those players, maybe coming along 10 years earlier might've seen him win a few more (the gap between Sampras retiring and Federer starting to dominate, only 3-4 years but still). However, even winning two majors is a fantastic achievement (add to that Olympic gold too)
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
cpr said:
Thing with Henman was Rusedski came along a couple of years earlier (as in made the big breakthrough first, Tim made the 2nd week of Wimbledon before Greg did) and caught the imagination. Big serves, Grand Slam Finals, he had the game that Mr Dependable/Boring Henman didn't. By the time Henman did reach a final (Indian Wells) or win a masters (Paris), Rusedski had already done both at the same venues - not that the general public really knew much about these tournaments as they do today, mainly because Murray's success makes the Masters series get more column inches.
Click to expand...
Rusedski was a slightly different kettle of bananas. He didn't really "come along". He'd been on the tour as a Canadian for nearly 4 years when he suddenly decided to represent Britain instead.
 
cpr

cpr

International Coach
Lillian Thomson said:
Rusedski was a slightly different kettle of bananas. He didn't really "come along". He'd been on the tour as a Canadian for nearly 4 years when he suddenly decided to represent Britain instead.
Click to expand...
Yeah but his successes were under the British flag. Whilst the public didn't exactly take to him, it did devalue what Henman was achieving because Greg had already done it a few years before.

Anil said:
agassi? courier?
Click to expand...

Surprised you venture Courier for mid to late 90's given he was basically shot by the time Wimbledon came around in 1994 - apart from a late resurgence in 95 at/after the US open, he was nowhere near any title picture.

Agassi too, actually. he was basically absent from the top table from the start of 96 to his resurgence in 99. Certainly not a dominant name - not on the back pages anyway. In fact he was the one who capitalised most on the lull I mention between the Sampras and Federer era's.

Basically neither of them can have any claim to have been a big, dominant name in tennis during the mid to late 90's. Probably more sensible to highlight the first bit of that line rather than the latter and argue they were big names at the start of the decade rather than Becker/Edberg.
 
Cabinet96

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
Djokovic played one round, but didn't play when Serbia went out to Argentina. Neither of Federer/Wawrinka played.

I think the top players tend to view the Davis Cup as something which is nice to win once, and once you've done it...
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Cabinet96 said:
Djokovic played one round, but didn't play when Serbia went out to Argentina. Neither of Federer/Wawrinka played.

I think the top players tend to view the Davis Cup as something which is nice to win once, and once you've done it...
Click to expand...
Well Fed didn't play for years and then suddenly realised he wanted it and that with new born Stan in his team they'd be a massive force.
 
A

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
cpr said:
Surprised you venture Courier for mid to late 90's given he was basically shot by the time Wimbledon came around in 1994 - apart from a late resurgence in 95 at/after the US open, he was nowhere near any title picture.

Agassi too, actually. he was basically absent from the top table from the start of 96 to his resurgence in 99. Certainly not a dominant name - not on the back pages anyway. In fact he was the one who capitalised most on the lull I mention between the Sampras and Federer era's.

Basically neither of them can have any claim to have been a big, dominant name in tennis during the mid to late 90's. Probably more sensible to highlight the first bit of that line rather than the latter and argue they were big names at the start of the decade rather than Becker/Edberg.
Click to expand...
got it you are right, wasn't looking too closely at the specific years, i just mentioned them as sampras' contemporaries and the other biggest names during his era along with becker and edberg...
 
cpr

cpr

International Coach
TBF, thinking about it you could say they were the dominant players of the early 90's, though I went with Becker/Edberg as that had been a running battle for a few years in the 80s too. Twas crazy how both Courier and Agassi fell off the cliff (though Agassi had got his investment tips from Wilander's dealer). Does make me look at Sampras' record in a new light though... did he really have the big competition that other greats had?
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I think it's generous to call Becker a dominant figure in the 90's considering that the only Slams he won were a couple of Australian Opens. I do agree with dismissing the general point though that's often trotted out about Murray winning more in other eras. I don't see him automatically stealing titles off Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Lendl or Sampras. I would add Courier to that for a brief time on clay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top