- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,429
- Points
- 113
This is a tangent from the Novak surpassing Roger thread, one I thought worthy of its own thread. I was tempted to turn this in to a blog, but will leave it as is for now.
In the other thread, we were discussing the difference in context of the 90s game to the current game, and speculating about current greats would have done back there. This is what I wrote, but decided to post in its own thread...
The only connection we really have between the 90s era and the current era is that one 2001 Wimbledon match between Roger and Pete. It was declining Pete and rising Roger, but it gives us the only glimpse we can into the two different eras, 20 years apart (we also have some matches between Roger or Rafa and Agassi, but let's focus on this one for now).
So let's take a quick look at that match, just to get a sense of where they were in their respective careers. Clearly if we were to really compare the two we'd have to look at their whole careers, but this is the only match-up between the best players of two different eras, with a 10-year gap in their ages.
Pete was 29 years old, just a few months shy of 30. He was ranked #6 in the world, his lowest ranking since early 1992 - over 9 years. He hadn't won a Slam since the previous Wimbledon, which was his fourth in a row and seventh out of the last eight. He was struggling that year, having gone out in the 4R at the AO and 2R at FO, with no titles that year, but he had been #1 as recently as the prior November. Relative to his "prime peak" of 93-97 and his "plateau peak" of 92-00, I think we can say that Pete was similar in terms of decline as to what we've seen from Roger the last couple years, although even less consistent, and thus maybe slightly below Roger's current level (relative to their peaks).
As for Roger, he was 19 years old, just a few months shy of 20 - almost exactly 10 years younger. He was ranked #15 in the world, having just broken into the top 20 for the first time earlier that year. He wouldn't break through into the top 10 until May of 2002 when he won his first Masters (Madrid), the top 5 and his first Slam in 2003, and #1 in early 2004. When people think of Roger's absolute peak it is usually 2004-07, but he really became an elite player in 2003 when he was just a hair behind the year-end #1, Andy Roddick, in terms of points.
One way to look at it is that Pete and Roger passed each other, one on the way down, the other on the way up. They were both approximately two years from their peak levels, although both capable of excellent tennis. Probably the equivalent now in terms of career placement would be something like Dominic Thiem's defeat of Rafael Nadal. In fact, Rafa is almost exactly the same age Pete was when Roger defeated him, although that's where the comparison ends as Thiem is not only a few years older than Roger was, but almost certainly won't be nearly as good as Roger.
So we never got to see peak Sampras vs. peak Federer, but we did get to see a post-peak Sampras who was good enough to still be ranked #6 and win a Slam a year before play against a rising pre-peak Federer who was good enough to make two Slam QFs and finish the year #13. Pete was closer to his best (and a Slam title) than Roger was, but Roger had the benefit of being on the rise - so it is somewhat evened out.
And the result? Pretty darn close: 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5 to Roger.
So I'm not going to go so far as to say that we can extrapolate that to the peak forms of both players and say they were probably even, but I don't think that would be completely false either. Also, this was on grass - chances are Roger would have had the edge on most hards and clay, so I think I'd give Roger the edge. But again, we're talking a hair's difference at most.
By the way, you can watch the match here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrDW4MF_xMI
In the other thread, we were discussing the difference in context of the 90s game to the current game, and speculating about current greats would have done back there. This is what I wrote, but decided to post in its own thread...
The only connection we really have between the 90s era and the current era is that one 2001 Wimbledon match between Roger and Pete. It was declining Pete and rising Roger, but it gives us the only glimpse we can into the two different eras, 20 years apart (we also have some matches between Roger or Rafa and Agassi, but let's focus on this one for now).
So let's take a quick look at that match, just to get a sense of where they were in their respective careers. Clearly if we were to really compare the two we'd have to look at their whole careers, but this is the only match-up between the best players of two different eras, with a 10-year gap in their ages.
Pete was 29 years old, just a few months shy of 30. He was ranked #6 in the world, his lowest ranking since early 1992 - over 9 years. He hadn't won a Slam since the previous Wimbledon, which was his fourth in a row and seventh out of the last eight. He was struggling that year, having gone out in the 4R at the AO and 2R at FO, with no titles that year, but he had been #1 as recently as the prior November. Relative to his "prime peak" of 93-97 and his "plateau peak" of 92-00, I think we can say that Pete was similar in terms of decline as to what we've seen from Roger the last couple years, although even less consistent, and thus maybe slightly below Roger's current level (relative to their peaks).
As for Roger, he was 19 years old, just a few months shy of 20 - almost exactly 10 years younger. He was ranked #15 in the world, having just broken into the top 20 for the first time earlier that year. He wouldn't break through into the top 10 until May of 2002 when he won his first Masters (Madrid), the top 5 and his first Slam in 2003, and #1 in early 2004. When people think of Roger's absolute peak it is usually 2004-07, but he really became an elite player in 2003 when he was just a hair behind the year-end #1, Andy Roddick, in terms of points.
One way to look at it is that Pete and Roger passed each other, one on the way down, the other on the way up. They were both approximately two years from their peak levels, although both capable of excellent tennis. Probably the equivalent now in terms of career placement would be something like Dominic Thiem's defeat of Rafael Nadal. In fact, Rafa is almost exactly the same age Pete was when Roger defeated him, although that's where the comparison ends as Thiem is not only a few years older than Roger was, but almost certainly won't be nearly as good as Roger.
So we never got to see peak Sampras vs. peak Federer, but we did get to see a post-peak Sampras who was good enough to still be ranked #6 and win a Slam a year before play against a rising pre-peak Federer who was good enough to make two Slam QFs and finish the year #13. Pete was closer to his best (and a Slam title) than Roger was, but Roger had the benefit of being on the rise - so it is somewhat evened out.
And the result? Pretty darn close: 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5 to Roger.
So I'm not going to go so far as to say that we can extrapolate that to the peak forms of both players and say they were probably even, but I don't think that would be completely false either. Also, this was on grass - chances are Roger would have had the edge on most hards and clay, so I think I'd give Roger the edge. But again, we're talking a hair's difference at most.
By the way, you can watch the match here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrDW4MF_xMI
