@mireille876 And you know who hasn't learned his lesson? Andy Roddick! He's still wearing shirts with collars and he's still pulling on his big shirts as if he really should be wearing sleeveless or tight fitting shirts. He probably just picks a shirt from his closet full of free shirts from his sponsor and doesn't bother if it's 2 sizes bigger. He should at least have them specially made to fit his body because he doesn't have a big belly. :-)
@mireille876 And you know who hasn't learned his lesson? Andy Roddick! He's still wearing shirts with collars and he's still pulling on his big shirts as if he really should be wearing sleeveless or tight fitting shirts. He probably just picks a shirt from his closet full of free shirts from his sponsor and doesn't bother if it's 2 sizes bigger. He should at least have them specially made to fit his body because he doesn't have a big belly. :-)
when i was younger i use to watch tennis and ivanisevic was my favourite player!!^^ well i remember on the one hand sometimes he got angry but on the other hand he was a very nice guy! his serve kicked ass as well;) does he still play tennis??
i don't think he does. but yeah, his serve is amazing, and he takes so little time preparing for it too, i dont really know of any other pro who does that any more.
yes...maybe he will play at a benefit match^^? that would be nice...i think i've seen him doing stuff like this in the past...well u nailed it, hes a legend!
Not quite at his peak, Federer was only 19 at the time and still an up and comer while Sampras was the defending champion so in a way they were suited in that while neither was at their best they each had distinct advantages, Sampras had experience, Federer youth so it sort of evened out in a way. Federers peak was arguably between 2004 and 2007, not 2001.
Agassi himself said Federer was tougher than Pete Sampras
This is non-sense. Federer is 28 this year and it took young JMDP 5sets to beat him... also when he was 27, Nadal also needed 5sets to beat him...Does that mean anything at all?
Tennis didnt improve and there are couple of reasons why not. First the competition is weaker...you have only two, maybe three top players...all others are average. In Goran's time you had like 7-8 top players and others were good too. Second reason is they evened the diffs between various court grounds...so they made grass slower and clay a bit harder and faster...basically there is really small and marginal diff between these court grounds.
so your saying tennis isn't faster, more advanced and the best players aren't better than the best players about 10 years ago? i'm pretty sure they have
That is what i am saying. You only have the illusion its faster....the court grounds are now much slower then they you use to be. Just take a look at the grass courts....Nadal would have no chance on the old grass courts and people like Sampras, Agassi and Ivanisevic who were all excellent on grass would destroy him utterly.
but wait, if u say the courts are slower but the tennis looks faster, that makes no sense. the way u sed it makes it sound as if tennis is much faster
Actually if the courts are slower and everything looks faster bcz now players seem to be catching alot of balls they otherwise wouldnt makes perfect sense.
one reason why the era Lendl-Becker-Edberg-Sampras-Agassi was a bit more exciting concerning names is, that Fed and Nad dont let other players develop a big name, coz these two guys have been winning the Grand Slams almost solely. But to me, that is the only boring aspect of today´s tennis. Watching Rafa and Roger and lots of other guys today is a great pleasure.
you know, one could argue that in gorans time there were 7-8 top players, but in federer's era there're still 7-8 top players...
just with 2 more extraordinary talents at the top
but theres really no point comparing players of different eras
as for the courts, it got slower so spectators could have more rallies to watch. as much as tennis is a sport, its first most an entertainment, in that sense, i daresay tennis improved.
The so-called extraordinary players are so "extraordinary" because they dont have the competition Sampras or Agassi had. That is why they are so superior to all others...the competition is way weaker than it was before. And its not like we are comparing tennis in time of McEnroe or Borg with today.
as much as sampras and agassi are great players, they are not as consistent as federer and nadal. during their winning streaks of GS titles, agassi has at one point dropped out of the top 100 while sampras has made early exits at the US and australian to players that have never won a GS title in their career. and even together sampras and agassi are far from dominating on the french. nadal and federer, however, won the 17 out of the last 18 slams.
of course its not like we're comparing them to borg and mcenroe. because even all time greats such as themselves think the current rivalry is the greatest and federere is the GOAT. i'd say maybe, just maybe, mcenroe and borg know a little more about recognizing extraordinary talents than us. so i'm going to go with what they think and say "yes, federer is indeed the greatest player of all time"... unless you think you know more about talent in tennis than mcenroe and borg, be my guest.
The fact someone was great at something doesnt mean he is great in estimation of the same thing. For example take Pele, grandmaster of football and he doesnt know shit about predicting anything in football today. Now when you talk about McEnroe that was the guy who said Ivanisevic will remain a looser and not win his Wimbledon...so much about that. Federer is the greatest by one fact...he has most grand slams. But would he win them all if the competition was like 10 years ago? Doubt it...
who's "he"? no tennis player before this era has a bigger serve than roddick or karlovic, and no tennis player has a bigger forehand (by speed) than monfils, wimbledon i slower but it only got more physically demanding. which is why there are less dark horses winning slams now (if at all) because fitness comes as a major factor now and consistency and hardwork are now as essential as talent. strings and racquets are mor epowerful and players have to excel on all courts now to be a world no. 1.
the only arguement that you can provide for more competition before is simply the fact that more players have been in the world no.1 position and won slams than more. frankly, so what? roddick won the US and was no.1 in 2003, but anyone can tell that although he lost to federer in wimby this year he played far better than he has ever before. now thats some competition. whats the point of having many different world no.1's if everyone is just together playing a sloppier game?
Look you can disagree as much as you want....in the end its clear: stronger competition = more #1. When Sampras was active all claimed he was best in the world, now they all claim Federer is. Thing is the results and the statistics say the competition was much much stronger when Sampras played. I rest my case.
and yet you're still not giving any back up for your arguement. i listed players, number of number ones, and even service speeds. you're simply saying satistics show that sampras's era was more competitive. you're just stating, there's no reason behind it. as much as i think you're speaking nonsense its still nice to say something with a little intellect in them.
Why would I give back my argument when everything I said is a fact? Now the funny thing is that you accept statistics only if it suits you...that is called fallacy. Furthermore you are becoming rude and offensive which is often the first sign of lack of arguments. Anyway when you present me some real facts that refute me then we can talk....with a little intellect in it.
stats will also suggest that sampras and agassi are far from dominating on clay. which is way several players other than them were ranked no.1 in their time. carlos moya, kuerten, kafelnikov, and muster have all made their mark on clay. rios didnt win the french, but he became a no1 by points accumulated on his clay masters titles. so there were more no1s in sampras' era because sampras and agassi were less competitive on clay. thats my statement and stat, your call?
I dont see how that proves you anything...it actually goes the other way around. It just shows that when those two played there were like 3-4 masters of the clay court. Today? Only Nadal. Also the clay courts in their time were different than those today, they were slower, softer, etc.
3-4 masters of clay and most of them didnt really perform well anywhere else. muster for one, never won a match on wimbledon, thats not natural even if competition was strong. kuerten never made any SF outside of roland garros and the list goes... in this era we're seeing more and more of all courters and all rounder players other than just baseliners and serve volleyers... the paly has definitely improved.
Actually it is....it shows how much tougher it was for players to be excellent on different types of court. Again the difference between clay court and grass court was huge then....today difference is much much smaller due to restrictions and regulations imposed by the ATP and ITF to even the courts. I dont see that as an improvement.
its an improvement on behalf of tennis as an entertainment sport. if wimbledon is going to be slow then wimbledon IS slow. and players will need to cope with that. if the spectators want to see more magnificent rallies, then its the players job to cope with that. a slower wimbledon also means a more physically demanding wimbledon, and when fitness comes into account, less surprising finalists and champions will occur.
That's a problem. They shouldn't slow down the courts for entertainment, and they probably didn't. Wimbledon was far more magnificent when it was faster. Made way for serve and volley and all those beautiful passing shots... fans got to see a kind of tennis they didn't get to as much on hard courts and clay.
You know it's a sad day for Wimbledon and grass courts when the US Open is considered the fastest playing slam.
they probably have their reasons for it, i mean, if the federer-nadal match in 2008 is considered one of the greatest ever, surely the act of slowing down wimbledon is not such a bad move. maybe its because you're more used to watching serving and volleying, but i only started watching tennis in 2006 when they're was little serve-volley play left, so i actually thought serve and volley is a boring game when i saw it on youtube... just personal preference though
Same here man, first match I saw was Fed winning the Open in 2006. I just prefer faster courts that give the advantage to the players that take more risks, since it weeds out the players that rely mostly on defense fairly quickly. That, and long rallies bore me. Quick strike tennis is more fast paced and exciting. Now every match is a grind fest. It's a war of attrition instead of a battle of skill.
thats a delicate balance of risk-shot-making and stamina-and-endurance we're talking about. i dont liek grinders too but neither do i like serve and volleyers, the game ends too quick without more display of variety. overall, i'd say US open is the closest balance to perfection.
and i will apologize for my rudeness because i was a little annoyed that you are resorting to simply stating something for granted without reasons for backup. and how am i to accept any of your stats if you're giving me none? now to be truthful, i am enjoying this conversation quite a bit because you do seem like a person capable of debate...unless you're the one giving every one of my comments a thumbs down, cuz i think you can do better than that.
I didnt claim it for granted...I just say look how many #1 and how much the competition was tougher in their times and look how pathetic the competition is today. Is it normal that a #3 ranked in the world is utterly destroyed by Nadal or Federer on any court? Id say not. And its not because they are so suprior...its because competition is lousy. And frankly I find today tennis boring just because of all that.
numbers of #1 does not neccessarily corresponds to greater number of better players. more champions yes, but if everyone is altogether playing bad games, it could result in the same result. so i leave that. the fact taht the number 3 cannot challenege the top 2 does not mean that the competition is weak, the top 2 could just be amazing. if we take nadal and federer out of the equation, we do see as much varying in players in finals rounds as in sampras' era.
I never saw this match! but I am sure it must have been a great one. Goran's a fantastic player & Nadal was just 17 yrs old. But we all know who the "king of clay is"!
Didn't see the ball for one second that point.
kelman221 4 months ago
Goran's First serve is yet to be matched.
ThePianoPhenomenon 9 months ago
@ThePianoPhenomenon yes so true...roddick is near, but ivanisevic´s was a bomb
contactafc10 8 months ago
@ThePianoPhenomenon heard about la karlovica??
telmolicious 8 months ago
Goran is the best!
Schubert958 9 months ago 2
Before Nadal became a pirate :)
ethongmurr 9 months ago 2
Nadal didn't care about the size of his shirt, which looked too big for his body. :-)
I loved Goran like I love Roger Federer now.
Rogelle 1 year ago
@Rogelle Both Rafa and Roger had terrible tennis clothes when they were 17-19. It's amazing given how suave they are now. :-)
mireille876 1 year ago
@mireille876 And you know who hasn't learned his lesson? Andy Roddick! He's still wearing shirts with collars and he's still pulling on his big shirts as if he really should be wearing sleeveless or tight fitting shirts. He probably just picks a shirt from his closet full of free shirts from his sponsor and doesn't bother if it's 2 sizes bigger. He should at least have them specially made to fit his body because he doesn't have a big belly. :-)
Rogelle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mireille876 And you know who hasn't learned his lesson? Andy Roddick! He's still wearing shirts with collars and he's still pulling on his big shirts as if he really should be wearing sleeveless or tight fitting shirts. He probably just picks a shirt from his closet full of free shirts from his sponsor and doesn't bother if it's 2 sizes bigger. He should at least have them specially made to fit his body because he doesn't have a big belly. :-)
Rogelle 1 year ago
When he started saying "Nadal was only two years old..." I thought he'll say "...in this match" and I was like lolwut.
Veeno00 1 year ago
Nadal's hair was longer back then.
TheTennisMan11 1 year ago
great video
Eleonora4646 1 year ago
i really liked this.
Im not a huge Nadal fan (hate the way he plays but like the man) but this really made me smile.
pmo1983 2 years ago
when was this?
TheMickeyjet 2 years ago
2001
keijimuto 2 years ago
@keijimuto 2004
MaratSafinVideos 1 year ago
@TheMickeyjet If I'm not mistaken, this was Estoril 2004. Rafa was 17.
mireille876 1 year ago
when i was younger i use to watch tennis and ivanisevic was my favourite player!!^^ well i remember on the one hand sometimes he got angry but on the other hand he was a very nice guy! his serve kicked ass as well;) does he still play tennis??
jamjamsterjiggidyjay 2 years ago 26
i don't think he does. but yeah, his serve is amazing, and he takes so little time preparing for it too, i dont really know of any other pro who does that any more.
lostismyconstent 2 years ago 4
thanks for your response...ur right he really took very little time and his posture was also unique and looked quite funny^^ yeah he was da man!
jamjamsterjiggidyjay 2 years ago
he plays, but not professional... HE IS A LEGEND!!
bracojunior 2 years ago 5
yes...maybe he will play at a benefit match^^? that would be nice...i think i've seen him doing stuff like this in the past...well u nailed it, hes a legend!
jamjamsterjiggidyjay 2 years ago
No,he is retired few years ago,he play just veteran tournamets
SuppaDuppaFly1 2 years ago
@jamjamsterjiggidyjay
Goran retired in 2004 after Wimbledon, but he still played some tennis. For example, he practiced with Federer before the 2007 Wimbledon final.
TheTennisMan11 1 year ago
@TheTennisMan11 sweet, i didnt know this...
i guess he is coaching this szech dude "berdyz" now (sry if i spelled it wrong)...
jamjamsterjiggidyjay 1 year ago
@jamjamsterjiggidyjay
No, Goran I don't think Goran is a coach. He helps Marin Cilic sometimes. Sorry for replying so late.
TheTennisMan11 1 year ago
@jamjamsterjiggidyjay Nahh he retired pretty young unfortunately. He was my favorite aswell!
Spirky7 1 year ago
@jamjamsterjiggidyjay
He plays some exibition matches from time to time
najjacisam 11 months ago
Not quite at his peak, Federer was only 19 at the time and still an up and comer while Sampras was the defending champion so in a way they were suited in that while neither was at their best they each had distinct advantages, Sampras had experience, Federer youth so it sort of evened out in a way. Federers peak was arguably between 2004 and 2007, not 2001.
Agassi himself said Federer was tougher than Pete Sampras
terryuy 2 years ago 3
When Federer played Sampras on his last Wimbledon, Sampras was already 28 and getting ready to retire.
While, Federer was in his peak. Yet, it took him 5 sets to beat him.
Federer also played Aggassi when he was already really old and close to retirement, and it took him 5 sets to beat him.
But then again 5 sets or 3 sets, Victory is Victory but still I just thought of throwing an argument out.
azishazi2 2 years ago
This is non-sense. Federer is 28 this year and it took young JMDP 5sets to beat him... also when he was 27, Nadal also needed 5sets to beat him...Does that mean anything at all?
liutian3 2 years ago
I recently watched an old match between edberg and stich...As much I enjoyed it when I was younger..I seriously think the game is more exciting now.
nazzu 2 years ago
Compared to Edberg and Stich watching the likes of Nadal, Murray or Davydenko play is painful.
Eric0816 2 years ago
Comment removed
mateor9 2 years ago
and goran beat em'all xD
Njanac 2 years ago 18
This has been flagged as spam show
no way, the tennis has improved, and nadal has come on top while federer has passed his prime
Mparry6 2 years ago
I second that. Even if now fed has beaten nadal in madrid it doesn't mean he's getting back to his best...
yehavadar 2 years ago
thats why i sed PASSED his prime
Mparry6 2 years ago
Tennis didnt improve and there are couple of reasons why not. First the competition is weaker...you have only two, maybe three top players...all others are average. In Goran's time you had like 7-8 top players and others were good too. Second reason is they evened the diffs between various court grounds...so they made grass slower and clay a bit harder and faster...basically there is really small and marginal diff between these court grounds.
retardinho 2 years ago 5
so your saying tennis isn't faster, more advanced and the best players aren't better than the best players about 10 years ago? i'm pretty sure they have
Mparry6 2 years ago
That is what i am saying. You only have the illusion its faster....the court grounds are now much slower then they you use to be. Just take a look at the grass courts....Nadal would have no chance on the old grass courts and people like Sampras, Agassi and Ivanisevic who were all excellent on grass would destroy him utterly.
retardinho 2 years ago 3
but wait, if u say the courts are slower but the tennis looks faster, that makes no sense. the way u sed it makes it sound as if tennis is much faster
Mparry6 2 years ago
Actually if the courts are slower and everything looks faster bcz now players seem to be catching alot of balls they otherwise wouldnt makes perfect sense.
retardinho 2 years ago
one reason why the era Lendl-Becker-Edberg-Sampras-Agassi was a bit more exciting concerning names is, that Fed and Nad dont let other players develop a big name, coz these two guys have been winning the Grand Slams almost solely. But to me, that is the only boring aspect of today´s tennis. Watching Rafa and Roger and lots of other guys today is a great pleasure.
ulizinho 2 years ago
you know, one could argue that in gorans time there were 7-8 top players, but in federer's era there're still 7-8 top players...
just with 2 more extraordinary talents at the top
but theres really no point comparing players of different eras
as for the courts, it got slower so spectators could have more rallies to watch. as much as tennis is a sport, its first most an entertainment, in that sense, i daresay tennis improved.
foul01 2 years ago
The so-called extraordinary players are so "extraordinary" because they dont have the competition Sampras or Agassi had. That is why they are so superior to all others...the competition is way weaker than it was before. And its not like we are comparing tennis in time of McEnroe or Borg with today.
retardinho 2 years ago
as much as sampras and agassi are great players, they are not as consistent as federer and nadal. during their winning streaks of GS titles, agassi has at one point dropped out of the top 100 while sampras has made early exits at the US and australian to players that have never won a GS title in their career. and even together sampras and agassi are far from dominating on the french. nadal and federer, however, won the 17 out of the last 18 slams.
foul01 2 years ago
of course its not like we're comparing them to borg and mcenroe. because even all time greats such as themselves think the current rivalry is the greatest and federere is the GOAT. i'd say maybe, just maybe, mcenroe and borg know a little more about recognizing extraordinary talents than us. so i'm going to go with what they think and say "yes, federer is indeed the greatest player of all time"... unless you think you know more about talent in tennis than mcenroe and borg, be my guest.
foul01 2 years ago
The fact someone was great at something doesnt mean he is great in estimation of the same thing. For example take Pele, grandmaster of football and he doesnt know shit about predicting anything in football today. Now when you talk about McEnroe that was the guy who said Ivanisevic will remain a looser and not win his Wimbledon...so much about that. Federer is the greatest by one fact...he has most grand slams. But would he win them all if the competition was like 10 years ago? Doubt it...
retardinho 2 years ago
i'm pretty sure he can, by my opinion, comepition back then was far less than that of todays
foul01 2 years ago
And that is just your opinion, he proved otherwise.
retardinho 2 years ago
who's "he"? no tennis player before this era has a bigger serve than roddick or karlovic, and no tennis player has a bigger forehand (by speed) than monfils, wimbledon i slower but it only got more physically demanding. which is why there are less dark horses winning slams now (if at all) because fitness comes as a major factor now and consistency and hardwork are now as essential as talent. strings and racquets are mor epowerful and players have to excel on all courts now to be a world no. 1.
foul01 2 years ago
the only arguement that you can provide for more competition before is simply the fact that more players have been in the world no.1 position and won slams than more. frankly, so what? roddick won the US and was no.1 in 2003, but anyone can tell that although he lost to federer in wimby this year he played far better than he has ever before. now thats some competition. whats the point of having many different world no.1's if everyone is just together playing a sloppier game?
foul01 2 years ago
Look you can disagree as much as you want....in the end its clear: stronger competition = more #1. When Sampras was active all claimed he was best in the world, now they all claim Federer is. Thing is the results and the statistics say the competition was much much stronger when Sampras played. I rest my case.
retardinho 2 years ago
and yet you're still not giving any back up for your arguement. i listed players, number of number ones, and even service speeds. you're simply saying satistics show that sampras's era was more competitive. you're just stating, there's no reason behind it. as much as i think you're speaking nonsense its still nice to say something with a little intellect in them.
foul01 2 years ago
Why would I give back my argument when everything I said is a fact? Now the funny thing is that you accept statistics only if it suits you...that is called fallacy. Furthermore you are becoming rude and offensive which is often the first sign of lack of arguments. Anyway when you present me some real facts that refute me then we can talk....with a little intellect in it.
retardinho 2 years ago
stats will also suggest that sampras and agassi are far from dominating on clay. which is way several players other than them were ranked no.1 in their time. carlos moya, kuerten, kafelnikov, and muster have all made their mark on clay. rios didnt win the french, but he became a no1 by points accumulated on his clay masters titles. so there were more no1s in sampras' era because sampras and agassi were less competitive on clay. thats my statement and stat, your call?
foul01 2 years ago
I dont see how that proves you anything...it actually goes the other way around. It just shows that when those two played there were like 3-4 masters of the clay court. Today? Only Nadal. Also the clay courts in their time were different than those today, they were slower, softer, etc.
retardinho 2 years ago
3-4 masters of clay and most of them didnt really perform well anywhere else. muster for one, never won a match on wimbledon, thats not natural even if competition was strong. kuerten never made any SF outside of roland garros and the list goes... in this era we're seeing more and more of all courters and all rounder players other than just baseliners and serve volleyers... the paly has definitely improved.
foul01 2 years ago
Actually it is....it shows how much tougher it was for players to be excellent on different types of court. Again the difference between clay court and grass court was huge then....today difference is much much smaller due to restrictions and regulations imposed by the ATP and ITF to even the courts. I dont see that as an improvement.
retardinho 2 years ago
its an improvement on behalf of tennis as an entertainment sport. if wimbledon is going to be slow then wimbledon IS slow. and players will need to cope with that. if the spectators want to see more magnificent rallies, then its the players job to cope with that. a slower wimbledon also means a more physically demanding wimbledon, and when fitness comes into account, less surprising finalists and champions will occur.
foul01 2 years ago
That's a problem. They shouldn't slow down the courts for entertainment, and they probably didn't. Wimbledon was far more magnificent when it was faster. Made way for serve and volley and all those beautiful passing shots... fans got to see a kind of tennis they didn't get to as much on hard courts and clay.
You know it's a sad day for Wimbledon and grass courts when the US Open is considered the fastest playing slam.
ShadeXH 2 years ago
they probably have their reasons for it, i mean, if the federer-nadal match in 2008 is considered one of the greatest ever, surely the act of slowing down wimbledon is not such a bad move. maybe its because you're more used to watching serving and volleying, but i only started watching tennis in 2006 when they're was little serve-volley play left, so i actually thought serve and volley is a boring game when i saw it on youtube... just personal preference though
foul01 2 years ago
Same here man, first match I saw was Fed winning the Open in 2006. I just prefer faster courts that give the advantage to the players that take more risks, since it weeds out the players that rely mostly on defense fairly quickly. That, and long rallies bore me. Quick strike tennis is more fast paced and exciting. Now every match is a grind fest. It's a war of attrition instead of a battle of skill.
ShadeXH 2 years ago
thats a delicate balance of risk-shot-making and stamina-and-endurance we're talking about. i dont liek grinders too but neither do i like serve and volleyers, the game ends too quick without more display of variety. overall, i'd say US open is the closest balance to perfection.
foul01 2 years ago
and i will apologize for my rudeness because i was a little annoyed that you are resorting to simply stating something for granted without reasons for backup. and how am i to accept any of your stats if you're giving me none? now to be truthful, i am enjoying this conversation quite a bit because you do seem like a person capable of debate...unless you're the one giving every one of my comments a thumbs down, cuz i think you can do better than that.
foul01 2 years ago
I didnt claim it for granted...I just say look how many #1 and how much the competition was tougher in their times and look how pathetic the competition is today. Is it normal that a #3 ranked in the world is utterly destroyed by Nadal or Federer on any court? Id say not. And its not because they are so suprior...its because competition is lousy. And frankly I find today tennis boring just because of all that.
retardinho 2 years ago
numbers of #1 does not neccessarily corresponds to greater number of better players. more champions yes, but if everyone is altogether playing bad games, it could result in the same result. so i leave that. the fact taht the number 3 cannot challenege the top 2 does not mean that the competition is weak, the top 2 could just be amazing. if we take nadal and federer out of the equation, we do see as much varying in players in finals rounds as in sampras' era.
foul01 2 years ago
thanks for posting..........this is one of the rare matches that i actually missed.
theatlantean1 3 years ago
"The young spaniard is yet to win a title, the croatian has 22 singles titles to his credit"
Nadal has now 32 titles and he's just 22. But I have to say that I don't like the way he plays.
juanpablom89 3 years ago
know your place rookie!
DINGSANSAN 3 years ago
I never saw this match! but I am sure it must have been a great one. Goran's a fantastic player & Nadal was just 17 yrs old. But we all know who the "king of clay is"!
YoSoyZuri 4 years ago 2
Ivanisevic ?
lilhu93 2 years ago