come on now, even djokovic/nadal at there best would of struggled to live with sampras, the guy was a monster, he would of destroyed the likes of murray and ferrer...
Neah, Sampras would've been owned by Djoker and Nadal hardcore mode.
A Prima Federer vs. Prime Sampras final at Wimbledon would've been nice, but honestly, I'm looking at the 2007 and 2008 and I doubt it would beat them.
We already know youngster Federer vs. Sampras at 28. Mind that at 28 Federer had mononucleosis and was still winning big despite being affected by the disease. Federer was far from his prime in 2001 and still managed to defeat Sampras and ending his Wimbledon glory.
The value of tennis of nowadays is not higher, is different: today before being a tennis player you have to be a marathon runner, the surfaces have been slowed down, the diameter of the balls is larger (to slow them down), tennis rackets are technological marvels. A tennis monotonous,
It's...higher than it was back then and a part of it you said it yourself...RUNNING. That's already raising the level a lot, these guys run hard for a point, not just serve and volley to end a point immediately, even at decisive points. Rackets aren't that different from then, maybe commercially, as an amateur you get better stuff with those technologies and materials but you won't share more than a simple paint-job with the player that promotes it, they have their own things, not "Made in China" or Vietnam. Surfaces have been changed for the sake of the spectators, not for something else. The only problem here is that some don't accept new things, such as the blue clay, which was spectacular IMO. Of course, it was just the first year and it might've been slippery because of a small tweak added late, but many just cried cause they didn't like the color. Roger kept his mouth shut and won, Nadal was big mouth all year about it.
.
.
