ReasonablySober wrote: MikeIsGood wrote:
blazza18 wrote:Who knew a pandemic was all men's tennis needed?
I mean, I think this is funny and I get it. I say it some too. But we’ll (collectively) look back on the golden era in 10 years and be like “wtf, why did we not want to see the 3 greatest players of all time as much as humanly possible?”
Look there's no other way to do this other than the cool-aid man bursting through the wall but Sampras would kill this era of tennis.
You're wrong, but that's fine
For starters, Pete was at his best when points ended quickly. He was the last great, true serve-and-volley player. You drop him into this era of tennis and - while I am sure he would make adjustments, as he has a great all-around game - he would be struggling big-time. Guys today, enabled by different thoughts on body type for tennis, better/different equipment, and changed surfaces, CRUSH the ball. Way, way more than what was done in Pete's era. You're not able to capitalize on serve and volley tennis in the same way Pete was able to in his era. All of the big 3 would be smoking passing shots right by him.
This is evidenced quite clearly, mind you, in Pete's record at RG. He made it to the semis a whole one time(s). While not to the same extent as clay, both hard courts and grass have both been slowed down. Serve and volley is almost useless on slow courts.
Finally, Pete beat up on the end of the previous era (Lendl, Becker, etc.), then faced a giant void until Agassi got his **** together in the late 90s - when Pete was beginning to age out. I can't even imagine how many Michael Chang's and Jim Courier's this generation could have if the big 3 didn't win everything. The big 3 had to always get through at least one of the other titans, and there still was the Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka's there to pose a challenge despite their dominance, as well.
So no, Pete would not kill this era of tennis