Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr7627437pbc.0.1335490687455;
        Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: r9ni102647pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bob <stein...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: Another Monte Carlo question
Message-ID: <irtjp7pided48lpvrl2c165mve12cg36k8@4ax.com>
References: <9de48f88-a08b-418b-b931-a4b13c130785@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <aee14cde-abc7-417f-9d5f-92b01c778cdd@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> <aZadnUTLItBBEgrSnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@westnet.com.au> <bc955806-bd4b-4472-86e5-1184e4eb055e@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <e5mfp7l26hm0dmpcv2od6aaof7fvltfui7@4ax.com> <34c1a027-2934-4a3b-9aa3-8bfb68af4687@v2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> <190hp75eaq3iopasdbsa08bu2dkk0v3gc4@4ax.com> <da14135d-6514-427f-b3a5-6c75b44fbb6f@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 109
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte Inc.  http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:38:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:21:37 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:

>On Apr 26, 2:01 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:58:18 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> >On Apr 25, 1:59 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:53:23 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>>
>> >> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 25, 8:47 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> On 25/04/2012 2:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 24, 12:26 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Federer is a clay court specialist though, he grew up on the stuff.
>>
>> >> >> > Federer is no clay court specialist and
>>
>> >> >> A 5-time FO finalist is not a clay specialist?  Now I've heard it all.
>>
>> >> >Was Borg grass specialist (5 wimb titles and one final in a row).?
>>
>> >> borg was a clay specialist who was so much better overall than
>> >> opposition, plus so focused and motivated to win wimbledon, plus a
>> >> time post aussies/pre mcenroe, that he was able to win the 5
>> >> wimbledons.
>>
>> >Well...isn't this a same case as with cases when Nadal does well on
>> >grass and Fed on clay? They are all just great, right?
>>
>> let me think before i answer that. :-) seriously, the difference is
>> the same type player is winning all slams nowadays. from 1975 for
>> almost 30 yrs i expected s/v to win and have advantage at wimbledon. i
>> expected baseliner to win and have advantage at FO. that has changed
>> and we have 1 type of player winning same everywhere.
>>
>> > > >Was Connors grass specialist (4 grass slam titles + 5 grass slams
>> >> >runnerups).?
>> >> >Is Nadal grass specialist (2 wimb titles + 3 runnerups).?
>>
>> >> don't fall into the "results only" trap. a guy can be good enough
>> >> overall to still win on a surface that is totally unsuited to his game
>> >> and style.
>>
>> >Connors beat peak Mac at Wimbledon final. He had to have some game? Or
>> >did he just do what Fed did on clay? Got results but with obsolete
>> >clay game? Or what?
>>
>> that was a "shit happens" kind of thing.
>>
>> >Nadal beat Fed at Wimb final, no good?
>>
>> fed is not a natural grass court style player, not a
>> sampras/mcenroe/becker type guy.
>>
>> if i had to compare his style to any "great" of past 30 yrs, maybe i
>> say lendl. (big serve, big FH, good but not great BH, avg net game).
>> and we know how lendl fared at wimbledon VS mac/becker/edberg/cash
>> types.
>
>Fed has way better movement,

no - relative to his own times, i would not say that at all. movement
is 1 thing that certanly changes with times. you're comparing fed's
absolute movement 20yrs later. not fair.

> that's the key difference (shot-to-shot
>analysis cannot be done due gear/era evolution, if smt. has to be
>remembered: at his heydays Lendl had awful 1st serve percentages
>compared to today's standard) and while I generally rarely buy whole
>"eye-candy"/"talent"-crap...let's say Fed's play assets somehow "feel"
>better for Wimbledon than Lendl's.

lendl played with about an 85sq in racket too.

>Even if Lendl is one of the posterboys of "modern racket era", in
>reality he used quite obsolete (by today's standards) gear. That
>affects also. I think Lendl would have had better shot at Wimbledon
>had he taken Agassi route - just played his natural game there -
>instead stubbornly going for S&V...when you are anyway handicapped in
>that area.
>Lendl is underrated still. He made a great progress from "FH only
>lowlevel fitness choker circa 1980-81" into ruthless top-fitness
>heavyhitting machine of late 80:ies, peaking 1989 when he looked
>really good and when it took full steam Becker to stop him at high
>quality occasions:.

when i compared fed to lendl, that wasn't an insult. just a
compaarison of the major stgrokes, and how similar they were and where
strengths/weaknesses lie.

>Lendl choked some key victories off for sure but still was there for a
>decade+ as a high quality yardstick.
>Do you btw agree that improved gear (bigger head size of rackets,
>string technology) have improved relatively more at RoS, groundies and
>passing shots -areas rather than for S&V key areas?

not sure if it was head size, as i even though pros didn't use them, i
remember huge heads in 80s. if they were such an improver of ROS, more
pros would've been doing it.

bob