These are the people that I'd call experts and have good eyes
wkhedr
Shakes
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/76d...
Speaking for myself, Jason Catlin was, to me, probably the most
unbiased poster here. He never made any blanket statements about any
player, and could see the strengths and weaknesses.
Blanders also was a very knowledgeable poster. I have been following
rst since 2002, and I remember learning a lot from his posts. He was a
4.5 - 5.0 level player, and it was clearly evident when he made some
insightful comments.
While whisper/bob have made fools of themselves often here, I don't
jump to the other extreme either. I believe that while Fed is the most
beautiful player to watch, and the greatest of the OE, he has his
weaknesses as well. Just like every player before him.
PeteWasLucky
Federer has weakness?! no don't say that :)
Not sure what weakness means! it's a ball sport, if you win many
matches and many titles, then you must be good.
Mentioning word weakness next to a very achieving player like Federer
really means nothing, it's like saying the meal has to have something
wrong in it after you really enjoyed a perfect great meal.
PeteWasLucky
btw, many of these people don't post here any more, probably got busy
with their lives. Best wishes for all of them.
Inglourious Basterd
What a Fedfucker you are.
Shakes
Yes, it's sad. Because it's no longer possible to have any really
analytical or technical discussions here anymore. Posters like David
Henry, Lloyd, Blanders, Dudewaba etc. used to make some great points
and had great insight into the games of various players, strategy
wise, shot wise etc.
I even like UC, whom most posters consider a loon. Because, while he
can make you laugh at times, he at least knew what he was talking
about.
Shakes
Yes, but the same can be said of Sampras as well. To me, rst's become
a case of you are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan or a Sampras fan.
It's almost impossible to be a fan of both Fed and Sampras here.
jdeluise
On 16-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but the same can be said of Sampras as well. To me, rst's become
> a case of you are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan or a Sampras fan.
> It's almost impossible to be a fan of both Fed and Sampras here.
Sure you can. It's all about how easily you get drawn in by Whisper/TT
types who use their fanhood to perpetrate lies and twist facts.
Manco
Rodjk #613
I consider myself a fan of both...leaning toward Sampras.
But what is there not to like about Federer?
Rodjk #613
Shakes
Yes, I think you are probably the only Sampras fan currently on rst,
who also admires Fed.
Vari L. Cinicke
The fraction of serious posts used to be much higher at one time. Most
of what gets written these days is not worth reading. And it is getting
harder and harder to find out what is worth reading.
I thought Federer overtaking Sampras by a clear margin of 2 slams and
with all 4 slams in the bag would bring a degree of sanity to rst. I
think I was dead wrong.
I don't think one should take rst labels seriously at all. Like what you
like.
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Fans who get stuck in one time period seem to have a problem
appreciating new instances of genius. It is as if their limited minds
can't imagine that you can admit that Sampras, Federer and Nadal are all
geniuses on court displaying different facets of the game.
--
Cheers,
vc
Ali Asoag
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/76d6c5b822301d49/f1eb0716430ad4a8?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=whisper+federer#f1eb0716430ad4a8
Spiderboy wrote:
> federer is not god..
> but he's quite close to one in wimbledon..
Whisper: Not yet - if he can win another 2 I'll start believing...
(This was directly after Fed won Wim2004)
I guess, after Whisper started believing, Fed went on winning and
Whisper then started forgetting.
LMAO.
--
Say, how dumb are you, Whisper? Probably you are so dumb that you can't
realize that you are dumb.
Shakes
To be fair, not all of them are stuck in one time period. Maybe
someone like UC. I think most, at least myself, only wish for more
variety in playing styles. And that's, sadly, not available today.
If not for Fed or Nadal, I don't think I would be watching tennis at
all today.
pltr...@xhost.org
wrote:
>Yes, I think you are probably the only Sampras fan currently on rst,
>who also admires Fed.
There must be many others -- including me.
-- Larry
Vari L. Cinicke
> On Dec 16, 6:50 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke"<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 8:30 PM, Shakes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 5:15 pm, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 16, 6:02 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 16-Dec-2010, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Yes, but the same can be said of Sampras as well. To me, rst's become
>>>>>> a case of you are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan or a Sampras fan.
>>>>>> It's almost impossible to be a fan of both Fed and Sampras here.
>>
>>>>> Sure you can. It's all about how easily you get drawn in by Whisper/TT
>>>>> types who use their fanhood to perpetrate lies and twist facts.
>>
>>>> I consider myself a fan of both...leaning toward Sampras.
>>>> But what is there not to like about Federer?
>>
>>>> Rodjk #613
>>
>>> Yes, I think you are probably the only Sampras fan currently on rst,
>>> who also admires Fed.
>>
>> Fans who get stuck in one time period seem to have a problem
>> appreciating new instances of genius. It is as if their limited minds
>> can't imagine that you can admit that Sampras, Federer and Nadal are all
>> geniuses on court displaying different facets of the game.
>>
>
> someone like UC. I think most, at least myself, only wish for more
> variety in playing styles. And that's, sadly, not available today.
>
> If not for Fed or Nadal, I don't think I would be watching tennis at
> all today.
>
Hankering after someone who is about a decade into retirement is not a
good sign.
As for variety, the two shot passing salvo is making a predominantly
attacking style insufficient to break into the Top 100. Certainly, the
kinds of shots that are almost routinely being retrieved and the way big
serves are getting handled with big returns is quite different from what
we used to see.
I have seen some of the older matches with fresh eyes and I find myself
not really enthralled. I don't want variety for variety's sake if it
means watching a variety of not-so-great shotmaking.
Tennis is much more of an international sport than it used to be and the
depth of the field and the fitness and training are all extraordinary.
We did go from an era of practically no variety (where almost everyone
played S/V tennis) to one where different styles could thrive. It looks
like we are getting to an era where supremely fit athletes are
exchanging bazookas from the baseline. Points that would have ended in a
previous era are going on for lengthier rallies.
Short of banning current equipment and making them play with wood, we
are going to see only those styles that can make it to the top. The two
top slam winners of the past 10 years have contrasting styles. What a
change from the previous 10 years or the McEnroe/Borg times!
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
>
> I don't think one should take rst labels seriously at all. Like what you
> like.
>
Finally something we can agree on, fedfucker.
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
TT
> Fans who get stuck in one time period seem to have a problem
> appreciating new instances of genius. It is as if their limited minds
> can't imagine that you can admit that Sampras, Federer and Nadal are all
> geniuses on court displaying different facets of the game.
>
You should know.
TT
You forgot smiley.
TT
Are they playing today?
Patrick Kehoe
Not the only one!
P
Shakes
I pointed out Rodjk only because he leans towards Sampras more than
Fed. Otherwise, yes, there are a lot of us who respect both.
Shakes
True. But that's because we cannot see that style of tennis anymore.
> As for variety, the two shot passing salvo is making a predominantly
> attacking style insufficient to break into the Top 100. Certainly, the
> kinds of shots that are almost routinely being retrieved and the way big
> serves are getting handled with big returns is quite different from what
> we used to see.
>
> I have seen some of the older matches with fresh eyes and I find myself
> not really enthralled. I don't want variety for variety's sake if it
> means watching a variety of not-so-great shotmaking.
>
I would say there *was* a lot of great shotmaking. Granted, they were
not all as aesthetic to watch as Fed is, but they were still great
shotmakers.
> Tennis is much more of an international sport than it used to be and the
> depth of the field and the fitness and training are all extraordinary.
> We did go from an era of practically no variety (where almost everyone
> played S/V tennis) to one where different styles could thrive. It looks
> like we are getting to an era where supremely fit athletes are
> exchanging bazookas from the baseline. Points that would have ended in a
> previous era are going on for lengthier rallies.
>
Most people have an almost religious belief that evolution in tennis
is synonomous with infinite improvement.
All evolution means is change. That change has more to do with the
environment than anything else. Change the environment and you get
some kind of change. Is that change inherently better? Not
necessarily.
Are players fitter today than decades ago? The only thing that can be
said is that we know more about diet and how to train more
efficiently. Does that mean the resulting athlete is necessarily "that
much more fit" than his predecessor?
Just because an athlete can achieve a like level of fitness in more
efficient manner doesn't mean he or she is more fit. Look at some five
set scores in tennis before the adoption of tie-break. Are players
like Nadal, Fed more fit than Vilas, Connors, Lendl, Muster etc. ?
Is equipment better? It sure is different, but better? Tools in and of
themselves have always been compromise instruments favoring one
desireable characteristic over, and sometimes at the direct expense
of, another.
Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
I'm also not saying that the elite of this era are lesser. IMO the
elite of each generation are just that, the elite. That fact is
amplified by the fact that this discussion centers on the absolute,
super-elite who, again IMO, have more in common with each other,
across generations, than they do with their respective, contemporary
draw-fillers. A fact which seems supported by the outcomes when these
guys have met each other across those generational lines.
> Short of banning current equipment and making them play with wood, we
> are going to see only those styles that can make it to the top. The two
> top slam winners of the past 10 years have contrasting styles. What a
> change from the previous 10 years or the McEnroe/Borg times!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc
Is it as contrasting as having players like Sampras, Agassi, Becker,
Korda, Stich, Bruguera, Chang, Rafter ? Fed, Nadal, Murray, Djok all
hit differently. But, essentially, they all play from the baseline.
Seen in that way, there is a lot of homogenuity in playing styles
today. Where as, if you look at the '90's, you had all-courters
(Sampras, Becker, Stich, Korda), pure S/V'ers (Edberg, Rafter), pure
power baseliners (Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster), baseline
retrievers (Chang), players with variety (Pioline). And there were
surfaces catering to every style.
I am not saying one is more tougher or better than the other. Just
that, playing style wise, we have very little variety today. Thank god
for Fed and Nadal. Otherwise, it would be very boring for me.
Shakes
I don't know. Looks like you don't care too. :-)
Whisper
I admire Fed too. Always said he was the best thing going last few yrs,
& tennis would be even deader without him.
I just don't think he's the best I've seen, or the most talented.
That's my only crime.
Whisper
To be honest I can't think of any really good posters since I've been here.
People tend to look at past posters through rose-coloured glasses & only
remember their best posts, but in totality most were very ordinary at
best, with little or no real insight.
Whisper
Sure, but just because past players are no longer on the scene doesn't
mean current guys are the best ever, most gifted etc.
They simply aren't.
Whisper
True, & Fed is more valuable to the game than Rafa as his style is
easier on the eye.
The big problem is there is a void after these 2. It's esentially a
2-man tour. That's a very dangerous position for tennis to be in.
Who would bother tuning in for Berdych v Soderling slam finals....?
Whisper
Nobody is hankering for Sampras/McEnroe literally, just the style of
tennis they played.
Funnily enough tennis fans want to see tennis.
>
> As for variety, the two shot passing salvo is making a predominantly
> attacking style insufficient to break into the Top 100. Certainly, the
> kinds of shots that are almost routinely being retrieved and the way big
> serves are getting handled with big returns is quite different from what
> we used to see.
We aren't seeing the big serves of old, or net attack.
Whisper
Good post. A variety of styles attracts more fans as there is something
for everyone. Today, unless you're attracted to baseline bashing you're
going to struggle to get interested in watching tennis - nothing else is
on offer.
Superdave
says who? you ?
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
oh wait! it's whisper!
Superdave
you are entitled to your opinion. bob believes you. millions don't.
Iceberg
lots of things!!
Iceberg
oh pls 99% of Fedfans hate Sampras, I know this from personal
experience and the posts on this newsgroup. This has only been altered
a little bit because Nadal has turned up and won the US Open and quite
a few Fedfans were jumping ship after that. The evolution of this
comes from mostly Agassi fans who then became Sampras Detractors who
then became Fedfans (or all at the same time).
Iceberg
> On 17.12.2010 4:44, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't think one should take rst labels seriously at all. Like what you
> > like.
>
> Finally something we can agree on, fedfucker.
he would just prefer threads which go
> oh Fed is the GOAT isn't he?
> yes, he's lovely
Iceberg
> On Dec 16, 3:31 pm, PeteWasLucky <waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:23 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 16, 1:37 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/76d...
>
> > > Speaking for myself, Jason Catlin was, to me, probably the most
> > > unbiased poster here. He never made any blanket statements about any
> > > player, and could see the strengths and weaknesses.
>
> > > Blanders also was a very knowledgeable poster. I have been following
> > > rst since 2002, and I remember learning a lot from his posts. He was a
> > > 4.5 - 5.0 level player, and it was clearly evident when he made some
> > > insightful comments.
>
> > > While whisper/bob have made fools of themselves often here, I don't
> > > jump to the other extreme either. I believe that while Fed is the most
> > > beautiful player to watch, and the greatest of the OE, he has his
> > > weaknesses as well. Just like every player before him.
>
> > with their lives. Best wishes for all of them.
>
> Yes, it's sad. Because it's no longer possible to have any really
> analytical or technical discussions here anymore. Posters like David
> Henry, Lloyd, Blanders, Dudewaba etc. used to make some great points
> and had great insight into the games of various players, strategy
> wise, shot wise etc.
>
> I even like UC, whom most posters consider a loon. Because, while he
> can make you laugh at times, he at least knew what he was talking
> about.
what about greg? I've asked many times what's happened to him and
nobody answers.
wkhedr
> On Dec 16, 5:15 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 6:02 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, but the same can be said of Sampras as well. To me, rst's become
> > > > a case of you are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan or a Sampras fan.
> > > > It's almost impossible to be a fan of both Fed and Sampras here.
>
> > > Sure you can. It's all about how easily you get drawn in by Whisper/TT
> > > types who use their fanhood to perpetrate lies and twist facts.
>
> > I consider myself a fan of both...leaning toward Sampras.
> > But what is there not to like about Federer?
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> Yes, I think you are probably the only Sampras fan currently on rst,
> who also admires Fed.
Who said that?! I was a big time fan for Sampras but I can't deny I
got bored after few years of watching him then I came back to support
him big in the last two years of his career.
wkhedr
> Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
Sorry but these are just silly words. If the changes means a player
with the current changes (new racquets, strings, fitness) can beat a
player without these changes, then in term of sports and results, the
new changes made the game better, we don't care if a fan doesn't see
this way, but this is the reality.
Whisper
Nonsense. How can it be 'better' when variety has been extinguished?
Golf isn't better because the new equipment can propel the ball 100 mtrs
further. It's just made a lot of courses obsolete as you just sail over
previously dangerous bunkers etc. That's not skill.
I want to see Fed & Nadal hit great wristy shots with equipment that
doesn't make it easy. That's how you assess real talent.
TT
At least we're saved from hour long rallies between Borg and Lendl where
they just keep the ball in play.
Or couple seconds long "rallies" between Sampras and Krajicek...
If you miss those times you can always watch Montanes vs Hernandez on
clay. Or Karlovic vs. Isner anywhere. Now if you really want to treat
yourself you can maybe download the Isner-Mahut match.
Fortunately we can often watch absolute shotmaking from likes of Nadal
and Djokovic etc.
Rodjk #613
> On 12/16/2010 6:44 PM, Shakes wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 3:29 pm, PeteWasLucky<waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 17, 1:23 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 16, 1:37 pm, wkhedr<wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/76d...
>
> >>> Speaking for myself, Jason Catlin was, to me, probably the most
> >>> unbiased poster here. He never made any blanket statements about any
> >>> player, and could see the strengths and weaknesses.
>
> >>> Blanders also was a very knowledgeable poster. I have been following
> >>> rst since 2002, and I remember learning a lot from his posts. He was a
> >>> 4.5 - 5.0 level player, and it was clearly evident when he made some
> >>> insightful comments.
>
> >>> While whisper/bob have made fools of themselves often here, I don't
> >>> jump to the other extreme either. I believe that while Fed is the most
> >>> beautiful player to watch, and the greatest of the OE, he has his
> >>> weaknesses as well. Just like every player before him.
>
> >> Not sure what weakness means! it's a ball sport, if you win many
> >> matches and many titles, then you must be good.
> >> Mentioning word weakness next to a very achieving player like Federer
> >> really means nothing, it's like saying the meal has to have something
> >> wrong in it after you really enjoyed a perfect great meal.
>
> > a case of you are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan or a Sampras fan.
> > It's almost impossible to be a fan of both Fed and Sampras here.
>
> of what gets written these days is not worth reading. And it is getting
> harder and harder to find out what is worth reading.
I don't think it was ever that high...there were always the trolls and
trash-talkers.
What I can't understand is the long threads arguing with trolls...let
them spout.
If people don't argue with them, maybe they will get bored and go
away.
> I thought Federer overtaking Sampras by a clear margin of 2 slams and
> with all 4 slams in the bag would bring a degree of sanity to rst. I
> think I was dead wrong.
Sure. But it isn't possible to take it seriously anymore.
Pete is still my favorite, but even he says he was surpassed.
Besides, what is wrong with liking a player who isn't GOAT?
I still consider myself a Borg fan. That Pete surpassed him does not
make him any lesser in my eyes.
>
> I don't think one should take rst labels seriously at all. Like what you
> like.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc
Rodjk #613
PeteWasLucky
So real talent for you is only shown by how how you can deal with a
heavy racquet and play the game the way they played 20 years ago.
Sorry but this is dumb.
If the new equipments require or use no skills, then why can't other
players that are using the same equipment produce the same level of
play like these two (fed/nad)?
The answer is easy, because they've got skills and talent that others
don't have. New equipments require some new skills set that were not
required for old equipments plus some of the old skills as well while
some of the old skills may not be required using the new equipments.
This is the problem the old generations always have with the new
generation. They can't adopt, they can't understand the changes, they
believe everything became worse, nothing is good any more.
I'm becoming an old generation myself as I'm getting older. As we get
older we start to refuse too many changes, we look for stability and
appreciate what we know and argue new ideas. It's tough.
Whisper
Agreed. Sadly doesn't seem to work.
Whisper
> On Dec 17, 3:06 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2010 11:58 PM, wkhedr wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 9:29 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
>>
>>> Sorry but these are just silly words. If the changes means a player
>>> with the current changes (new racquets, strings, fitness) can beat a
>>> player without these changes, then in term of sports and results, the
>>> new changes made the game better, we don't care if a fan doesn't see
>>> this way, but this is the reality.
>>
>> Nonsense. How can it be 'better' when variety has been extinguished?
>>
>> Golf isn't better because the new equipment can propel the ball 100 mtrs
>> further. It's just made a lot of courses obsolete as you just sail over
>> previously dangerous bunkers etc. That's not skill.
>>
>> doesn't make it easy. That's how you assess real talent.
>
> So real talent for you is only shown by how how you can deal with a
> heavy racquet and play the game the way they played 20 years ago.
> Sorry but this is dumb.
Not really. I want to see more raw ability from the players rather than
continued 'improvement' in equipment.
> If the new equipments require or use no skills, then why can't other
> players that are using the same equipment produce the same level of
> play like these two (fed/nad)?
They can, but not often enough.
That's always been the case throughout history. The greats find ways to
do it more often, & at critical points.
> The answer is easy, because they've got skills and talent that others
> don't have. New equipments require some new skills set that were not
> required for old equipments plus some of the old skills as well while
> some of the old skills may not be required using the new equipments.
>
> This is the problem the old generations always have with the new
> generation. They can't adopt, they can't understand the changes, they
> believe everything became worse, nothing is good any more.
> I'm becoming an old generation myself as I'm getting older. As we get
> older we start to refuse too many changes, we look for stability and
> appreciate what we know and argue new ideas. It's tough.
It's much more simple than that. A whole facet of the game has
completely disappeared, & we want it back. The substitute is not very
satisfying.
PeteWasLucky
> On 18/12/2010 1:07 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 3:06 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17/12/2010 11:58 PM, wkhedr wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 17, 9:29 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
>
> >>> Sorry but these are just silly words. If the changes means a player
> >>> with the current changes (new racquets, strings, fitness) can beat a
> >>> player without these changes, then in term of sports and results, the
> >>> new changes made the game better, we don't care if a fan doesn't see
> >>> this way, but this is the reality.
>
> >> Nonsense. How can it be 'better' when variety has been extinguished?
>
> >> Golf isn't better because the new equipment can propel the ball 100 mtrs
> >> further. It's just made a lot of courses obsolete as you just sail over
> >> previously dangerous bunkers etc. That's not skill.
>
> >> I want to see Fed& Nadal hit great wristy shots with equipment that
> >> doesn't make it easy. That's how you assess real talent.
>
> > So real talent for you is only shown by how how you can deal with a
> > heavy racquet and play the game the way they played 20 years ago.
> > Sorry but this is dumb.
>
> Not really. I want to see more raw ability from the players rather than
> continued 'improvement' in equipment.
>
And what kind of raw abilities you want to see?
> > If the new equipments require or use no skills, then why can't other
> > players that are using the same equipment produce the same level of
> > play like these two (fed/nad)?
>
> They can, but not often enough.
>
> That's always been the case throughout history. The greats find ways to
> do it more often, & at critical points.
>
Yes, because Fed and Nadal got something extra.
> > The answer is easy, because they've got skills and talent that others
> > don't have. New equipments require some new skills set that were not
> > required for old equipments plus some of the old skills as well while
> > some of the old skills may not be required using the new equipments.
>
> > This is the problem the old generations always have with the new
> > generation. They can't adopt, they can't understand the changes, they
> > believe everything became worse, nothing is good any more.
> > I'm becoming an old generation myself as I'm getting older. As we get
> > older we start to refuse too many changes, we look for stability and
> > appreciate what we know and argue new ideas. It's tough.
>
> It's much more simple than that. A whole facet of the game has
> completely disappeared, & we want it back. The substitute is not very
> satisfying.- Hide quoted text -
>
This is the symptoms of denial I talked about above.
Patrick Kehoe
> This is the symptoms of denial I talked about above.
Put this down to relatively young men (say guys in their late 30s to
mid 40s) sounding off like old foggies, longing for the good old
days... :))
P
pltr...@xhost.org
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I still consider myself a Borg fan. That Pete surpassed him does not
>make him any lesser in my eyes.
Me too.
In my tennis lifetime, I've had Kramer, Gonzalez, Trabert, Laver,
Rosewall, Smith, Ashe, Borg, Becker, Sampras, and Federer as my
favorites. All were great to me.
If they were able to play each other, I'd have a tough time choosing
whom to root for, as I did when some of their careers overlapped.
Connors and Mac couldn't make the list, no matter how much they won. I
just couldn't root for people who behaved like pigs.
-- Larry
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>People tend to look at past posters through rose-coloured glasses & only
>remember their best posts
That's exactly what happens with past players too, btw. Especially the
ones people have never even seen. They have seen some highlight clips,
and then compare that to everyday play of current players.
Rodjk #613
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:52:52 -0800 (PST), "Rodjk #613"
>
> >I still consider myself a Borg fan. That Pete surpassed him does not
> >make him any lesser in my eyes.
>
> Me too.
>
> In my tennis lifetime, I've had Kramer, Gonzalez, Trabert, Laver,
> Rosewall, Smith, Ashe, Borg, Becker, Sampras, and Federer as my
> favorites. All were great to me.
I liked Wilander, Becker and Lendl at one time...it was tough to chose
between.
Well, Becker was a late-comer to me...I did not like him till later in
the 80's and 90's and not as much as the other two.
Then Pete through the 90's. I never cared much for Courier and could
not stand Agassi.
> If they were able to play each other, I'd have a tough time choosing
> whom to root for, as I did when some of their careers overlapped.
>
> Connors and Mac couldn't make the list, no matter how much they won. I
> just couldn't root for people who behaved like pigs.
Exactly. Connors came across as a pure jerk. Mac was a manipulative
jerk.
Both great players, but I can say the only time I ever pulled for
Connors was when he played Mac. I never pulled for Mac.
>
> -- Larry
Rodjk #613
jdeluise
On 16-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking for myself, Jason Catlin was, to me, probably the most
> unbiased poster here. He never made any blanket statements about any
> player, and could see the strengths and weaknesses.
Oh I don't know about that. He may have sounded unbiased to you, but that
was probably because you two tend to agree about a lot of things, and both
seem to prefer Pete (not that there is anything wrong with that). He had a
way of believing that any odd loss by someone like Sampras had to be
attributed to something like an injury or illness rather than giving his
opponent credit for the win.
Besides, he's the only one I can think of that was almost taken up by
Whisper and bob as a new member of the tier 1 analyst club. Though he
rejected them, it was a big red warning flag in my mind.
Vari L. Cinicke
But you could have a prolonged argument with him without rancor, IIRC.
That is a positive thing on an open, anonymous forum like this where
people seem to show who they really are underneath the social facade
that they may display in person.
--
Cheers,
vc
jdeluise
On 17-Dec-2010, "Vari L. Cinicke" <varie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But you could have a prolonged argument with him without rancor, IIRC.
> That is a positive thing on an open, anonymous forum like this where
> people seem to show who they really are underneath the social facade
> that they may display in person.
Agreed. And I think he was a good poster, I just wouldn't go quite so far
as to say he is the most unbiased poster rst has ever seen. But, that was
just Shakes' opinion.
Pelle Svanslös
Yup, mingle with the wrong people and in the archive you go!
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
MBDunc
> On Dec 17, 10:40 am, pltrg...@xhost.org wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:52:52 -0800 (PST), "Rodjk #613"
>
> > <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I still consider myself a Borg fan. That Pete surpassed him does not
> > >make him any lesser in my eyes.
>
> > Me too.
>
> > In my tennis lifetime, I've had Kramer, Gonzalez, Trabert, Laver,
> > Rosewall, Smith, Ashe, Borg, Becker, Sampras, and Federer as my
> > favorites. All were great to me.
>
> I liked Wilander, Becker and Lendl at one time...it was tough to chose
> between.
> Well, Becker was a late-comer to me...I did not like him till later in
> the 80's and 90's and not as much as the other two.
>
> Then Pete through the 90's. I never cared much for Courier and could
> not stand Agassi.
About pre-Fedal era: My all time favourite was Becker.
I also liked a lot Mecir, Stich, Kuerten, Rios, Safin. Medvedev.
I liked: Agassi, Courier, Moya, Kafelnikov.
I did learn to love: Lendl.
I never liked/cared that much: Sampras, Hewitt, Krajicek, Ivanisevic,
Bruguera, Corretja
I really disliked: Chang, Edberg (just because he denied Becker for
greater succee?).
.mikko
TT
I disliked Edberg because he is Swedish. :)
jdeluise
On 17-Dec-2010, TT <do...@do.it> wrote:
> I disliked Edberg because he is Swedish. :)
But you didn't follow tennis back then...?
TT
No, YOU didn't follow tennis back then.
jdeluise
On 17-Dec-2010, TT <do...@do.it> wrote:
> On 17.12.2010 23:46, jdeluise wrote:
> > On 17-Dec-2010, TT<do...@do.it> wrote:
> >
> >> I disliked Edberg because he is Swedish. :)
> >
> > But you didn't follow tennis back then...?
>
> No, YOU didn't follow tennis back then.
Cut the crap, we all know you weren't interested in tennis even circa
2000... the link IB posted made that pretty clear.
TT
> On 17-Dec-2010, TT<do...@do.it> wrote:
>
>> On 17.12.2010 23:46, jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 17-Dec-2010, TT<do...@do.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I disliked Edberg because he is Swedish. :)
>>>
>>> But you didn't follow tennis back then...?
>>
>> No, YOU didn't follow tennis back then.
>
> Cut the crap,
So you admit it.
> we all know you weren't interested in tennis even circa
> 2000... the link IB posted made that pretty clear.
I was a huge Hingis fan at the time...
How many times do you have to troll about my following of tennis, we've
gone through this numerous times.
Once again, I followed tennis casually since Evert and was very
interested during Lendl's reign. In the 90's I watched it casually,
latter stages of slams etc.
Of course I didn't follow it to the crazy extent I do nowadays, there
wasn't internet feed and they really didn't show that much tennis in
Finland before Eurosport. Get it now? Or are you going to call me a liar?
TT
> On 17.12.2010 23:55, jdeluise wrote:
>> On 17-Dec-2010, TT<do...@do.it> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17.12.2010 23:46, jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 17-Dec-2010, TT<do...@do.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I disliked Edberg because he is Swedish. :)
>>>>
>>>> But you didn't follow tennis back then...?
>>>
>>> No, YOU didn't follow tennis back then.
>>
>> Cut the crap,
>
> So you admit it.
>
>> we all know you weren't interested in tennis even circa
>> 2000... the link IB posted made that pretty clear.
>
> I was a huge Hingis fan at the time...
>
> How many times do you have to troll about my following of tennis, we've
> gone through this numerous times.
> Once again, I followed tennis casually since Evert and was very
> interested during Lendl's reign. In the 90's I watched it casually,
> latter stages of slams etc.
>
> Of course I didn't follow it to the crazy extent I do nowadays, there
> wasn't internet feed and they really didn't show that much tennis in
> Finland before Eurosport. Get it now? Or are you going to call me a liar?
>
Besides, how is that even relevant if one can see all the matches at
youtube. Here are many posters that claim to know their tennis because
they've seen some player 25 years ago on tv...and not watching them
since then. wtf?
Shakes
> On Dec 17, 6:58 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 10:13 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 16, 5:30 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 16, 5:15 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 16, 6:02 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 16-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > a case of you are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan or a Sampras fan.
> > > > > > > It's almost impossible to be a fan of both Fed and Sampras here.
>
> > > > > > types who use their fanhood to perpetrate lies and twist facts.
>
> > > > > I consider myself a fan of both...leaning toward Sampras.
> > > > > But what is there not to like about Federer?
>
> > > > > Rodjk #613
>
> > > > Yes, I think you are probably the only Sampras fan currently on rst,
> > > > who also admires Fed.
>
>
> > > P
>
> > I pointed out Rodjk only because he leans towards Sampras more than
> > Fed. Otherwise, yes, there are a lot of us who respect both.
>
> oh pls 99% of Fedfans hate Sampras, I know this from personal
> experience and the posts on this newsgroup. This has only been altered
> a little bit because Nadal has turned up and won the US Open and quite
> a few Fedfans were jumping ship after that. The evolution of this
> comes from mostly Agassi fans who then became Sampras Detractors who
> then became Fedfans (or all at the same time).
On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration for Sampras. I got to
admire his game more after he retired and after seeing the lack of
variety in the last few yrs.
jdeluise
On 17-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration for Sampras. I got to
> admire his game more after he retired and after seeing the lack of
> variety in the last few yrs.
On the contrary, the whiz-bang one or two second points at Wimbledon in
particular were the epitome of lack of variety in those days.
Shakes
Sorry, that is not how we define better. It is not the equipment but
the surface that determines the direction of the game. You go back to
the ill-worn grass courts all those decades ago that bounce to the
ankle height, that stop the ball dead, that skid etc. and it doesn't
matter what modern racquet you use, what modern strings you use, what
fitness you have. The elite grass court players of the past - like
Pancho, Kramer, Mac - will match any top player today.
You go back to the faster courts of the '80's and '90's (like carpet,
fast HC), and the elite of that gen. - like Becker, Sampras, Stich,
Agassi - are going to match any top player today, even without the
luxilons and modern frames.
In such a case, how can you say the new technologies made the game
better ? All you did was to change the battlefield. The weapons change
automatically.
Moreover, a tennis fan becomes a fan of a player because he finds some
aspect of his game fascinating. So, it follows that the more stylistic
variety you have, the more players you can become a fan of.
Shakes
> On 17.12.2010 15:06, Whisper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17/12/2010 11:58 PM, wkhedr wrote:
> >> On Dec 17, 9:29 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
>
> >> Sorry but these are just silly words. If the changes means a player
> >> with the current changes (new racquets, strings, fitness) can beat a
> >> player without these changes, then in term of sports and results, the
> >> new changes made the game better, we don't care if a fan doesn't see
> >> this way, but this is the reality.
>
> > Nonsense. How can it be 'better' when variety has been extinguished?
>
> > Golf isn't better because the new equipment can propel the ball 100 mtrs
> > further. It's just made a lot of courses obsolete as you just sail over
> > previously dangerous bunkers etc. That's not skill.
>
> > I want to see Fed & Nadal hit great wristy shots with equipment that
> > doesn't make it easy. That's how you assess real talent.
>
> At least we're saved from hour long rallies between Borg and Lendl where
> they just keep the ball in play.
> Or couple seconds long "rallies" between Sampras and Krajicek...
>
But we are also, sadly, saved from the matches between Lendl-Edberg/
Becker, Agassi-Becker, Courier-Edberg, Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Korda,
Agassi-Stich, Courier-Bruguera, Sampras-Courier, Agassi-Rafter. These
guys embody a wide variety of styles. You have guys staying back all
the time, guys who come forward all the time, guys who stay back more
but can come forward, guys who come forward more but can also stay
back. You name it. Today, except for one top player, you have guys who
stay back 95% of the time.
Shakes
> On Dec 17, 3:06 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17/12/2010 11:58 PM, wkhedr wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 9:29 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
>
> > > Sorry but these are just silly words. If the changes means a player
> > > with the current changes (new racquets, strings, fitness) can beat a
> > > player without these changes, then in term of sports and results, the
> > > new changes made the game better, we don't care if a fan doesn't see
> > > this way, but this is the reality.
>
> > Nonsense. How can it be 'better' when variety has been extinguished?
>
> > Golf isn't better because the new equipment can propel the ball 100 mtrs
> > further. It's just made a lot of courses obsolete as you just sail over
> > previously dangerous bunkers etc. That's not skill.
>
> > I want to see Fed & Nadal hit great wristy shots with equipment that
> > doesn't make it easy. That's how you assess real talent.
>
> So real talent for you is only shown by how how you can deal with a
> heavy racquet and play the game the way they played 20 years ago.
> Sorry but this is dumb.
I agree that that is a poor definition of talent. But all I am saying
is there should be more diversity in playing surfaces so that players
with a wide variety of styles can be successful, like it was before.
> If the new equipments require or use no skills, then why can't other
> players that are using the same equipment produce the same level of
> play like these two (fed/nad)?
> The answer is easy, because they've got skills and talent that others
> don't have. New equipments require some new skills set that were not
> required for old equipments plus some of the old skills as well while
> some of the old skills may not be required using the new equipments.
>
There was a time when new skills (Semi-western and western grips,
baseline players) were co-existing parallely with old skills (eastern
and continental grips, flat-hitting baseliners and serve-volleyers and
all-courters), and all were successful to a fair degree. Today, except
for Fed, you have only 2HBH and SW/W hitting players.
Seen that way, there is no evolution of *new* skills. There were 2HBH
and Western gripped players before (Bruguera, Muster, Berasetagui,
Costa etc.).
All that has changed are the surfaces.
> This is the problem the old generations always have with the new
> generation. They can't adopt, they can't understand the changes, they
> believe everything became worse, nothing is good any more.
> I'm becoming an old generation myself as I'm getting older. As we get
> older we start to refuse too many changes, we look for stability and
> appreciate what we know and argue new ideas. It's tough.
This is really far fetched. Just because we seek more variety, it
doesn't mean we resist change. At the end of the day, tennis is a game
of skill. And there are a lot of facets in the game to become skilled
at. Ideally, you would want to have all facets of tennis to thrive.
These days, we have an entire facet of tennis erased. That, IMO, is
not a positive change.
TT
> On Dec 17, 5:32 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> On 17.12.2010 15:06, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17/12/2010 11:58 PM, wkhedr wrote:
>>>> On Dec 17, 9:29 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Evolution means only change, not necessarily improvement.
>>
>>>> Sorry but these are just silly words. If the changes means a player
>>>> with the current changes (new racquets, strings, fitness) can beat a
>>>> player without these changes, then in term of sports and results, the
>>>> new changes made the game better, we don't care if a fan doesn't see
>>>> this way, but this is the reality.
>>
>>> Nonsense. How can it be 'better' when variety has been extinguished?
>>
>>> Golf isn't better because the new equipment can propel the ball 100 mtrs
>>> further. It's just made a lot of courses obsolete as you just sail over
>>> previously dangerous bunkers etc. That's not skill.
>>
>>> doesn't make it easy. That's how you assess real talent.
>>
>> At least we're saved from hour long rallies between Borg and Lendl where
>> they just keep the ball in play.
>> Or couple seconds long "rallies" between Sampras and Krajicek...
>>
>
> But we are also, sadly, saved from the matches between Lendl-Edberg/
> Becker, Agassi-Becker, Courier-Edberg, Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Korda,
> Agassi-Stich, Courier-Bruguera, Sampras-Courier, Agassi-Rafter. These
> guys embody a wide variety of styles. You have guys staying back all
> the time, guys who come forward all the time, guys who stay back more
> but can come forward, guys who come forward more but can also stay
> back. You name it. Today, except for one top player, you have guys who
> stay back 95% of the time.
>
Yeah, worries the shit out of me too.
Who cares...
Shakes
Plz. So you just pick a few Wim matches to dismiss an entire decade of
tennis ?
Shakes
Like they say, ignorance is bliss. Lucky you.
TT
jdeluise began following tennis in 2008.
wkhedr
> These days, we have an entire facet of tennis erased. That, IMO, is
> not a positive change.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Honestly I have no clue what you are talking about these days. You are
just using general floating words and making smoke screens.
You made the entire game of tennis to be erased. Why are you even
watching it?
jdeluise
On 17-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
It was for that reason my favorite slam during the 90s was the FO.
Wimbledon was as boring as tennis could possibly be in that decade. And no,
I don't think stubborn S&V tennis necessarily constitutes variety. Do you
honestly not see the variety on display in today's game?
jdeluise
On 17-Dec-2010, TT <do...@do.it> wrote:
> jdeluise began following tennis in 2008.
Hardly. But we know you only watch tennis for what you consider eye candy
(Hingis and Nadal). And we also know you were not interested in tennis
circa 2000, rather you were interested in beer, chess and snooker... no
mention of tennis!
Inglourious Basterd
Please explain this point further.
If, hypothetically, a person who posted here was a great 'do-gooder'
and 'success' in society, i.e. held down a job, had a loving
relationship with a partner (and was a great parent to children if
they so desired), had many friends and strong bonds with their family,
plus was generally a 'good' person in society - i.e. gave generously
to charity and so on; is all this negated by the fact that they may
act as a "troll" on an internet forum and say things which offend
"Vari L Cinicke" (themselves an anonymous androgynous entity)?
Your conception of, and importance ascribed to, "social facade" is
bizarre. I think you fail to understand basic humanity and peoples'
imperfections.
Inglourious Basterd
>
> > >> I disliked Edberg because he is Swedish. :)
>
> > > But you didn't follow tennis back then...?
>
> > No, YOU didn't follow tennis back then.
>
> Cut the crap, we all know you weren't interested in tennis even circa
> 2000... the link IB posted made that pretty clear.
haha, was gonna point that out!
Shakes
> On Dec 18, 2:27 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > These days, we have an entire facet of tennis erased. That, IMO, is
> > not a positive change.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Honestly I have no clue what you are talking about these days. You are
> just using general floating words and making smoke screens.
So you have no idea what I am talking about ? Didn't the names of the
players I threw up give a clue ?
Maybe you can point out how similar or different the games of these
players from the previous decade-and-a-half are. Then you could
compare to the player's games today. That would give you a clue as to
what is missing.
You have guys who come forward all the time (Edberg, Rafter, Henman -
early on), guys who stay back all the time (Agassi, Courier, Muster,
and all claycourters), guys who come forward 70 % (Becker, Sampras,
Stich), guys who stay back 70% of the time (Lendl, Korda, Pioline).
You had 1HBH and 2HBH, flat hitters, topspinners. You had players who
hit from on or inside the baseline, players who stay way back.
Today you have Fed (comes forward 10%) and the rest (come forward
0-5%). Today you have Fed (Blake ?) who hits 1HBH and the rest (2HBH).
Today you have Fed who hits from close to the baseline and the rest
(who hit from the backfence). There are a couple of fringe players
like Soda, Berdych who can hit relatively flat, but who do not make
lasting impact.
> You made the entire game of tennis to be erased. Why are you even
> watching it?
Geez. Do you always have to go and get all emotional ?
Shakes
Do you honestly see variety today ? What I see is players playing from
the baseline 85-99% of the time. See my reply to wkhedr.
Vari L. Cinicke
How do you manage to take the Icebergs seriously? Seriously! :)
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Perhaps retaliation for your picking 2 players to dismiss the current
decade of tennis?
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
I didn't pick 2 players to dismiss the current decade of tennis. I was
only pointing out the various stylistic players that the previous eras
enjoyed, and which the current era lacks. I pointed out specific
players with examples.
If anyone disagrees with me, I at least expect a rebuttal that
counters my examples.
Vari L. Cinicke
You see the baseline as evil, apparently.
It is a combination of court speed, racket head speed and player speed
that is making net approaches almost toxic.
Think of Sampras at Roland Garros and the Australian Open. Why didn't he
venture forward all the time there? Because it was not a winning
proposition. That from a guy with arguably the greatest serve tennis has
seen with excellent volleying skills.
Wimbledon grass may have been made a tad too firm and slow now, but the
speed change was required to stop the pointless walkabout that Wimbledon
was turning into in the 90s.
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
You have to. Otherwise you will sink without a trace. You have to hear
the whispers too. :-)
Shakes
> On 12/17/2010 8:33 PM, Shakes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 5:07 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-Dec-2010, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 17, 3:54 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 17-Dec-2010, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration for Sampras. I got to
> >>>>> admire his game more after he retired and after seeing the lack of
> >>>>> variety in the last few yrs.
>
> >>>> On the contrary, the whiz-bang one or two second points at Wimbledon in
> >>>> particular were the epitome of lack of variety in those days.
>
> >>> Plz. So you just pick a few Wim matches to dismiss an entire decade of
> >>> tennis ?
>
> >> It was for that reason my favorite slam during the 90s was the FO.
> >> Wimbledon was as boring as tennis could possibly be in that decade. And no,
> >> I don't think stubborn S&V tennis necessarily constitutes variety. Do you
> >> honestly not see the variety on display in today's game?
>
> > Do you honestly see variety today ? What I see is players playing from
> > the baseline 85-99% of the time. See my reply to wkhedr.
>
> You see the baseline as evil, apparently.
>
Not at all. I just want to see a top-notch baseliner against a top-
notch attacking player. I am not even asking for pure S/V. At least
some one like Sampras, Becker on HC would do. There is a unique
challenge in that, for both players.
> It is a combination of court speed, racket head speed and player speed
> that is making net approaches almost toxic.
>
Of all these, the court speed is by far the most important. There were
players with enormous racquet head speed and foot speed before.
Bruguera, Costa, Berasetagui all had great racquet head speed, and
were very quick too, comparable to anyone today bar Fed and Nadal.
They hit huge topspin with SW/W grips, 2HBH etc.
> Think of Sampras at Roland Garros and the Australian Open. Why didn't he
> venture forward all the time there? Because it was not a winning
> proposition. That from a guy with arguably the greatest serve tennis has
> seen with excellent volleying skills.
>
> Wimbledon grass may have been made a tad too firm and slow now, but the
> speed change was required to stop the pointless walkabout that Wimbledon
> was turning into in the 90s.
>
Sure, but they did that to almost all the tournaments. Only Paris is a
relic of the past.
Vari L. Cinicke
> On Dec 17, 6:52 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke"<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2010 7:33 PM, Shakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 3:54 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17-Dec-2010, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration for Sampras. I got to
>>>>> admire his game more after he retired and after seeing the lack of
>>>>> variety in the last few yrs.
>>
>>>> On the contrary, the whiz-bang one or two second points at Wimbledon in
>>>> particular were the epitome of lack of variety in those days.
>>
>>> Plz. So you just pick a few Wim matches to dismiss an entire decade of
>>> tennis ?
>>
>> Perhaps retaliation for your picking 2 players to dismiss the current
>> decade of tennis?
>>
>
> only pointing out the various stylistic players that the previous eras
> enjoyed, and which the current era lacks. I pointed out specific
> players with examples.
>
> If anyone disagrees with me, I at least expect a rebuttal that
> counters my examples.
If more courts play like the Paris Masters did this year, maybe we will
see S/V make a comeback. If the Wimbledon grass stop its true bounce and
restores the dying slice serve, we will see S/V become effective again.
But the surfaces appear a lot fairer and truer these days and S/V isn't
making it past the Futures with the combination of power and topspin
that make passing shot accuracy the best it has ever been.
Sure, the tennis of the 90s allowed players with a variety of game plans
to reach the top. All I can say is that I see a lot more shots in a
match where I think "How the hell did he manage to do that?" these days
than I did in the 90s. Whereas, when I rewatch some of the older
matches, I often think "How the hell did he manage to miss that?"
My feeling is that if one great S/V player emerges in the next 5 years,
you will become happy with tennis again. That seems to be what you
hanker for.
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
That is definitely the major factor. But, at some point, you also have
to question the teaching of that aspect of the game. For example,
nearly all players today approach off topspin shots, at least on the
FH side. And that's because topspin shots are the norm today, esp. off
the FH side. But it's hard to do that unless the shot is both very
deep and fast.
> Sure, the tennis of the 90s allowed players with a variety of game plans
> to reach the top. All I can say is that I see a lot more shots in a
> match where I think "How the hell did he manage to do that?" these days
> than I did in the 90s. Whereas, when I rewatch some of the older
> matches, I often think "How the hell did he manage to miss that?"
>
As a watcher, I agree, esp. from Fed and Nadal. But when I started
playing club level tournaments seriously, I became aware that the same
could be said of those guys. When Sampras, Becker serve, I think "How
the hell did they learn to serve like that ?". Ditto for Agassi's
returns. When those guys scoop off half-volleys off Agassi's returns,
I think "Man, that was awesome".
And also, it must be said that those faster courts actually made those
guys look slow. On today's slower courts and with today's truer
bounces, it is easier to reach a lot of these shots. So, IMO, player
speed is slightly skewed. I think Chang was mighty fast. SO was
Sampras.
> My feeling is that if one great S/V player emerges in the next 5 years,
> you will become happy with tennis again. That seems to be what you
> hanker for.
>
Yes, indeed. And it's all Fed's fault that he kept me from missing
that all these yrs. :-)
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Attacking tennis is SITUATIONAL now and for VERY good reasons...
attacking cannot be programic (I'm going in come hell or high
water)... you'd just get RIPPED APART... the speed TO the ball, the
defensive coverages and the hitting velocities from ALL OVER THE COURT
are just toooooooooooo much... how many times did Federer and Safin
say that 7 or 8 years ago??? A thousand!??
????????
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Come on Shakes... they hit top spins BECAUSE they are literally
MASHING the ball from everywhere, at all angles and need margins to
keep the ball in the court... when the geometry of counter attacking
tennis go as non-linear as it is today you HAVE to have top spin to
hit at the velocities it takes to compete point after point... no
secret there... you know that...
You can go to seminars listening to top coaches teaching players how
to deconstruct aggressive games... Annacone of all people has been
teaching that for YEARS on the instructional circuit...
P
Shakes
All true, but beside the point. The point is you do not approach the
net off topspin shot, that too on today's slower and true bouncing
courts. That's a surefire way to ensure that your opponent is going to
reach the approach shot and hit a winner off it.
You approach the net with a flat approach that stays low.
I am pretty sure Annacone would not advocate approaching the net off
cross-court topspin shots.
Shakes
Ok, but what's your point ? I am saying there is less variety today
than there was a decade ago. And it's a lot more homogenous today. And
it is because of the surface similarity everywhere.
Sakari Lund
Obviously anyone who wants to see a little variety. I think tennis
today is great, but would be even better with more variety.
Sakari Lund
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>
>On 17-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration for Sampras. I got to
>> admire his game more after he retired and after seeing the lack of
>> variety in the last few yrs.
>
>On the contrary, the whiz-bang one or two second points at Wimbledon in
>particular were the epitome of lack of variety in those days.
Sampras at Wimbledon was not especially enjoyable to watch, but
Sampras on hard courts was. I do agree that we could do with more
variety these days, more all-court game, more net play. There is of
course variety in how the different players play, but less than
before. The level of baseline play and passing shots has gone up, but
there is less variety. Still it is great to watch.
Rodjk #613
You would have to find an attacking player who can win enough.
Problem is, that style has been killed off.
It can still be done and done well (Tsonga) but rarely.
It is just not a winning game-plan under current conditions.
>
> > It is a combination of court speed, racket head speed and player speed
> > that is making net approaches almost toxic.
>
> Of all these, the court speed is by far the most important. There were
> players with enormous racquet head speed and foot speed before.
> Bruguera, Costa, Berasetagui all had great racquet head speed, and
> were very quick too, comparable to anyone today bar Fed and Nadal.
> They hit huge topspin with SW/W grips, 2HBH etc.
>
> > Think of Sampras at Roland Garros and the Australian Open. Why didn't he
> > venture forward all the time there? Because it was not a winning
> > proposition. That from a guy with arguably the greatest serve tennis has
> > seen with excellent volleying skills.
>
> > Wimbledon grass may have been made a tad too firm and slow now, but the
> > speed change was required to stop the pointless walkabout that Wimbledon
> > was turning into in the 90s.
>
> Sure, but they did that to almost all the tournaments. Only Paris is a
> relic of the past.
Paris is pretty much unchanged. Its interesting that the other
tournaments seem to desire to be like RG.
Rodjk #613
wkhedr
You have to understand that the game will always be played the way
players feel it's easier for them to control the ball and the outcome
of the ball exchanges. What this means is that players from older
generations chose to play the game differently because the surface and
the equipments dictated that style of play. They did not play for
example serve and volley because it was rated above exchanging
groundies, they volleyed because the ball was difficult to be hit
cleanly with the old racquets and the bounce of the ball on some
surfaces was not clean like the old grass.
Now with the new equipments and the slower even surfaces including
grass, it's easier to handle the ball from the baseline than to volley
it. Players adopt quickly.
I don't believe that today's players are incapable of volleying, they
just focus more on ground strokes in practice.
So the era's you mentioned were transition periods from the old style
of play that was chosen because of the old surfaces and equipments to
the new style of play that we have now.
So we moved from a time where the odd was to not to volley to a time
where the odd is to volley.
I'm sure tennis fans that watched the old era's got sick as well from
the 2-3 strokes points and wished for what we have now.
And this is what pushed the organizers of the game to change the
surfaces.
I am not emotional but I find it lame to summarize an entire era of
tennis in one word as you did.
Shakes
> On 16-Dec-2010, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > unbiased poster here. He never made any blanket statements about any
> > player, and could see the strengths and weaknesses.
>
> Oh I don't know about that. He may have sounded unbiased to you, but that
> was probably because you two tend to agree about a lot of things, and both
> seem to prefer Pete (not that there is anything wrong with that). He had a
> way of believing that any odd loss by someone like Sampras had to be
> attributed to something like an injury or illness rather than giving his
> opponent credit for the win.
>
> Besides, he's the only one I can think of that was almost taken up by
> Whisper and bob as a new member of the tier 1 analyst club. Though he
> rejected them, it was a big red warning flag in my mind.
Well, when I say unbiased, I actually mean as unbiased as a fan can
be. Speaking objectively, nobody can be truly unbiased as long as they
are fans of a particular player.
Jason was, in that sense, very objective, He respects what Fed has
done though he has expressed some reservations about certain aspects
of the game. But he has expressed the same reservations with respect
to Sampras too.
Shakes
Practice makes perfect. If you don't practice as hard, and use it in
matches, you are not going to get good at it. So, I maintain that
today's players are, relatively, very poor volleyers. They don't even
know how to hit an approach shot.
> So the era's you mentioned were transition periods from the old style
> of play that was chosen because of the old surfaces and equipments to
> the new style of play that we have now.
> So we moved from a time where the odd was to not to volley to a time
> where the odd is to volley.
:-). This I agree with and is already known. But I was talking about
the effect, not the cause. The effect is that we have less variety
compared to before. And, IMO, that's not a positive change. Sure, we
had Fed all these yrs. But then what ? I had never felt before that
one player was so important for me to enjoy the game.
I could choose between Becker or Edberg or Sampras or Stich or Agassi
or even Courier, Chang.
> I'm sure tennis fans that watched the old era's got sick as well from
> the 2-3 strokes points and wished for what we have now.
> And this is what pushed the organizers of the game to change the
> surfaces.
Not true. Again, people just pick a few Wimbledon matches to impugn an
era. How about Sampras-Agassi 1995 USO F ? Becker-Agassi SF from the
same USO. Agassi-Sampras 1995 AO F. Rafter-Agassi at the slams (all
great matches), Sampras-Courier on HC, Bruguera-Courier on clay. If
you look outside of Wim at the other slams, you had some great tennis
of different varieties, and all high quality too.
> I am not emotional but I find it lame to summarize an entire era of
> tennis in one word as you did.
It's not lame if it is a fact. And the fact is, thanks to the rush to
homogenize all the surfaces, we have eliminated serve-volley entirely.
We have players who do not know how to hit a half-volley, how to hit a
proper approach shot. We have players who only hit 2HBH and topspin
FH. We have players who hit from 10 feet behind the baseline all day
long. And I don't see anything wrong with that summary.
wkhedr
> We have players who do not know how to hit a half-volley,
Who can't hit half-volley?
> how to hit a proper approach shot.
Who can't hit approach shot?
>We have players who only hit 2HBH and topspin FH.
Are they supposed to hit 2HBH and one-hand backhands in the same time?
>We have players who hit from 10 feet behind the baseline all day long.
Great, not bad, we have not had this before, thanks to new equipments.
What's up?
pltr...@xhost.org
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Both great players, but I can say the only time I ever pulled for
>Connors was when he played Mac. I never pulled for Mac.
Same here.
-- Larry
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
But EACH players elite game HAS MORE VARIETY within it now... Fed and
Nadal and Djokovic have abilities all over the court and at the net...
in the 1990s they were still mired in the either/or tennis... players
can baseline, play defensive counter hitting (passive) or counter
hitting getting in (aggressive), they turn deep balls into offensive
strikes much more readily than a decade ago BECAUSE they can hit the
ball so HARD now and LITERALLY hit winners from anywhere on the court
EVEN outside the margins of play... Federer has lead the way here as
he slowly ups his attack percentages... 2011 is going to be the litmus
test for that 'development' of redidication to situational attack
tennis...
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
And guys DO mix in flat shots IF they can get a really short ball...
you just can't hit it flat and blast it AND get in from the deep
angled postions in tennis today... you can TRY... but it's such a low
percentage play you get WAXED...
P