Real tennis

[UC]

http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4

[Shakes]

On Apr 3, 3:28 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4

Thanks for the link. It has links to some great matches of the past,
and in very good quality too.

[PeteWasLucky]

On Apr 3, 6:28 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4

The slice serve combined with the old grass surface keeps the serves
bouce very low.

[Court_1]

Wow, thanks for this link. Some good old matches on this YT channel! :)

[PeteWasLucky]

On Apr 3, 7:24 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wow, thanks for this link. Some good old matches on this YT channel! :)

and this is for people that think Mac is the best volleyer. This is my
favorite player:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNeX22yiha0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1219s

Check that point

[Court_1]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNeX22yiha0&feature=player_detailpage#...
>
> Check that point

Nice. Edberg is your fave player of all players even Fed?

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Apr 3, 4:24 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wow, thanks for this link. Some good old matches on this YT channel! :)

Stan was considered a 'true gentleman' of the game at that time...
Nastase was a serial ladies man back then... well known playboy as
well as shotmaking wiz of the era and of course rogue and radical with
officials :)))))

P

[Court_1]

Remember how iconic the Stan Smith tennis shoe was? Practically every
guy I knew had a pair of those back in the late 70's, early 80's or
so.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Apr 3, 3:28 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4

Yes... I remember it well... This was elite tennis when I was kid,
barely a teenager... it was played a much slower and more deliberate
pace... serves MUCH slower, the game less dynamic, a lot of wrist to
flick shots into corners or down the line... the ball was served "into
play" and not a lot else compared with tennis by the later part of the
1980s... so different... charming really...

P

[Shakes]

On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, PeteWasLucky <waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:24 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, thanks for this link. Some good old matches on this YT channel! :)
>
> and this is for people that think Mac is the best volleyer. This is my
> favorite player:
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNeX22yiha0&feature=player_detailpage#...
>
> Check that point

Nice.

How about the very first one from this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLxZk29SH4&feature=relmfu

[Manuel aka Xax]

On 4 avr, 00:28, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4

Thanks for this link.
Too bad audio & video are coming out of sync quite early.

The thing that amazed me most:
Linesjudges! In suits, sitting quite comfy on their chairs.
Meaning a whole lot of things, a lot of things that have gone, too
bad.
Human mistakes were part of the game, and, well, this still was a
game, in the most noble sense of the word.
...
Players coming to the courts with only their racquets (like 4 or 5).
Small headsize, greater hands (at net or not) -as anyone having tried
to play with old school racquets has experienced, the bigger the head
size the more forgiving the racquet-.
...
A lot less "ceremonium" mood, yet Wimbledon final.
These guys were way closely "connected" to their time than any players
from the 80's and later.

For sure, game speed is far from today...
Because there was no need!
Balls / strings / racquets combo wouldn't let most (if any?) player to
play faster (having balls moving much faster to your opponent), so
their own foot speed (if not speed overall) had not be on today's
level (wich begun in the late 80's, when composite racquets started to
rule).

[Iceberg]

freakin amazing!

[felangey]

>freakin amazing!

Ah yes....back when the MC was an exo! :)

[felangey]

>and this is for people that think Mac is the best volleyer. This is my
>favorite player:

I agree....Edberg was *the* volleyer afaiac.

[Shakes]

On Apr 4, 12:15 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> >freakin amazing!
>
> Ah yes....back when the MC was an exo! :)

Touche. :-)

[Superdave]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:28:30 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4

I like Sampras vs Federer at Wimbledon the best !

[PeteWasLucky]

I have watched many players, only two had something special in their
game that made me enjoy and feel relaxed watching them playing, Edberg
& Federer.

[PeteWasLucky]

I'd watch the robot Sampras playing but there was not much
entertainment for me watching him, although I appreciate his talent
and achievements.

[Shakes]

What has that got to do with the great first point in that video ?
It's a lot more difficult to hit that shot he hit in that first point
than your typical tweener shot, but it's not eye-candy stuff (while a
tweener is) and typically goes unappreciated. That has always been the
story of Sampras' game.

BTW, I could never understand a true tennis player/lover not being
able to enjoy Sampras play. I can understand the casual/couch-potato
tennis fan not being able to appreciate Sampras' game and finding it
robotic (such fans vastly outnumber the real tennis playing nuts), but
for a tennis nut, there was a lot to watch, learn, and appreciate the
way Sampras played.

Ironically, I think that most of you unknowingly credit Sampras for
making the really difficult things look easy and routine; so routine
that it's robotic. I think it's a lot more easy to appreciate Fed
because, apart from his elegance and fluidity/grace, he also has the
knack of making the really difficult shots look ... erm, really
difficult BUT easy only for him. Think about it. If it was really made
to look very easy for every one, most casual fans wouldn't even notice
it.

[SliceAndDice]

Thirded.

[SliceAndDice]

LOL..whaaaaaaat? :)

[SliceAndDice]

Fantastic shot.

[SliceAndDice]

Going slightly off-topic, an underappreciated volleyer on the women's
side is Jana Novotna.

[Shakes]

Peak Edberg was awesome in his volleying for the most part, but he had
trouble handling power with his volleys. Look at his difficulties vs.
Courier/Agassi.

[Shakes]

On Apr 4, 11:35 pm, SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you give me something more specific to work with ?

[SliceAndDice]

Just as Mac did with Lendl.

[SliceAndDice]

Difficult shots look really difficult but easy only for him??? How the
hell does he telegraph this?

[felangey]

>Difficult shots look really difficult but easy only for him??? How the hell
>does he telegraph this?

Lol....this has to be one of Shakes finest moments. He is a rapscallion that
Federer....imagine making the really difficult shots look really
difficult....BUT...easy for him. What a twister. :))))

[Whisper]

Far more skilled though, & many multiples more interesting as a fan
spectacle.

Also to the rest of rst don't be fooled as easily as keyhole & other
dullards. These guys mistake the quality of the *video* with the
quality of tennis.

To prove this imagine what Fed v Djoker would look like on youtube if we
used old 8mm tape at far away angles, & then applied filter to make it
look grainy etc. Yes that's right, it would be even duller than
watching current slam finals. Just look at last AO final slugfest with
Djoker v Rafa. It was interesting to watch in real time just to see
who'd be last man standing in war of attrition, but let's be honest -
nobody is ever going to sit down & watch that match again.

So yes past era tennis was 'charming', more interesting, & a test of
tennis skills as opposed to the modern day version - which if we're
going to be honest is like an aborted fetus.

[Whisper]

Only a moron thinks Edberg is a better volleyer than McEnroe.

Edberg was textbook, but McEnroe is Messi/Maradonna/Pele. Natural
genius that simply can't be replicated/taught.

[Whisper]

er, no. He was great, but Mac is the genius.

[Whisper]

No, that was 3rd rd of a slam quality. Neither guy could match Henman
level at that point in time.

[Whisper]

For me it's McEnroe & Henin. Fed/Edberg were also nice, but not in
genius category.

[Whisper]

With good reason. She isn't much better than Federer. Too nervous.

[Whisper]

Edberg was classical stylist, but better volleyers aside from Mac were
Hoad/Laver.

[Whisper]

Nope. Mac beat Lendl 10 of 12 matches in '83/'84 - the 2 losses were
fluky, coulda easily been 12 in a row.

Mac lost interest in tennis after '84 - it was all too easy & he had no
challengers. I blame Borg for running away because he couldn't handle
not being No.1.

[Superdave]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:57:39 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

nobody believes anything you say anymore.

actually nobody believed anything you said ever.

[Superdave]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:54:39 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

[Superdave]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:52:42 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

[Superdave]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:58:35 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

[felangey]

>er, no. He was great, but Mac is the genius.

That's certainly an opinion.

[MBDunc]

On 5 huhti, 17:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 5/04/2012 5:00 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 11:42 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Apr 4, 11:35 pm, SliceAndDice<visha...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 5, 12:17 am, "felangey"<th...@thisplace.invalid>  wrote:
>
> >>>>> and this is for people that think Mac is the best volleyer. This is my
> >>>>> favorite player:
>
> >>>> I agree....Edberg was *the* volleyer afaiac.
>
> >>> Thirded.
>
> >> Peak Edberg was awesome in his volleying for the most part, but he had
> >> trouble handling power with his volleys. Look at his difficulties vs.
> >> Courier/Agassi.
>
> > Just as Mac did with Lendl.
>
> Nope.  Mac beat Lendl 10 of 12 matches in '83/'84 - the 2 losses were
> fluky, coulda easily been 12 in a row.

I love this example as it tells that tuneups actually matter and are
actually the bigger legacy determinator than actual slams or slam
h2h.....

....oh...never mind.... it is Mac...he apparenly has samprasque
exemption here...

Which is better?

a) Beating not yet even slam winner and known choker (Lendl) like a
drum....at tuneups...(and meanwhile giving Lendl his 1st slam).

b) Doing it like Djoko has done it recently - beat peak Nadal at all
possible venues (inc. three slam finals straight).

Yet you still try to dig excuses for Nadal...(funnily with similar
excuses as Fedfans have explained Fed's loss to Nadal....)

.mikko

[Shakes]

LOL, :-), he doesn't "telegraph" it. My point was some of the shots he
pulls off are flashy to the eye apart from being difficult, so people
take immediate notice. I enjoyed them too but perhaps have a better
understanding of what makes a shot difficult to hit.

To me, Fed hitting a flick BH angled cross-court shot on the rise is
impressive and beautiful to watch; but equally impressive is Sampras
hitting a FH volley off his ankles from behind the service line off a
blinding return. Most people don't notice the latter, while they go
raptures over the former (hence, all they remember Sampras for was
"Ace, volley winner etc.").

[SliceAndDice]

Got nothing to do with her *abilities*. When on song, she was
untouchable. And I will ignore the dig at Federer, you Fedfan.

[drew]

On Apr 5, 1:27 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I enjoyed them too but perhaps have a better
> understanding of what makes a shot difficult to hit.

Perhaps you have a better understanding than the rest of us about what

makes a shot difficult to hit.

But probably not.

So fuck off with that bullshit OK?

[Shakes]

On Apr 5, 11:45 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 1:27 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I enjoyed them too but perhaps have a better
>
> > understanding of what makes a shot difficult to hit.
>
> Perhaps you have a better understanding than the rest of us about what
> makes a shot difficult to hit.
>
> But probably not.
>

Um, actually I do. Much better than you, anyways.

> So fuck off with that bullshit OK?

Ok. But do tell me when you have something to say about Sampras apart
from the lame "tongue hanging out like an amphibian", "Sampras
becoming a marginal basketball player retiring at 23 if he's moved to
this era", "Sampras was dead boring when he played etc."

[arnab.z@gmail]

What do you think about this one, Shakes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0Gpt-6SAw

Reminds you of Sampras doesn't it?

[Whisper]

No, I've seen Agassi & Lendl make that shot. Hitting a shot like that
'accidently' (ie no other option, reflex shot) once in a blue moon does
not make one a McEnroe. If that was the case every player who hit a
flick bh is promoted to Federer level.

[Scott]

great post

[Shakes]

Nice touch. But Fed always had good hands. His preparation for the
volley, in general, is poor, though. He can pull off some blinders
when he is in position because of his quick hands, feel. But he's not
as good when he's not in position.

I was thinking more of these:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/321189

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/321191

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/321195

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/321199

In all these points, look where Sampras was when he hits the volleys.
He was behind the service line, took the volleys off the top of his
shoe laces, and placed them perfectly.

[Iceberg]

oh yes, according to the Fedfans, drew etc pparently Agassi and
Sampras would've just sat around for 5+ years while another player won
absolutely everything in sight.

[Iceberg]

wow thanks for some great clips Shakes! did you see the speed Agassi
ran to that drop shot in the last one!

[felangey]

>>Um, actually I do. Much better than you, anyways.

I'm not convinced.

>>So fuck off with that bullshit OK?

>Ok. But do tell me when you have something to say about Sampras apart
>from the lame "tongue hanging out like an amphibian", "Sampras
>becoming a marginal basketball player retiring at 23 if he's moved to
>this era", "Sampras was dead boring when he played etc."

...nope...seems you have just about covered it all! ;)

[bob]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

i know it was only a seniors event, but i watched sampras/agassi and
sampras/courier just a few months ago and watching how naturally and
easily sampras takes volleys from various positions reminds me of what
a natural net player can do, and how easy he can make it look. i
watched fish just last wk from couple rows up, and he's one of the
very few guys who plays any net at all today, and his net skills paled
in comparison to old sampras' as of a couple months ago. and peak fish
is what, top 8 rank today??

pete also had no problem with balls hit like a rocket at him, just
finds a way to get the racket on it in the right position.

bob

[arnab.z@gmail]

That makes no sense. Federer doesn't make that shot "accidentally" or
once in a blue moon. He does it quite often whenever he moves towards
the net and the opportunity presents itself.

No idea how Agassi, Lendl or Mac belongs to this conversation?

[arnab.z@gmail]

You are basically glorifying Sampras's one particular shot. If you
watch baby Federer's match against Sampras in WImbledon 2001, Federer
actually makes those kinds of volleys *against* Sampras, mirroring
Pete shot for shot. Just pick any youtube highlight of the match and
watch it.

[Shakes]

Well, in the context of the point I made in this discussion, I picked
out that particular shot because, while not being eye candy, it's a
very difficult shot to pull off. It's one of the most difficult shots
to consistently pull off in tennis, considering the position that
Sampras was in during most of those points. But because it's not
immediately catchy, it's hardly noticed.

And I particularly chose his matches against Agassi because it's very
hard to do it against Agassi, and on a HC. Sure, Fed volleyed much
better than he does today in his match against Sampras, but it was on
grass, and it was not against Agassi. Sampras doesn't have the returns
of Agassi. Watch the 2001 USO match between Fed and Agassi, and he
hardly S/V'ed at all. And for good reason. He knew that his S/V game
was not good enough to do that. That's the reason why other big
serving S/V'ers hated playing Agassi. Because the returns came back
quicker than they could handle.

[jdeluise]

On 5-Apr-2012, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab....@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are basically glorifying Sampras's one particular shot. If you
> watch baby Federer's match against Sampras in WImbledon 2001, Federer
> actually makes those kinds of volleys *against* Sampras, mirroring
> Pete shot for shot. Just pick any youtube highlight of the match and
> watch it.

I watched that match pretty recently and while Fed did win a lot of volleys
I'd say that they were mostly off of weak returns (because of a great serve)
and *a lot* of swinging volleys (the mark of a baseliner trying to volley).
Yes, he did volley a lot more than he does today but I wouldn't say he
mirrored Sampras shot for shot with it.

[SliceAndDice]

Better understanding than whom? You are beginning to sound like
Whisper now.

> To me, Fed hitting a flick BH angled cross-court shot on the rise is
> impressive and beautiful to watch; but equally impressive is Sampras
> hitting a FH volley off his ankles from behind the service line off a
> blinding return. Most people don't notice the latter, while they go
> raptures over the former (hence, all they remember Sampras for was
> "Ace, volley winner etc.").

That is exactly what Waleed said. Federer's game has flair, Sampras
was a bit robotic.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 6, 9:29 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, he wasn't a mirror of Sampras.That was an exaggeration.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Yes, it was great agressive tennis. Sampras took risks and pulled it
off.

> And I particularly chose his matches against Agassi because it's very
> hard to do it against Agassi, and on a HC. Sure, Fed volleyed much
> better than he does today in his match against Sampras, but it was on
> grass, and it was not against Agassi. Sampras doesn't have the returns
> of Agassi. Watch the 2001 USO match between Fed and Agassi, and he
> hardly S/V'ed at all. And for good reason. He knew that his S/V game
> was not good enough to do that. That's the reason why other big
> serving S/V'ers hated playing Agassi. Because the returns came back
> quicker than they could handle.

All true, but why do we have to frame our interpretation from a
Sampras-centric, S/V viewpoint?

How about looking at the thigs the other way around? The truth is
Sampras wasn't entirely confident in his baseline game, so he
developped his aggressive game which payed off brilliantly in fast
WImbledon and in the USO. He failed big time in FO, and didn't do very
well at AO either. It was an effective game, but he was hardly an all-
surface master. That's the path he chose.

Federer on the other hand, developped great confidence in his baseline
game and still won plenty of majors.

Instead of saying Federer is frightened to come to the net, we could
say Sampras was frightened to stay on the baseline. It also takes guts
to stay on the baseline and produce winning shots against an advancing
opponent. That's what Federer did.

That would be an equally valid, albeit baseline-centric interpretation
of events.

[Whisper]

That was the year Henman played at a much higher level than Fed &
Sampras. Indeed Sampras couldn't win a tournament anywhere for 2 years.

If you're going to use 2001 as some kind of barometer, then you can't
excuse away Agassi smashing Fed at 2001 USO 61 62 64. I can't allow it
in the interests of fairness. Fedfuckery needs to have limits applied
else it runs amok - note if not kept in check we even had posts saying
Fed was better than Rafa on clay. We need to bring in rst tasers soon.

[Whisper]

Well said. Call it like it is. Fed is not better than Rafa on clay, &
he's not better at net than Sampras. He has his strengths of course,
but let's not go Haze-level ballistic.

[Whisper]

Ok, but why wouldn't you try & win points quickly if you had that
ability? Is it better to have Rafa v Djoker AO finals that contain many
40 stroke rallies after 5 hours?

[arnab.z@gmail]

Sure, but the fact remains that this "special" ability helped Sampras
predominantly on fast surfaces.

> Is it better to have Rafa v Djoker AO finals that contain many
> 40 stroke rallies after 5 hours?

From a spectator's point of view, would you pay for a Pete-Goran
snoozefest with minimal movement and effort from either player, or
would you rather watch Djok and Nadal killing each other in a long but
physically extremely demanding battle?

I'd take the latter.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 6, 1:12 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 6/04/2012 1:29 PM, jdeluise wrote:
>

Federer's strength is his record. That is the real proof of a
champion.

Who has the best slam record? Federer.

[arnab.z@gmail]

?? Completely irrelevant post. We are talking about Federer's
volleying skills here.

[felangey]

>Fed is not better than Rafa on clay, & he's not better at net than Sampras.

Wait a minute though. You use the same argument you are against here to
promote Nadal. Despite the fact that he only comes in 1 or 2 times a match
when he has easy put-aways....you say that he is better at net than Fed.
Again, we find you trying to have it all ways.

I can't remember the exact stats from the match, but wasn't it something
like 31 ground stroke winners and 11 volleys for Fed and 21 groundies and 20
volleys for Pete? Interesting to see that even on the last days of fast
grass that the best exponent of s&v at the time wasn't getting it done
against the rising generation of precision-passers. I wonder what would have
happened when all the surfaces slowed down a bit?

[Superdave]

A: DEAD MEAT !

[Whisper]

Sampras was burnt out for last 2 years, not getting it done v even
mediocre players of his own era. The loss to Fed was nothing amazing at
that point in time. Perhaps if it were the Wimbledon final you could
argue a little, but a 4th rd where neither guy could beat Tim fucking
Henman tells me all I need to know.

[Superdave]

I thought I would compare the ranking of who they lost to and how many sets was the match they lost.
Federer from 03 Wimbledon to 11 US Open and Sampras from 93 Wimbledon to 01 US Open.

Losses to Players outside of top 30
Federer - 1 (Kuerten ranked 30)
Sampras - 6

Losses to Players outside of top 10
Federer - 4
Sampras - 13

Losses in Straight Sets
Federer - 4
Sampras - 6

Its staggering how many terrible losses Sampras had in Grand Slams.


This tells ME all I need to know.

[Whisper]

On 6/04/2012 11:33 PM, Superdave wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:28:41 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 6/04/2012 10:41 PM, felangey wrote:

>>>> Fed is not better than Rafa on clay,& he's not better at net than

The idea Sampras was a hack who won 7 Wimbledons, 14 slams, 6 years No.1
is a concept most normal people can't handle. You seem to do it with
ease? Perhaps get a brain scan to rule out any suspicious masses that
may be growing there?

[Shakes]

Sure, but that was not the only reason they were tough though. See
below.

> > And I particularly chose his matches against Agassi because it's very
> > hard to do it against Agassi, and on a HC. Sure, Fed volleyed much
> > better than he does today in his match against Sampras, but it was on
> > grass, and it was not against Agassi. Sampras doesn't have the returns
> > of Agassi. Watch the 2001 USO match between Fed and Agassi, and he
> > hardly S/V'ed at all. And for good reason. He knew that his S/V game
> > was not good enough to do that. That's the reason why other big
> > serving S/V'ers hated playing Agassi. Because the returns came back
> > quicker than they could handle.
>
> All true, but why do we have to frame our interpretation from a
> Sampras-centric, S/V viewpoint?
>

Because volleying is a talent too, a rare talent, and a tough one, as
tough as any baseline shot. But I think it's not deemed as talented by
most fans today because they seem to think that if Fed doesn't do it,
then it's not as great or that it's too simple.

> How about looking at the thigs the other way around? The truth is
> Sampras wasn't entirely confident in his baseline game, so he
> developped his aggressive game which payed off brilliantly in fast
> WImbledon and in the USO. He failed big time in FO, and didn't do very
> well at AO either. It was an effective game, but he was hardly an all-
> surface master. That's the path he chose.
>
> Federer on the other hand, developped great confidence in his baseline
> game and still won plenty of majors.
>
> Instead of saying Federer is frightened to come to the net, we could
> say Sampras was frightened to stay on the baseline. It also takes guts
> to stay on the baseline and produce winning shots against an advancing
> opponent. That's what Federer did.
>
> That would be an equally valid, albeit baseline-centric interpretation
> of events.

Sure, Sampras was not the player that Fed was from the baseline. My
whole point was that the volleys that Sampras pulled off consistently
were as tough as any tweener by Fed or impressive get of a Nadal. And
he did it a lot more frequently. But it's not catchy to the eye at all
(because there's no "running involved" or no "visible trick movements"
involved), and so it's not appreciated by the people as much. I never
saw people go raptures over some of these volleys. But, believe me,
it's really tough. The quickness required in terms of footwork, hands
to achieve the desired placement and power in the volley. Like it's
also tough to hit 120 mph aces off 2nd serves. That's why I said I am
impressed by Fed's trick shots but equally impressed by some of the
shots Sampras pulled off.

Like Becker's dives. Now they were eye-catchy and people were
impressed. But what people didn't notice was that when he hit those
shots, he was close to the net and usually hit them above the net.
Sure I enjoyed them too, but I wouldn't call them "tougher shots to
hit" than an Edberg reflex volley winner from below the net.

How about the 1st shot from this video ? No, it's not a volley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLxZk29SH4&feature=relmfu

volley winner etc.".

[felangey]

>Sure, Sampras was not the player that Fed was from the baseline. My
>whole point was that the volleys that Sampras pulled off consistently
>were as tough as any tweener

Like I mentioned previously, for my money the very pinnacle of volleying
found itself in Edberg....his touch/form and reflexes at net were
unparalleled. The thing with Fed is that he takes the shots that all of us
try on the court while goofing about and can make a few times out of a
hundred and does them reliably in matches on the biggest stage....that
brings wow factor. Not only that but his depth of shot making....and his
abiliity to tear up the rule book on the spot and improvise another flick of
genius - something people haven't seen before.....that's what endears him to
audiences like no other player. You feel like you are watching a genius
every time he takes the court.

But yeah....all greats have their 'wow' aspects....for me it was Pete's
second serve...uncanny.

[Shakes]

Well, when people say things like all Sampras did to win his service
games was "ace, fault, volley winner, pass, ace, service winner" or
"Sampras stuck his tongue out like an amphibian", it's hard to believe
that they played the game at all. Otherwise, you would find a lot of
things to watch for/appreciate when Sampras plays. Not meant to be
taken personally by everyone.

> > To me, Fed hitting a flick BH angled cross-court shot on the rise is
> > impressive and beautiful to watch; but equally impressive is Sampras
> > hitting a FH volley off his ankles from behind the service line off a
> > blinding return. Most people don't notice the latter, while they go
> > raptures over the former (hence, all they remember Sampras for was
> > "Ace, volley winner etc.").
>
> That is exactly what Waleed said. Federer's game has flair, Sampras
> was a bit robotic.

Sure, but sometimes it's easy to mistake flair for talent. Otherwise,
Henri Leconte, or Hicham Arazi (or Santoro, though not as much as the
other two) would be at the top of the list. They hit shots which even
Fed did not.

[Shakes]

Comon, Arnab. Are you telling me you would prefer a 6 hr snoozefest
over a 2.5 hr one ? I think you are just taking that position because
it's Whispy.

[jdeluise]

On 6-Apr-2012, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Comon, Arnab. Are you telling me you would prefer a 6 hr snoozefest
> over a 2.5 hr one ? I think you are just taking that position because
> it's Whispy.

Why can't we like both?

[Scott]

On Apr 6, 5:11 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On  6-Apr-2012, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Comon, Arnab. Are you telling me you would prefer a 6 hr snoozefest
> > over a 2.5 hr one ? I think you are just taking that position because
> > it's Whispy.
>
> Why can't we like both?

Or neither?

[Scott]

It's funny how Roger has to beat Sampras AND Henman consecutively in
your book, both of whom were elite grass court players. So it isn't
H2H, it's H2H2H for you.

[bob]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:41:56 +0100, "felangey"
<th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:

yet that s/v player won USO in 2002 after practicing again a little
bit. and s/v hemnan had no trouble with fed in 2001. c'mon felangey,
you're better than that. (aren't you??)

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:28:41 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

it tells me that on grass fed had serious trouble with a s/v player in
any decent form at all. lucky for him he didn't get a sampras in the
93-2000 mode or early 80s mcenroe.

bob

[Scott]

On Apr 6, 7:30 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:28:41 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>

does Whisper put enough food in your bowl these days? Maybe bark
louder next time will get his attention. That's a boy.

[John Liang]

Yet the s/v of late 80s like Christo Van Rensburg had no problem
against 90s sv like
sampras and prooving play in 80s Sampras would not win any Wimbledon
and he would
be routinely beaten in the first few rounds even at Wimbledon. c'mon
bob, you're better
than that (aren't you??).

[John Liang]

No, whisper has several greyhounds in the backyard. bob was the
unfortunate one
he had to share that one slice of pizza with icy.

[Superdave]

Because one CHEATS.

[Superdave]

Nobody called him a hack but that he must bow before Roger the King is undeniable.

[Superdave]

lucky for this lucky for that blah blah blah sampras was lucky to win his last slam such is his
luck.

[SliceAndDice]

On Apr 5, 6:59 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 5/04/2012 12:37 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 7:33 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> On Apr 3, 7:28 pm, PeteWasLucky<waleed.kh...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 3, 7:24 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> Wow, thanks for this link. Some good old matches on this YT channel! :)
>
> >>> and this is for people that think Mac is the best volleyer. This is my
> >>> favorite player:
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNeX22yiha0&feature=player_detailpage#...
>
> >>> Check that point
>

> >> Nice. Edberg is your fave player of all players even Fed?
>
> > I have watched many players, only two had something special in their
> > game that made me enjoy and feel relaxed watching them playing, Edberg
> > &  Federer.
>
> For me it's McEnroe & Henin.  Fed/Edberg were also nice, but not in
> genius category.

Henin, who could not win a single Wimbledon? You are forgetting your
rules again, Whisper.

[SliceAndDice]

On Apr 5, 6:57 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> On 5/04/2012 5:17 AM, felangey wrote:
>
> >> and this is for people that think Mac is the best volleyer. This is my
> >> favorite player:
>

> > I agree....Edberg was *the* volleyer afaiac.
>
> er, no.  He was great, but Mac is the genius.

I agree that Mac was the greater overall player, but I have not seen a
player with Edberg's volleying abilities. (Laver/Hoad were before my
time).

[Superdave]

He makes them up on the fly and changes them as he needs to to suit his "lies of the moment".

[John Liang]

Edberg was a better volleyer than Mac.

[John Liang]

Henin was good but not anywhere near the level of a Federer or Edberg
in term of pure talent. .

[Superdave]

She was the ugliest of the three by a mile. No wonder whisper fancied her and also likes rafa.

[Superdave]

Edberg was like Mac with manners.

[Scott]

Sampras was uncanny with that second serve. he could hit it big at
the highest stages.

Sampras also should get credit for volleying with such a small racquet
head. However, Roger gets credit for trying to volley during the age
of space racquets and space strings, which particularly from the
Topspinner from Mallorca, makes volleying sheer hell.

[Shakes]

On Apr 6, 2:11 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On  6-Apr-2012, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Comon, Arnab. Are you telling me you would prefer a 6 hr snoozefest
> > over a 2.5 hr one ? I think you are just taking that position because
> > it's Whispy.
>
> Why can't we like both?

Sure, you can. But if you think of both as being snoozefests, I think
most would prefer the shorter one.

[bob]

john, do you notice how i never tell you "you're better than that."

bob

[Vlado]

Weasel words alert

[kaennorsing]

On 4 apr, 01:28, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 3:28 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://youtu.be/zZezxpCqbI4
>
> Yes... I remember it well... This was elite tennis when I was kid,
> barely a teenager... it was played a much slower and more deliberate
> pace... serves MUCH slower, the game less dynamic, a lot of wrist to
> flick shots into corners or down the line... the ball was served "into
> play" and not a lot else compared with tennis by the later part of the
> 1980s... so different... charming really...
>
> P

The ball was hit slower, but it would have lost all it's charm if
those players took as much time as some do today. Look at the Nastase-
Smith match to see how quickly they start the next point... That's not
slow, it's fast. Keeps the crowds in it. And of course there was a
serve, a groundstroke and a volley in virtually every point. And a lot
of smashes to. Today, we only have a serve, a return, possibly some
back and forth groundstrokes and an unforced error. Not nearly as much
variety.

[Whisper]

Links?

McEnroe, Laver & Roche were all better volleyers than Edberg.