Jonas Björkman's take on this so-called "clown era" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Jonas Björkman's take on this so-called "clown era"

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:04 PM
In this clip (http://www.svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/player.jsp?d=22046&a=930847), aired in Sweden prior to the start of the Stockholm Open, the discussion touches upon the so-called "clown era" toward the end of the it. First, at around 10:45, Maria Strandlund-Tomsvik says (freely translated from Swedish): "The competition is so much tougher now than a few years ago. It's become more professional." The moderator then asks Björkman: "Jonas, how do you perceive this difference - being a top player back then as opposed to now?" Björkman replies: "There's a big difference. It could sound strange... I'm ranked maybe around 55th today and I'm a much, much... MUCH better tennis player today than I was in 1997 when I was ranked 4th. This is because the tennis has evolved so much."

Don't even bother responding - we all already know the answer: Björkman is a mug! Yeah, right! :retard:

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 10:05 PM
MUG ;)

It's more competitive, but less quality.

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:07 PM
MUG ;)

It's more competitive, but less quality.

So Björkman feels he's a much better player, yet is ranked some fifty places lower, because the quality is lower? Yeah, makes sense to me too!:silly: :rolleyes:

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 10:10 PM
So Björkman feels he's a much better player, yet is ranked some fifty places lower, because the quality is lower? Yeah, makes sense to me too!:silly: :rolleyes:

I don't think he's better now, he was better in 1997 when he played Rusedski in New York.

tangerine_dream
10-14-2007, 10:11 PM
KaxMisha is a mug. :retard:

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:12 PM
I don't think he's better now, he was better in 1997 when he played Rusedski in New York.

I don't remember his 1997 level clearly enough to judge that (I was just 12 back then), but surely, he has no reason saying he's better now if that is not the case? I mean, what's in it for him? Why would he lie about that?

NYCtennisfan
10-14-2007, 10:14 PM
Anyone who has watched the game over the past 20 years would agree with Jonas. The athleticism of the players has improved so much it's unbelieveable. Watch tennis from the mid 80's--one good FH and the point was practically over on non-clay surfaces. Now, a player can hit 3 or 4 huge FH's and still lose the point because of the athletic level of the players. This is just one tiny part of the whole but it's just an illustration. Agassi has also said more or less what Jonas says and his career spanned through many generations of greats.

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:14 PM
KaxMisha is a mug. :retard:

Oh... oh! The retard who has never presented anything close to a logical argument (and fails to do so yet again) calls me a mug! Oh! I care so much! :sad: Seriously, present an argument or shut the fuck up, fangirl. :smash:

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 10:15 PM
I don't remember his 1997 level clearly enough to judge that (I was just 12 back then), but surely, he has no reason saying he's better now if that is not the case? I mean, what's in it for him? Why would he lie about that?

When the likes of Boredo make it to 5 in the world you know this is a clown era.

Federer is not being tested and pisses through every non-clay tourney he plays in. Players with the games to bother him choke.

CLOWN ERA.

adee-gee
10-14-2007, 10:16 PM
Mug.

tangerine_dream
10-14-2007, 10:17 PM
Oh... oh! The retard who has never presented anything close to a logical argument (and fails to do so yet again) calls me a mug! Oh! I care so much! :sad: Seriously, present an argument or shut the fuck up, fangirl. :smash:
I save my good arguments for intelligent people not for mugs like you. :D

Deboogle!.
10-14-2007, 10:17 PM
Thanks, interesting stuff :)

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:17 PM
Anyone who has watched the game over the past 20 years would agree with Jonas. The athleticism of the players has improved so much it's unbelieveable. Watch tennis from the mid 80's--one good FH and the point was practically over on non-clay surfaces. Now, a player can hit 3 or 4 huge FH's and still lose the point because of the athletic level of the players. This is just one tiny part of the whole but it's just an illustration. Agassi has also said more or less what Jonas says and his career spanned through many generations of greats.

If you say he's right, that's good enough for me. I'd rather trust your judgement on this than anyone else's on MTF, seeing as I cannot really judge for myself (unless I go through a rediculous amount of nineties matches now, which I don't have the time to do). So if this should be so obvious, why are we hearing these "clown era" allegations? Is it only because there are few multiple slam winners? One would think people should realize this is a practical impossibility if two guys devide them all up between themselves...

scoobs
10-14-2007, 10:18 PM
Is "mug" the new word used to close down any argument without needing to actually debate the issue using logic?

It's already old....

Johnny Groove
10-14-2007, 10:19 PM
When the likes of Boredo make it to 5 in the world you know this is a clown era.

Federer is not being tested and pisses through every non-clay tourney he plays in. Players with the games to bother him choke.

CLOWN ERA.

This isnt about who is ranked where and how easy Federer strolls through tourneys.

This is about the overall improvement in the game from then compared to now. NYC illustrated how much stronger, athletic and more physical the game has become.

For example. Rod Laver was 5'8. Could he have done all he did at such at height nowadays?

goldenlox
10-14-2007, 10:19 PM
The Wimbledon final looked high quality to me.
I don't think this group is mentally tough, after the top 3. You have the same winners of every major year after year.
That never happened in mens tennis.

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:19 PM
When the likes of Boredo make it to 5 in the world you know this is a clown era.

Federer is not being tested and pisses through every non-clay tourney he plays in. Players with the games to bother him choke.

CLOWN ERA.

Sadly, I still see no logical argument there. Brad Gilbert made it to 4 in the world, I think (too lazy to check), and his game was nowhere near as good as Robredo's from what I've seen.

TMJordan
10-14-2007, 10:20 PM
Oh... oh! The retard who has never presented anything close to a logical argument (and fails to do so yet again) calls me a mug! Oh! I care so much! :sad: Seriously, present an argument or shut the fuck up, fangirl. :smash:

:worship:

TMJordan
10-14-2007, 10:21 PM
Is "mug" the new word used to close down any argument without needing to actually debate the issue using logic?

It's already old....

Stop talking like a mug.

trixtah
10-14-2007, 10:22 PM
Anyone who has watched the game over the past 20 years would agree with Jonas. The athleticism of the players has improved so much it's unbelieveable. Watch tennis from the mid 80's--one good FH and the point was practically over on non-clay surfaces. Now, a player can hit 3 or 4 huge FH's and still lose the point because of the athletic level of the players. This is just one tiny part of the whole but it's just an illustration. Agassi has also said more or less what Jonas says and his career spanned through many generations of greats.

NYC has it all correct. And to pose a question--how many people in this forum actually play tennis that they have the ability to call anyone in the top 100 a clown? Record yourself playing and it will be a humbling experience, I guarantee you. You can self rate yourself all you want but play a pro--hell, even play a national 16 and under champion and you will be served up a bagel. Even though we can say Donald Young sucks until our lips go dry, he is still an extremely good player.

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 10:23 PM
Sadly, I still see no logical argument there. Brad Gilbert made it to 4 in the world, I think (too lazy to check), and his game was nowhere near as good as Robredo's from what I've seen.

At least Gilbert could actually win matches instead of relying on opponents to lose them (Boredo).

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:23 PM
I save my good arguments for intelligent people not for mugs like you. :D

So I'm not inelligent and you are, huh? Okay... So what's you're take on Roll's critique of the CAPM? Do you side with him and Fama-French (among others), or do you think that Fischer Black's CAPM, where the risk-free rate is replaced with a zero-beta portfolio actually is a good model for the financial markets, as Black argued later (after all the BMS effect of the Fama-French model disappeared after it was discovered). Also, could you explain to me why Merton's ICAPM isn't used more? To me, it makes perfect sense. What am I missing, oh intelligent one?

Montego
10-14-2007, 10:24 PM
Mug has become the most stupid word recently. Just like "choker" or "fix" earlier. Thankfully, only some here use this word, but they do it with such big frequency that it's annoying. This is getting stupid and please sum my post up with the word "mug", I am waiting for it.

In my opinion "mug" is a "mug word".

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 10:24 PM
Is "mug" the new word used to close down any argument without needing to actually debate the issue using logic?

It's already old....

WTA critic-hating mug.

scoobs
10-14-2007, 10:25 PM
Mug has become the most stupid word recently. Just like "choker" or "fix" earlier. Thankfully, only some here use this word, but they do it with such big frequency that it's annoying. This is getting stupid and please sum my post up with the word "mug", I am waiting for it.

In my opinion "mug" is a "mug word".
Just the usual swings and roundabouts in the playground.

Jaap
10-14-2007, 10:25 PM
Mug thread IMO.

scoobs
10-14-2007, 10:25 PM
WTA critic-hating mug.
Come with something better than that please.

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:26 PM
At least Gilbert could actually win matches instead of relying on opponents to lose them (Boredo).

Are you sure? Didn't Gilbert invent "winning ugly"? Also (touching a slightly different subject here), I don't see the point in all this Robredo bashing. I mean, to large extent, it's not based on anything. Robredo certainly is capable of hitting winners. He hit more of them than Safin when he beat him in RG a few years back. So what's next? Safin can't hit winners either?

TMJordan
10-14-2007, 10:26 PM
At least Gilbert could actually win matches instead of relying on opponents to lose them (Boredo).

Did you ever happen to catch a Lendl/Gilbert match?

World Beater
10-14-2007, 10:26 PM
If you say he's right, that's good enough for me. I'd rather trust your judgement on this than anyone else's on MTF, seeing as I cannot really judge for myself (unless I go through a rediculous amount of nineties matches now, which I don't have the time to do). So if this should be so obvious, why are we hearing these "clown era" allegations? Is it only because there are few multiple slam winners? One would think people should realize this is a practical impossibility if two guys devide them all up between themselves...

its an ego thing. "my time was better than your time"

why do you think sampras needs to denigrate the current level of competition at every opportunity? It reveals his own insecurities.

you dont hear laver or borg making such statements.

the conditions of today make a huge difference as well. In order to win, you have to be a much more complete player than in past when you could be a dirtballer or a fast court machine. Surfaces are more neutral and this forces players to be a "jack of all trades" type of player.

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:27 PM
Thanks, interesting stuff :)

Thank you! :hatoff:

World Beater
10-14-2007, 10:28 PM
At least Gilbert could actually win matches instead of relying on opponents to lose them (Boredo).

:spit:

KaxMisha
10-14-2007, 10:29 PM
its an ego thing. "my time was better than your time"

why do you think sampras needs to denigrate the current level of competition at every opportunity? It reveals his own insecurities.

you dont hear laver or borg making such statements.

the conditions of today make a huge difference as well. In order to win, you have to be a much more complete player than in past when you could be a dirtballer or a fast court machine. Surfaces are more neutral and this forces players to be a "jack of all trades" type of player.

Thanks for your input! I certainly understand why Sampras goes on and on about it, but why do most posters here? :confused:

guga2120
10-14-2007, 10:32 PM
its an ego thing. "my time was better than your time"

why do you think sampras needs to denigrate the current level of competition at every opportunity? It reveals his own insecurities.

you dont hear laver or borg making such statements.

the conditions of today make a huge difference as well. In order to win, you have to be a much more complete player than in past when you could be a dirtballer or a fast court machine. Surfaces are more neutral and this forces players to be a "jack of all trades" type of player.

Very true, Sampras says that b/c for a few years now people have said Roger is the greatest ever. Roger is a much more complete player than Sampras ever was.

adee-gee
10-14-2007, 10:34 PM
Is "mug" the new word used to close down any argument without needing to actually debate the issue using logic?

It's already old....

Mug is the new Pics :rocker2:

TMJordan
10-14-2007, 10:35 PM
Mug is the new Pics :rocker2:

Mug > Pics

scoobs
10-14-2007, 10:36 PM
Mug is the new Pics :rocker2:
Suddenly the off-season and no tennis boards seems warm and inviting...

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 10:40 PM
Did you ever happen to catch a Lendl/Gilbert match?

Before my time but I've seen a bit of Gilbert on tapes and Lendl just owned him.

TMJordan
10-14-2007, 10:42 PM
Before my time but I've seen a bit of Gilbert on tapes and Lendl just owned him.

Same with me, looking at the H2H seems like a nice rivalry :p

neenah
10-14-2007, 10:43 PM
Mug is the new Pics :rocker2:

Don't bring Pics into this Mug talk. :mad: :o

stebs
10-14-2007, 10:44 PM
At least Gilbert could actually win matches instead of relying on opponents to lose them (Boredo).

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know so little about tennis it's unreal but even more than that you try to pretend you do know about it.

World Beater
10-14-2007, 10:44 PM
Very true, Sampras says that b/c for a few years now people have said Roger is the greatest ever. Roger is a much more complete player than Sampras ever was.

why do you think the comparisons is "federer Vs sampras on a fast grass court" ;)

but this still doesn't mean that federer is greater than pete. I think he's a better player but those are two different things.

World Beater
10-14-2007, 10:49 PM
Very true, Sampras says that b/c for a few years now people have said Roger is the greatest ever. Roger is a much more complete player than Sampras ever was.

why do you think the comparisons is "federer Vs sampras on a fast grass court" ;)

but this still doesn't mean that federer is greater than pete. I think he's a better player but those are two different things.

guga2120
10-14-2007, 10:51 PM
why do you think the comparisons is "federer Vs sampras on a fast grass court" ;)

but this still doesn't mean that federer is greater than pete. I think he's a better player but those are two different things.

Well he said that in saying that Roger only had 1 great player to deal with, and he,Pete had many.


They do always say who would win at Wimbledon, I have never heard who would win Federer vs Sampras on clay:confused:

Johnny Groove
10-14-2007, 10:56 PM
They do always say who would win at Wimbledon, I have never heard who would win Federer vs Sampras on clay:confused:

Because the answer is obvious. Federer would be Sampras 99/100 times on clay, and even on hard courts, he'd have a massive advantage

Eden
10-14-2007, 10:57 PM
Thanks for your input! I certainly understand why Sampras goes on and on about it, but why do most posters here? :confused:

Why do you think it is important what people in front of the PC think about the current generation of players?

I would rather listen to the players themselves. They are the ones who can make a statement about the competition.

Therefore thanks a lot for sharing Jonas' opinion :)

scoobs
10-14-2007, 10:58 PM
Why do you think it is important what people in front of the PC think about the current generation of players?

I would rather listen to the players themselves. They are the ones who can make a statement about the competition.

Therefore thanks a lot for sharing Jonas' opinion :)
Word.

rocketassist
10-14-2007, 11:03 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know so little about tennis it's unreal but even more than that you try to pretend you do know about it.

You're the one that's openly admitted to taking drugs, so it's rich of you to say I'm clueless.

stebs
10-14-2007, 11:13 PM
You're the one that's openly admitted to taking drugs, so it's rich of you to say I'm clueless.

:lol: You are clueless about tennis history and what I've done has nothing to do with that. I may smoke once a month but it doesn't mean I don't know more than you about tennis and you are looking more and more foolish with each passing post.

Gilbert got to #4 by beating his opponents whilst Robredo wins ugly huh? I don't have a problem with people who are knew to the game but if it's the case at least be honest instead of trying to blag knowledge that you don't have.

trixtah
10-14-2007, 11:13 PM
Why do you think it is important what people in front of the PC think about the current generation of players?

I would rather listen to the players themselves. They are the ones who can make a statement about the competition.

Therefore thanks a lot for sharing Jonas' opinion :)

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: so sick of all this bullshit "clown era" talk

GlennMirnyi
10-14-2007, 11:38 PM
So Björkman feels he's a much better player, yet is ranked some fifty places lower, because the quality is lower? Yeah, makes sense to me too!:silly: :rolleyes:

It's all about physical condition nowadays.

When the likes of Boredo make it to 5 in the world you know this is a clown era.

Federer is not being tested and pisses through every non-clay tourney he plays in. Players with the games to bother him choke.

CLOWN ERA.

True.

This isnt about who is ranked where and how easy Federer strolls through tourneys.

This is about the overall improvement in the game from then compared to now. NYC illustrated how much stronger, athletic and more physical the game has become.

For example. Rod Laver was 5'8. Could he have done all he did at such at height nowadays?

This just means everybody is fitter and stronger nowadays. Doesn't mean they are better players.

Stop talking like a mug.

Impossible. You're talking to scoobsmug.

Why do you think it is important what people in front of the PC think about the current generation of players?

I would rather listen to the players themselves. They are the ones who can make a statement about the competition.

Therefore thanks a lot for sharing Jonas' opinion :)

So you can't make your own observation on the issue? :rolleyes:

trixtah
10-14-2007, 11:48 PM
So you can't make your own observation on the issue? :rolleyes:

What Eden is saying (translation for retards like you) is that they would rather listen to a former professional/current professional comment than amateurs (like you) who know practically nothing about the game and have likely never even played college ball (you again).

Merton
10-14-2007, 11:52 PM
Anyone who has watched the game over the past 20 years would agree with Jonas. The athleticism of the players has improved so much it's unbelieveable. Watch tennis from the mid 80's--one good FH and the point was practically over on non-clay surfaces. Now, a player can hit 3 or 4 huge FH's and still lose the point because of the athletic level of the players. This is just one tiny part of the whole but it's just an illustration. Agassi has also said more or less what Jonas says and his career spanned through many generations of greats.

Completely agree, I think Lendl also mentioned something similar about the evolution of the game, something like his inside-out forehand would have much less of an effect now than during his days.

GlennMirnyi
10-14-2007, 11:53 PM
What Eden is saying (translation for retards like you) is that they would rather listen to a former professional/current professional comment than amateurs (like you) who know practically nothing about the game and have likely never even played college ball (you again).

Hwang-Kong Yun, nobody called you here, idiot mug. Learn not to put your nose where you aren't called, pos.

Go back to your counter at China In Box.

trixtah
10-14-2007, 11:54 PM
Hwang-Kong Yun, nobody called you here, idiot mug. Learn not to put your nose where you aren't called, pos.

Go back to your counter at China In Box.

Right on cue, the amateur 3.0 shows up. Cry more please (you try too hard). You need a few more jokes that are actually funny (and that you didn't cop from someone else's thread). Saaaaad state South America's sense of humor is.

Merton
10-14-2007, 11:54 PM
Thanks for the thread, btw.

Merton
10-15-2007, 12:05 AM
So I'm not inelligent and you are, huh? Okay... So what's you're take on Roll's critique of the CAPM? Do you side with him and Fama-French (among others), or do you think that Fischer Black's CAPM, where the risk-free rate is replaced with a zero-beta portfolio actually is a good model for the financial markets, as Black argued later (after all the BMS effect of the Fama-French model disappeared after it was discovered). Also, could you explain to me why Merton's ICAPM isn't used more? To me, it makes perfect sense. What am I missing, oh intelligent one?

I will only make a comment on the last part, I think it is not accurate to say "Merton's ICAPM is not used". First, the emergence of the factor on intertemporal demand for hedging in the continuous time framework, as opposed to discreet time, has profoundly affected the literature. Second, it influenced profoundly the asset pricing literature by introducing a multifactor model, being the precursor of linear multifactor models, as opposed to the one-factor CAPM. Third, it was the precursor of General Equilibrium asset pricing models in continuous time, most notably the CIR model (Cox, Ingersoll, Ross).

KaxMisha
10-15-2007, 12:08 AM
Why do you think it is important what people in front of the PC think about the current generation of players?
I don't care, but I find it interesting that it is basically an axiom here on MTF that we are currently in a clown era when there is nothing to base this on.

I would rather listen to the players themselves. They are the ones who can make a statement about the competition.
So would I! ;)

Therefore thanks a lot for sharing Jonas' opinion :)
You're welcome! :)

KaxMisha
10-15-2007, 12:16 AM
I will only make a comment on the last part, I think it is not accurate to say "Merton's ICAPM is not used". First, the emergence of the factor on intertemporal demand for hedging in the continuous time framework, as opposed to discreet time, has profoundly affected the literature. Second, it influenced profoundly the asset pricing literature by introducing a multifactor model, being the precursor of linear multifactor models, as opposed to the one-factor CAPM. Third, it was the precursor of General Equilibrium asset pricing models in continuous time, most notably the CIR model (Cox, Ingersoll, Ross).

Thanks very much for your input on this! :hatoff: This is an issue that really interests me. Thank you for enlightening me on this matter. While you make a very good point showing that the model has had a great influence on finance as a science (and that my wording - "is not used" - may have been to harsh), isn't it true that most practitioners today use the Fama-French model? This makes very little sense to me, as there basically is consensus that the SMB factor basically disappeared when it was discovered, right? Again, thanks for your input! :worship:

P.S. If you wish to reply to this (and I certainly hope you do!), do you think that maybe you could PM me? I don't want to derail this thread! :)

EDIT: I checked my wording and what I catually wrote was "Also, could you explain to me why Merton's ICAPM isn't used more?", so I never said it is not used at all. Sorry, this isn't really relevant. I still very much value your take on this, because it is an issue that puzzles me.

Stensland
10-15-2007, 12:25 AM
björkman is right. i love tennis in this era WAY more than back in the days where top ten players could reach top spots by just using slice on their backhand.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 12:28 AM
björkman is right. i love tennis in this era WAY more than back in the days where top ten players could reach top spots by just using slice on their backhand.

Today players can't even hit slices.

Snowwy
10-15-2007, 12:31 AM
When the likes of Boredo make it to 5 in the world you know this is a clown era.

I guess ever era is a clown era, cuz theres not an era he wouldnt have. When Muster was number 1, you cant tell me, he was better than Robredo so if Tommy had played then, hed have been number 1.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 12:35 AM
I guess ever era is a clown era, cuz theres not an era he wouldnt have. When Muster was number 1, you cant tell me, he was better than Robredo so if Tommy had played then, hed have been number 1.

Now you're just talking crazy man.

Merton
10-15-2007, 12:38 AM
Thanks very much for your input on this! :hatoff: This is an issue that really interests me. Thank you for enlightening me on this matter. While you make a very good point showing that the model has had a great influence on finance as a science (and that my wording - "is not used" - may have been to harsh), isn't it true that most practitioners today use the Fama-French model? This makes very little sense to me, as there basically is consensus that the SMB factor basically disappeared when it was discovered, right? Again, thanks for your input! :worship:

P.S. If you wish to reply to this (and I certainly hope you do!), do you think that maybe you could PM me? I don't want to derail this thread! :)

EDIT: I checked my wording and what I catually wrote was "Also, could you explain to me why Merton's ICAPM isn't used more?", so I never said it is not used at all. Sorry, this isn't really relevant. I still very much value your take on this, because it is an issue that puzzles me.

Sure mate, check your PM.

Merton
10-15-2007, 12:44 AM
I hate to spoil the fun here but it is useful to point out that the general improvement in athletic and defensive skills that characterizes the current era is not related to issues like tennis technique on stroke production, for example JMac was a supreme volleyer, but Robredo would easily win against him if he played today.

The evolution of the game makes it really impossible to compare players from different eras in any serious matter, even though it is admittedly a fan thing to do.

Aphex
10-15-2007, 01:06 AM
The "hide behind your big serve" clown era at the second half of the 90s sucked a**. Why do you think the tennis powers introduced slower surfaces and heavierer balls?

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 01:10 AM
The "hide behind your big serve" clown era at the second half of the 90s sucked a**. Why do you think the tennis powers introduced slower surfaces and heavierer balls?

To make tennis the land of mediocre moonballers and clowns who can't slice or volley?

NYCtennisfan
10-15-2007, 01:32 AM
Good posts Merton and WB. Merton, you are indeed correct about what Lendl said. In fact, he mentioned that he would have to go about winning matches in a completely different manner.

People should just watch a few YouTube clips from the old days to get an idea about the speed, size, and athleticism difference between today's game and the past's. Now, there are exceptions in the past who are just as athletic, big, strong, fast, etc. but when you talk about the OVERALL tour, the difference is unmistakeable. Walking around the practice courts at this year's USO compared with walking around the practice courts at the '87 USO is almost like watching players practice two different sports.

World Beater
10-15-2007, 02:10 AM
i'm not sure why robredo gets so much flak. I mean really, is there a huge difference between him and corretja. I find robredo to be a better more offensive player than corretja :tape:

robredo has a pretty nice fh ( can hit the flat + spin ), and a solid steady bh. He plays well from the baseline...predictable but well. He's more exciting for me that corretja and this is "boredo" we are talking about.

Anyways, just to reinforce what ppl have already said I find the biggest differences mainly in two facets of the game. 1)Athleticism 2)The spin and variety of the shots.

You have to be an incredible athlete + good tennis player to succeed today. You cannot be outright offense or outright defense and expect to be at the top. You have to do both well. Players like krajicek, rusedski and goran ivanesivic would be lucky to be as successful as ancic in this generation. Players like mantilla would probably not be as successful as ferrer.

The 90's featured a lot of players who could hit predominantly flat(+slice) and many who could hit with spin. But very few that could do both. This generation features more players that can do both with federer being the ultimate example. I'm not sure how many ppl notice but nadal changes his grip slightly from the clay courts. He hits a far less extreme western fh on HC and grass. On clay he goes straight up with his swing but on faster courts, he goes across and over the other shoulder more frequently.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 02:22 AM
i'm not sure why robredo gets so much flak. I mean really, is there a huge difference between him and corretja. I find robredo to be a better more offensive player than corretja :tape:

robredo has a pretty nice fh ( can hit the flat + spin ), and a solid steady bh. He plays well from the baseline...predictable but well. He's more exciting for me that corretja and this is "boredo" we are talking about.

Anyways, just to reinforce what ppl have already said I find the biggest differences mainly in two facets of the game. 1)Athleticism 2)The spin and variety of the shots.

You have to be an incredible athlete + good tennis player to succeed today. You cannot be outright offense or outright defense and expect to be at the top. You have to do both well. Players like krajicek, rusedski and goran ivanesivic would be lucky to be as successful as ancic in this generation. Players like mantilla would probably not be as successful as ferrer.

The 90's featured a lot of players who could hit predominantly flat(+slice) and many who could hit with spin. But very few that could do both. This generation features more players that can do both with federer being the ultimate example. I'm not sure how many ppl notice but nadal changes his grip slightly from the clay courts. He hits a far less extreme western fh on HC and grass. On clay he goes straight up with his swing but on faster courts, he goes across and over the other shoulder more frequently.

Boredo can hit flat? WTF are you smoking man?!?!?!?!?!

About the last paragraph, it's not worth commenting. Nadal can't hit flat. You're smoking something heavy.

Action Jackson
10-15-2007, 02:49 AM
Boredo better than Gilbert, just BG made the absolute most of his talent and his best shot was the junk ball.

Action Jackson
10-15-2007, 02:51 AM
i'm not sure why robredo gets so much flak. I mean really, is there a huge difference between him and corretja. I find robredo to be a better more offensive player than corretja :tape:
.

Corretja was a much better player.

World Beater
10-15-2007, 03:31 AM
Corretja was a much better player.

correjta will be remembered as better as per his achievements. But skills-wise we will have to disagree.

Action Jackson
10-15-2007, 03:35 AM
correjta will be remembered as better as per his achievements. But skills-wise we will have to disagree.

Ok, what does Boredo do better than Corretja? The only thing would be the forehand at best. He wasn't a better mover.

The backhand wasn't close, especially since when Corretja came on tour he only had a slice and then he developed one of the best topspin single handers at the time. Corretja was better at net than Boredo. Corretja's skills translated into success on other surfaces besides clay and not just in MM events.

Boredo isn't in the Corretja or Costa class when it comes to skills, he'd be in between them and Mantilla.

World Beater
10-15-2007, 03:36 AM
Boredo can hit flat? WTF are you smoking man?!?!?!?!?!
.

watch some more tennis. you may learn something. He has the ability to hit flat but doesn't always and it depends on the circumstances.


About the last paragraph, it's not worth commenting. Nadal can't hit flat. You're smoking something heavy.

Nope. you are. if you actually read what i wrote, i never stated nadal hits flat balls but that he has modified his game that he doesnt need to moonball to win matches on faster surfaces. But of course, the only thing you associate with nadal is moonballing, so...lets just leave it.

World Beater
10-15-2007, 03:46 AM
Ok, what does Boredo do better than Corretja? The only thing would be the forehand at best. He wasn't a better mover.

The backhand wasn't close, especially since when Corretja came on tour he only had a slice and then he developed one of the best topspin single handers at the time. Corretja was better at net than Boredo. Corretja's skills translated into success on other surfaces besides clay and not just in MM events.

Boredo isn't in the Corretja or Costa class when it comes to skills, he'd be in between them and Mantilla.

movment is debatable. But i wont say robredo was better but perhaps equal - robredo is fast. corretja has better skills at net - true. I'm not all that impressed with corretja's single hander and it wasnt better than costa's and is not in the league of gaudio or kuerten. I found corretja to be a dull player style-wise and robredo to be more offensive. I find it more suprising that some find nadal dull given mantilla and correjta are far more boredom inducing (this is for Glenn). Even federer has commented than robredo has a nice fh and the pace at which he could hit it suprised him.

corretja achieved more and thats why hell be remembered as better. Corretja played in an era of fast court machines where players serve-volleyed and corretja is better than robredo in this respect when it comes to playing against s/v. robredo's humiliating loss to rusedski signifies this best while corretja could beat sampras on grass.

Action Jackson
10-15-2007, 03:52 AM
movment is debatable. But i wont say robredo was better but perhaps equal - robredo is fast. corretja has better skills at net - true. I'm not all that impressed with corretja's single hander and it wasnt better than costa's and is not in the league of gaudio or kuerten. I found corretja to be a dull player style-wise and robredo to be more offensive. I find it more suprising that some find nadal dull given mantilla and correjta are far more boredom inducing (this is for Glenn). Even federer has commented than robredo has a nice fh and the pace at which he could hit it suprised him.


Robredo is far from slow, but I wouldn't say he is a better mover than Corretja. You fail to grasp where Corretja's backhand came from, it was a massive weakness therefore it wasn't going to match Costa, Guga or Gaudio. He could do a lot more with than Boredo on his best day. He could hit heavy, excellent on the pass and varied the style of it to the net rusher.

Corretja and Mantilla weren't dull, but each to their own. This is about skills and I have covered everything on this and the only thing Boredo has over Corretja would be the forehand.

corretja achieved more and thats why hell be remembered as better. Corretja played in an era of fast court machines where players serve-volleyed and corretja is better than robredo in this respect when it comes to playing against s/v. robredo's humiliating loss to rusedski signifies this best while corretja could beat sampras on grass.

Corretja was just better period.

TMJordan
10-15-2007, 04:06 AM
Corretja > Boredo

Simple as that.

Aphex
10-15-2007, 04:47 AM
To make tennis the land of mediocre moonballers and clowns who can't slice or volley? :lol: There are no moonballers anymore. Heavy topspin is not the same. Rg final 82 between Wilander and Vilas, now that was moonballing for real. The slice is back in style, at least defensive forehand :p . Volleying is not as it used to, I agree with you on that.

Action Jackson
10-15-2007, 04:49 AM
:lol: There are no moonballers anymore. Heavy topspin is not the same. Rg final 82 between Wilander and Vilas, now that was moonballing for real. The slice is back in style, at least defensive forehand :p . Volleying is not as it used to, I agree with you on that.

Mats even apologised to the crowd for boring them in that final. I have that match on DVD somewhere, that was some good moonballing with 3m net clearance.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 04:59 AM
watch some more tennis. you may learn something. He has the ability to hit flat but doesn't always and it depends on the circumstances.

Nope. you are. if you actually read what i wrote, i never stated nadal hits flat balls but that he has modified his game that he doesnt need to moonball to win matches on faster surfaces. But of course, the only thing you associate with nadal is moonballing, so...lets just leave it.

Boredo has no power mate, are you insane? This is a guy that uses all his power, all his body weight for the ball to bounce in the middle of the area between the serve and the baseline. I'm sure he'll develop a hernia trying to make it bounce close to the baseline.

Nadal modifies what? He moonballs just the same. You must be another of those mugs who actually believe he changes his game. Everytime he's in trouble he plays just like clay.

movment is debatable. But i wont say robredo was better but perhaps equal - robredo is fast. corretja has better skills at net - true. I'm not all that impressed with corretja's single hander and it wasnt better than costa's and is not in the league of gaudio or kuerten. I found corretja to be a dull player style-wise and robredo to be more offensive. I find it more suprising that some find nadal dull given mantilla and correjta are far more boredom inducing (this is for Glenn). Even federer has commented than robredo has a nice fh and the pace at which he could hit it suprised him.

corretja achieved more and thats why hell be remembered as better. Corretja played in an era of fast court machines where players serve-volleyed and corretja is better than robredo in this respect when it comes to playing against s/v. robredo's humiliating loss to rusedski signifies this best while corretja could beat sampras on grass.

Oh mate, I'm not discussin' with you anymore. Comparing Corretja to Boredo is straight out heresy and actually Corretja is far more talented than Nadal.

Aphex
10-15-2007, 05:23 AM
Mats even apologised to the crowd for boring them in that final. I have that match on DVD somewhere, that was some good moonballing with 3m net clearance.
Mats beat Vilas at Vilas' own game.:worship:

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 05:30 AM
:lol: There are no moonballers anymore. Heavy topspin is not the same. Rg final 82 between Wilander and Vilas, now that was moonballing for real. The slice is back in style, at least defensive forehand :p . Volleying is not as it used to, I agree with you on that.

Nadal = moonballer.

Grinders are just more powerful moonballers with better rackets, and tennis is constituted of about 70% of grinders.

Aphex
10-15-2007, 06:33 AM
Nadal = moonballer.

Grinders are just more powerful moonballers with better rackets, and tennis is constituted of about 70% of grinders. :lol: Hewitt moon-balls?

leng jai
10-15-2007, 09:35 AM
Comparing Corretja to Boredo is a farce. Corretja had one of the best single handers and had decent net play and also, a tennis brain.

DhammaTiger
10-15-2007, 10:24 AM
I have been watching tennis since the late sixties, and I must say that in my opinion tennis players are much better than the ones in the past generation. the athleticism, the range of shots has improved so much. As for those who disparage professional sports people it shows what their true nature is. They are not fans, they are poseurs. Sadly,there is no point in expecting a logical argument on G.M, except from very few posters. KaxMisha, you are brave to try and generate a good debate. Sadly, most posters on GM don't know what good tennis is. Thanks for posting Bjorkman's interview.

Gulliver
10-15-2007, 10:32 AM
I have been watching tennis since the late sixties, and I must say that in my opinion tennis players are much better than the ones in the past generation. the athleticism, the range of shots has improved so much. As for those who disparage professional sports people it shows what their true nature is. They are not fans, they are poseurs. Sadly,there is no point in expecting a logical argument on G.M, except from very few posters. KaxMisha, you are brave to try and generate a good debate. Sadly, most posters on GM don't know what good tennis is. Thanks for posting Bjorkman's interview.


:worship:

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 11:21 AM
:lol: Hewitt moon-balls?

So he hits flatter than Nadal. What's your point? It's just the same retriever-waiting for mistake kind of game all grinders play.

Apemant
10-15-2007, 12:29 PM
So he hits flatter than Nadal. What's your point? It's just the same retriever-waiting for mistake kind of game all grinders play.

It's a different philosophy of playing. Obviously you don't like it yourself, but that's just a matter of taste, isn't it? Some people go for winners, hit-or-miss tactics or sth, while other's number one rule is 'don't gift anything to your opponent'. Personally I thank the tennis gods that both strategies are viable and neither have a clear advantage over the other. That's what makes tennis great. Even grinding and counterpunching add dimensions to tennis.

If ALL matches looked like Federer-Sampras 2001 I sure would be bored to death. Great serving, yes, great touch at the net, deadly looking games - wonderful, but please, not the entire year. The same holds true for clay moonballing contests. Those endless rallies have their own charm, at least as far as I am concerned. You are entitled to feel disgusted by it, but it just means it doesn't appeal to your taste, nothing more.

rocketassist
10-15-2007, 12:41 PM
Gilbert was better at the net than Boredo. He also played in the era where wooden rackets evolved into metal ones.

The strongest era was the mid 1990s and still is. Sampras had great competition.

If Federer played mid 90s he'd have had to work an awful lot harder for his slams.

Boredo isn't the only mug to be ranked high, Massu the prick and Mugnacio Chela who have been in or close to top 10 in recent years wouldn't be top 30 in the 90s.

Chang, Ivanisevic, Henman, Philippoussis, Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Krajicek >>>>>>> Djokovic, Roddick, the PMK, Blake, Mugzalez, Boredo, Pics Ferrer.

The top 10 besides Fed/Nad now may be physically fitter, but not technically or mentally as good as the top players in the 90s.

stebs
10-15-2007, 01:33 PM
Gilbert was better at the net than Boredo. He also played in the era where wooden rackets evolved into metal ones.

The strongest era was the mid 1990s and still is. Sampras had great competition.

If Federer played mid 90s he'd have had to work an awful lot harder for his slams.

Boredo isn't the only mug to be ranked high, Massu the prick and Mugnacio Chela who have been in or close to top 10 in recent years wouldn't be top 30 in the 90s.

Chang, Ivanisevic, Henman, Philippoussis, Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Krajicek >>>>>>> Djokovic, Roddick, the PMK, Blake, Mugzalez, Boredo, Pics Ferrer.

The top 10 besides Fed/Nad now may be physically fitter, but not technically or mentally as good as the top players in the 90s.

Mentally we do have a lot of weak willed or 'choker' type players around although it is total BS for you to bring that up when you have guys like Ivanisevic and Henman in your list.

Technically it is frightening how much better almost all of the top 20 of today is than almost all of the top 20 ten years ago apart from volleys and slice which I agree are far worse now and it is a great shame.

stebs
10-15-2007, 01:36 PM
Top 5 of 1997 vs Top 5 of 2007

Federer is technically equal or better Sampras
Nadal is better than Chang
Djokovic, Davydenko and Roddick are certainly as good as Rafter, Ivanisevic and Rusedski

rocketassist
10-15-2007, 01:47 PM
I meant the rest after Nadal who with Fed is in a league of their own. PMK is, well, a PMK.

Ivanisevic did win Wimbledon it must be remembered and I don't think Henman was that bad a choker, it was the lack of a major shot/weapon that stopped him from slam glory rather than mental weakness (exceot in 2001 perhaps)

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 02:22 PM
Top 5 of 1997 vs Top 5 of 2007

Federer is technically equal or better Sampras
Nadal is better than Chang
Djokovic, Davydenko and Roddick are certainly as good as Rafter, Ivanisevic and Rusedski

Blasphemy. Rafter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fakervic, Rusedski > Davydenko and Ivanisevic >>>> Roddick.

Apemant
10-15-2007, 02:31 PM
Blasphemy. Rafter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fakervic, Rusedski > Davydenko and Ivanisevic >>>> Roddick.

C'mon, this is clearly not true.

Ivanisevic >> Roddick? In what tennis universe? I mean, Goran was a great guy, funny as hell, but truth be told, he was little above his booming serve. I'd say Roddick actually moves better and has better forehand, even if his volleys aren't as good (and Goran's weren't something to write home about as well, compared to Sampras for example). So there's no way you can say Goran is clearly above Andy. At best you can say they are about equal, although I'd actually give the edge to Roddick.

Rusedski over Davy? :confused: They are so different that any straight comparison makes no sense, but aside of great serve, there was little more to Greg. An inferior version of Roddick, I'd say. Davy is still active, on the other hand. There's no telling what future will bring.

Rafter >> Djokovic? Again, Rafter was an amazing net player, while Nole is a strong baseline player who is mediocre at the net, at best. So it warrants no comparison at all, again. Rafter did win 2 Grand Slams but I fully expect Nole to surpass him in every department. He's just 20 yr old for X's sake, how can you 'compare' him to someone whose career is over?

stebs
10-15-2007, 02:36 PM
I meant the rest after Nadal who with Fed is in a league of their own. PMK is, well, a PMK.

Ivanisevic did win Wimbledon it must be remembered and I don't think Henman was that bad a choker, it was the lack of a major shot/weapon that stopped him from slam glory rather than mental weakness (exceot in 2001 perhaps)

PMK certainly is a PMK but the problem is when people compare 'this era' to 'the 90's' of course it doesn't add up. People consider this era to be now and maybe a year or two each side, the 90's was a decade, of course it had a lot of great players. If you judge by decade and call the 200o's this era then you have Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Kafelnikov, Rafter and a bunch more of the guys you mentioned.

Yes Goran won Wimbledon but Roddick has won the USO and been #1 and overall done a lot more.

Henman WAS that bad a choker, I agree that really he wasn't quite good enough to win a slam anyway but he was a monster of a choker as well.

stebs
10-15-2007, 02:38 PM
Blasphemy. Rafter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fakervic, Rusedski > Davydenko and Ivanisevic >>>> Roddick.

Aesthetically Rafter was very pleasing to tennis purists like you and he is one of my favourite players to watch of all time. However, this doesn't mean you should overrated him and it is likely Djokovic will end up with as good or greater acheivements.

Roddick is clearly better than Rusedski and Ivanisevic despite how crowd pleasing the Croat was. Davydenko is also a level above Rusedski who was extremely lucky to reach a GS final when you consider how much worse he was than a load of guys who never did, Henman for one.

rocketassist
10-15-2007, 02:40 PM
C'mon, this is clearly not true.

Ivanisevic >> Roddick? In what tennis universe? I mean, Goran was a great guy, funny as hell, but truth be told, he was little above his booming serve. I'd say Roddick actually moves better and has better forehand, even if his volleys aren't as good (and Goran's weren't something to write home about as well, compared to Sampras for example). So there's no way you can say Goran is clearly above Andy. At best you can say they are about equal, although I'd actually give the edge to Roddick.

Rusedski over Davy? :confused: They are so different that any straight comparison makes no sense, but aside of great serve, there was little more to Greg. An inferior version of Roddick, I'd say. Davy is still active, on the other hand. There's no telling what future will bring.

Rafter >> Djokovic? Again, Rafter was an amazing net player, while Nole is a strong baseline player who is mediocre at the net, at best. So it warrants no comparison at all, again. Rafter did win 2 Grand Slams but I fully expect Nole to surpass him in every department. He's just 20 yr old for X's sake, how can you 'compare' him to someone whose career is over?


Greg could play at the net, Andy can't.

Greg's forehand was pretty good and he could win points with it.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 02:42 PM
C'mon, this is clearly not true.

Ivanisevic >> Roddick? In what tennis universe? I mean, Goran was a great guy, funny as hell, but truth be told, he was little above his booming serve. I'd say Roddick actually moves better and has better forehand, even if his volleys aren't as good (and Goran's weren't something to write home about as well, compared to Sampras for example). So there's no way you can say Goran is clearly above Andy. At best you can say they are about equal, although I'd actually give the edge to Roddick.

Rusedski over Davy? :confused: They are so different that any straight comparison makes no sense, but aside of great serve, there was little more to Greg. An inferior version of Roddick, I'd say. Davy is still active, on the other hand. There's no telling what future will bring.

Rafter >> Djokovic? Again, Rafter was an amazing net player, while Nole is a strong baseline player who is mediocre at the net, at best. So it warrants no comparison at all, again. Rafter did win 2 Grand Slams but I fully expect Nole to surpass him in every department. He's just 20 yr old for X's sake, how can you 'compare' him to someone whose career is over?

Roddick has no baseline game. Even Bogdanovic was outplaying him this year. Then it goes to the net, where Roddick can't escape embarassing himself. Also Goran played in a much stronger era, not against clowns like Ferrero and Nalbandian.

Ivanisevic won Wimbledon, the most prestigious slam, so...

Rusedski got to a slam final, Davydenko hasn't. No discussion here.

Rafter won a couple slams. Fakervic hasn't.

Add to that Rafter had more talent in his fingers than Fakervic has in his entire body.

stebs
10-15-2007, 02:46 PM
Roddick has no baseline game. Even Bogdanovic was outplaying him this year. Then it goes to the net, where Roddick can't escape embarassing himself. Also Goran played in a much stronger era, not against clowns like Ferrero and Nalbandian.

Ivanisevic won Wimbledon, the most prestigious slam, so...

Rusedski got to a slam final, Davydenko hasn't. No discussion here.

Rafter won a couple slams. Fakervic hasn't.

Add to that Rafter had more talent in his fingers than Fakervic has in his entire body.

See Glenn although everyone on here agrees that you have some pretty BS views about tennis you do have some legitimate points. However, it is psots like this where you make no sense at all:

You give Goran the edge over Roddick due to his game even though Roddick has greater acheivements overall.

You then switch things round to say Rusedski has achieved more than Davydenko which is why you give him the edge even though Davydenko is 10 times the player Rusedski ever was.

Then you compare the acheivements of a 20 year old who just reached his first GS final with those of a retired player.

rocketassist
10-15-2007, 03:04 PM
See Glenn although everyone on here agrees that you have some pretty BS views about tennis you do have some legitimate points. However, it is psots like this where you make no sense at all:

You give Goran the edge over Roddick due to his game even though Roddick has greater acheivements overall.

You then switch things round to say Rusedski has achieved more than Davydenko which is why you give him the edge even though Davydenko is 10 times the player Rusedski ever was.

Then you compare the acheivements of a 20 year old who just reached his first GS final with those of a retired player.

You are a bit contradictory in stating Roddick is better than Goran for achievements, then saying PMK is better than Rusedski, when Rusedski has achieved far more, reached a slam final and won more titles. he didn't play every week either.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 03:32 PM
See Glenn although everyone on here agrees that you have some pretty BS views about tennis you do have some legitimate points. However, it is psots like this where you make no sense at all:

You give Goran the edge over Roddick due to his game even though Roddick has greater acheivements overall.

You then switch things round to say Rusedski has achieved more than Davydenko which is why you give him the edge even though Davydenko is 10 times the player Rusedski ever was.

Then you compare the acheivements of a 20 year old who just reached his first GS final with those of a retired player.

I take Roddick-Goran to game because they have matching achievements: 1GS and finals.

About Rusedski-PMK, there's no need 'cause Rusedski's achievements are superior.

I compare, yeah, 'cause nobody guarantees Fakervic will win a GS, imagine a couple. Potential means nothing. Rios had potential to be a GS winner but went to history as a mug-choker.

stebs
10-15-2007, 03:43 PM
I take Roddick-Goran to game because they have matching achievements: 1GS and finals.

About Rusedski-PMK, there's no need 'cause Rusedski's achievements are superior.

I compare, yeah, 'cause nobody guarantees Fakervic will win a GS, imagine a couple. Potential means nothing. Rios had potential to be a GS winner but went to history as a mug-choker.

Roddick has better achievements than Goran but his ugly game obviously overshadows everything for you.

Yes Rios went down without great acheivements but don't judge Djoko until he has done as well. He isn't my favourite player either but that isn't the point and I am not arguing that Gaudio is greater than Agassi just because I prefer him. Djokovic is probable to equal Rafters achievements based on his record so far.

stebs
10-15-2007, 03:43 PM
Proof that Henman was a really bad choker:angel: :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45uMlGTb7U

One match does not a player make and Henman was a huge choker and 99% of his fans would agree with me as they will have seen the proof.

stebs
10-15-2007, 03:44 PM
You are a bit contradictory in stating Roddick is better than Goran for achievements, then saying PMK is better than Rusedski, when Rusedski has achieved far more, reached a slam final and won more titles. he didn't play every week either.

No, I was not using either as proof that they are greater I was just showing Glenn how he couldn't have it both ways.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2007, 03:45 PM
Roddick has better achievements than Goran but his ugly game obviously overshadows everything for you.

Yes Rios went down without great acheivements but don't judge Djoko until he has done as well. He isn't my favourite player either but that isn't the point and I am not arguing that Gaudio is greater than Agassi just because I prefer him. Djokovic is probable to equal Rafters achievements based on his record so far.

Better achievements? Like? Never won Wimbledon.

A huge maybe.

stebs
10-15-2007, 04:15 PM
Better achievements? Like? Never won Wimbledon.

A huge maybe.

Well for you who classes Wimbledon above everything else Goran was better but from an objective standpoint Roddick squeaks it:

Roddick - 1 slam 3 finals 4 semi's 4 AMS + #1 ranking

Goran - 1 slam 3 finals 2 semi's 2 AMS + #2 ranking

Apemant
10-15-2007, 04:30 PM
Greg could play at the net, Andy can't.

Greg's forehand was pretty good and he could win points with it.


First, yes, Andy doesn't have good volleys but it's been ridiculed beyond any reasonable measure. It's not that he never hit a good volley in his life, and besides, judging his volleys in this era is simply wrong. Do you see many other volleyers these days? And why not; because of the change in racquet technology and the slowing of surfaces, which naturally benefit those who are trying to hit a passing shot. No wonder he seems clumsy at the net. Even great volleyers like Mirnyi or Stepanek sometimes look clumsy at the net.

And Roddick FH is every bit as good as Greg's. It had his ups and downs but I seem to remember it being mentioned as extremely good once upon the time, back when he was #1 (something Greg couldn't have dreamed of).

Apemant
10-15-2007, 04:38 PM
Roddick has no baseline game. Even Bogdanovic was outplaying him this year. Then it goes to the net, where Roddick can't escape embarassing himself. Also Goran played in a much stronger era, not against clowns like Ferrero and Nalbandian.

When did you ever see Goran outplaying anyone from the baseline? He was going mostly for either serve winners (if he's on the serve) or he would try to crack an outright return winner. I don't remember him engaging into any sort of long baseline rally.

Bear in mind I liked Goran very much. It's just that I'm not overestimating his game, and he WAS #2 for long periods of those years when 'giants walked the ATP tour'.


Ivanisevic won Wimbledon, the most prestigious slam, so...

Rusedski got to a slam final, Davydenko hasn't. No discussion here.

Rafter won a couple slams. Fakervic hasn't.

Add to that Rafter had more talent in his fingers than Fakervic has in his entire body.

Add to the whole thing that you are essentially comparing achievements of retired players to those whose career isn't nearly finished, or, in the case of Nole, whose career has only just begun.

Wait 10 years, then give your assessment of their achievements.

Not to mention that I don't care about achievements alone. Nalbandian I consider to be hugely talented and I don't care one percent that he didn't win anything major (except that TMC title). In my eyes he is, talent-wise, head and shoulders above, for example, Rusedski. Too bad he couldn't devote himself more to tennis.

Aphex
10-15-2007, 05:28 PM
So he hits flatter than Nadal. What's your point? It's just the same retriever-waiting for mistake kind of game all grinders play. I was just giving you an example of a grinder who doesn't moonball since you said they all do. Then again I disagree with you on what moonballing is. :wavey:

zcess81
10-15-2007, 05:55 PM
In this clip (http://www.svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/player.jsp?d=22046&a=930847), aired in Sweden prior to the start of the Stockholm Open, the discussion touches upon the so-called "clown era" toward the end of the it. First, at around 10:45, Maria Strandlund-Tomsvik says (freely translated from Swedish): "The competition is so much tougher now than a few years ago. It's become more professional." The moderator then asks Björkman: "Jonas, how do you perceive this difference - being a top player back then as opposed to now?" Björkman replies: "There's a big difference. It could sound strange... I'm ranked maybe around 55th today and I'm a much, much... MUCH better tennis player today than I was in 1997 when I was ranked 4th. This is because the tennis has evolved so much."

Don't even bother responding - we all already know the answer: Björkman is a mug! Yeah, right! :retard:

You can't compare different eras like that. It's like saying Borg or Conors would have sucked now since the game has evolved. It is true that if Borg, Sampras, Conors played THE SAME STYLE today as they did back in their days the would not have been as good, maybe not even in top 30. However, all the players I mentioned are TRUE CHAMPIONS and they would have played different style NOW. Back then they played the way it was possible under the circumstances. But now we have different racket technology and different court surfaces, and yes the game has evolved, but that doesn't mean all those guys would not have been as great today. Great champions adapt to the changes in the game. Today's game is no more or less competitive that the game of the 90s, 80s, 60s etc and vice versa.

kulikuli
10-15-2007, 06:04 PM
When did you ever see Goran outplaying anyone from the baseline? He was going mostly for either serve winners (if he's on the serve) or he would try to crack an outright return winner. I don't remember him engaging into any sort of long baseline rally.

Bear in mind I liked Goran very much. It's just that I'm not overestimating his game, and he WAS #2 for long periods of those years when 'giants walked the ATP tour'.



Add to the whole thing that you are essentially comparing achievements of retired players to those whose career isn't nearly finished, or, in the case of Nole, whose career has only just begun.

Wait 10 years, then give your assessment of their achievements.

Not to mention that I don't care about achievements alone. Nalbandian I consider to be hugely talented and I don't care one percent that he didn't win anything major (except that TMC title). In my eyes he is, talent-wise, head and shoulders above, for example, Rusedski. Too bad he couldn't devote himself more to tennis.

But not head and shoulders above players like Pioline, Korda, Rios who didn't win much.
Mecir or Leconte are two other good examples from a few years earlier - oozing talent.
And Roddick's groundstrokes can't be that
good. He didn't get further than the 3rd round at the French, Ivanisevic made three quarters.

stebs
10-15-2007, 06:18 PM
The choker label is a fabrication by the British press.
No-one else in the world sees him as the male Novotna.

Choker label is well deserved and there are dozens of examples.

FedFan_2007
10-15-2007, 06:34 PM
Miryni is a MUG.

stebs
10-15-2007, 06:57 PM
What slam would he have won without choking?

When did I say that he would've won a slam had he not been a choker?

Pea
10-15-2007, 06:58 PM
I find robredo to be a better more offensive player than corretja :tape:

You obviously never saw him play on any surfaces other than clay.

rocketassist
10-15-2007, 07:14 PM
Somebody comparing Boredo with the class act Corretja, come on don't be ridiculous now.

DhammaTiger
10-15-2007, 10:32 PM
Why this bashing of Tommy Robredo? I cannot understand the hatred at all. Tommy has been top ten for more than a year ( I don't bother keeping track, so, I don't know how long) But the point is if he was not as good as some like to say, I don't think he would last in the top ten. now comparing Alex corretja and Tommy is very unfair. Alex, one of my most favourite players, played almost ten years ago and came from a different generation. Tommy plays now and has the optimum style for today. I just wonder what good is it doing us as tennis fans to bash certain players and compare them to past players. This is really absurd. Each player has his own style. As for the poseurs here who like to shout the loudest and drown out rational and logical argument by being abusive, I wonder how many points they will get off Tommy, if Tommy plays them with one hand tied behind his back.

rocketassist
10-15-2007, 11:03 PM
Why this bashing of Tommy Robredo? I cannot understand the hatred at all. Tommy has been top ten for more than a year ( I don't bother keeping track, so, I don't know how long) But the point is if he was not as good as some like to say, I don't think he would last in the top ten. now comparing Alex corretja and Tommy is very unfair. Alex, one of my most favourite players, played almost ten years ago and came from a different generation. Tommy plays now and has the optimum style for today. I just wonder what good is it doing us as tennis fans to bash certain players and compare them to past players. This is really absurd. Each player has his own style. As for the poseurs here who like to shout the loudest and drown out rational and logical argument by being abusive, I wonder how many points they will get off Tommy, if Tommy plays them with one hand tied behind his back.

I dislike him because of his gamesmanship and prick behaviour stemming from 2003 when he tried to put Costa off in RG, failed and was made to look like an idiot. When he went and pulled the stunt in Barcelona when 15-40 down serving for the title against Gaudio that really pissed me off.

He tried arsing around against Ancic in RG 2006 and got just desserts when Mario did the same to him and then knocked him out.

He's top ten with a very limited game. He rarely attacks, he runs down balls. His passing shots are okay, but that's really it. He's in the top 10 because of his mental toughness which is impressive. But the main reason is the talented players ranked below him are headcases and morons (Gasquet, Murray, Verdasco, Mugdatis, Safin, Fat Dave, the list goes on). The lack of clay court prowess is also a factor, as he can grind players down on that surface.

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2007, 12:56 AM
Well for you who classes Wimbledon above everything else Goran was better but from an objective standpoint Roddick squeaks it:

Roddick - 1 slam 3 finals 4 semi's 4 AMS + #1 ranking

Goran - 1 slam 3 finals 2 semi's 2 AMS + #2 ranking

Goran faced much better opposition.

When did you ever see Goran outplaying anyone from the baseline? He was going mostly for either serve winners (if he's on the serve) or he would try to crack an outright return winner. I don't remember him engaging into any sort of long baseline rally.

Bear in mind I liked Goran very much. It's just that I'm not overestimating his game, and he WAS #2 for long periods of those years when 'giants walked the ATP tour'.


Add to the whole thing that you are essentially comparing achievements of retired players to those whose career isn't nearly finished, or, in the case of Nole, whose career has only just begun.

Wait 10 years, then give your assessment of their achievements.

Not to mention that I don't care about achievements alone. Nalbandian I consider to be hugely talented and I don't care one percent that he didn't win anything major (except that TMC title). In my eyes he is, talent-wise, head and shoulders above, for example, Rusedski. Too bad he couldn't devote himself more to tennis.

Of course Goran couldn't outplay from the baseline, but he was much better than Roddick is at the net, even if he was a poor volleyer for the time.

Fakervic will have anything he conquers always tainted by the cheating he uses to win them.

I was just giving you an example of a grinder who doesn't moonball since you said they all do. Then again I disagree with you on what moonballing is. :wavey:

You got me wrong, mate. I meant to say that most players can only hit spin and moonball or push the ball. No variety at all.

Why this bashing of Tommy Robredo? I cannot understand the hatred at all. Tommy has been top ten for more than a year ( I don't bother keeping track, so, I don't know how long) But the point is if he was not as good as some like to say, I don't think he would last in the top ten. now comparing Alex corretja and Tommy is very unfair. Alex, one of my most favourite players, played almost ten years ago and came from a different generation. Tommy plays now and has the optimum style for today. I just wonder what good is it doing us as tennis fans to bash certain players and compare them to past players. This is really absurd. Each player has his own style. As for the poseurs here who like to shout the loudest and drown out rational and logical argument by being abusive, I wonder how many points they will get off Tommy, if Tommy plays them with one hand tied behind his back.

Boredo is a cheater, a clown and a mediocre player.

RagingLamb
10-16-2007, 01:03 AM
i'd like to know if Bjorkman plays the same schedule now as he did when he was no. 4.

I think he's full of it.

Johnny Groove
10-16-2007, 01:50 AM
i'd like to know if Bjorkman plays the same schedule now as he did when he was no. 4.

I think he's full of it.

Oh yes, Jonas Bjorkman, a 1000 yr veteran of the game is full of it :rolleyes:

Jonas' statements echo far and wide. Most people with a shred of decency and objectivity agree with him. Its undeniable that the game today is much deeper, more physically demanding, and more powerful than the game back in the day. You have to be solid everywhere, all shots, all surfraces to do well. If you are a headcase or have a mediocre shot? top 30 is all you'll get. 20 at the most. This is why someone like Lopez, with a nice game save his bh is where he is. Whereas in the 90's for example. a big serve and fh can win you a slam

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2007, 01:52 AM
Oh yes, Jonas Bjorkman, a 1000 yr veteran of the game is full of it :rolleyes:

Jonas' statements echo far and wide. Most people with a shred of decency and objectivity agree with him. Its undeniable that the game today is much deeper, more physically demanding, and more powerful than the game back in the day. You have to be solid everywhere, all shots, all surfraces to do well. If you are a headcase or have a mediocre shot? top 30 is all you'll get. 20 at the most. This is why someone like Lopez, with a nice game save his bh is where he is. Whereas in the 90's for example. a big serve and fh can win you a slam

Roddick won his GS in 2003. :rolleyes:

This post is pure :bs:

Johnny Groove
10-16-2007, 01:58 AM
Roddick won his GS in 2003. :rolleyes:

This post is pure :bs:

okay, im in a good mood, so im gonna humor you and give you one respone post. If you give me a bullshit answer like you usually do, i'm gone.

Okay, true, but since then, which slam winner has been one dimensional like that? Federer? Nadal? Safin? Gaudio?

The point is that the upper echelon of players have more than one weapon at their disposal. Federer isnt just a fh, Nadal and Djokovic can hurt you in more ways than one. Davydenko is solid everywhere. This is why Roddick in recent years has slipped. He doenst have as much variety as those guys. Especially th top 3. He got beat by Nadal down in IW, creamed by Fed everywhere, and Nole took him down in Montreal.

World Beater
10-16-2007, 01:59 AM
Ok, what does Boredo do better than Corretja? The only thing would be the forehand at best. He wasn't a better mover.

The backhand wasn't close, especially since when Corretja came on tour he only had a slice and then he developed one of the best topspin single handers at the time. Corretja was better at net than Boredo. Corretja's skills translated into success on other surfaces besides clay and not just in MM events.

Boredo isn't in the Corretja or Costa class when it comes to skills, he'd be in between them and Mantilla.

it might have been the best at the time, but comparing it to robredo's bh which is pretty good, i dont think it is far superior. corretja is far superior tactically but this does not have anything to do with their strokes per say.

also, it doesn't matter what you start with but what you finish with. I dont care that corretja improved his bh so much but merely the end result. I'm not here to compare results or achievements but skills. You said it yourself that robredo hits a better fh but his net skills are worse. There isn't much that corretja does significantly better than robredo. Robredo also isnt finished his career.

Part of the reason i bring up corretja and robredo is that i dont find one particularly more skilled than the other, yet robredo is some mug when he was far better off the ground than many players in the 90's.

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2007, 02:04 AM
okay, im in a good mood, so im gonna humor you and give you one respone post. If you give me a bullshit answer like you usually do, i'm gone.

Okay, true, but since then, which slam winner has been one dimensional like that? Federer? Nadal? Safin? Gaudio?

The point is that the upper echelon of players have more than one weapon at their disposal. Federer isnt just a fh, Nadal and Djokovic can hurt you in more ways than one. Davydenko is solid everywhere. This is why Roddick in recent years has slipped. He doenst have as much variety as those guys. Especially th top 3. He got beat by Nadal down in IW, creamed by Fed everywhere, and Nole took him down in Montreal.

Today players are all uni-dimensional. They all play just from the back and that's it. Players are more powerful? Yeah. More athletic? Yeah. It ends there, though. No ability whatsoever. That doesn't make the tour deeper at all.

Johnny Groove
10-16-2007, 02:07 AM
Today players are all uni-dimensional. They all play just from the back and that's it. Players are more powerful? Yeah. More athletic? Yeah. It ends there, though. No ability whatsoever. That doesn't make the tour deeper at all.

Just because they play from the back means they are all uni-dimensional? What about the 90's when half the tour matches were booming serve, occasional volley, missed pass, 15-0?

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2007, 02:18 AM
Just because they play from the back means they are all uni-dimensional? What about the 90's when half the tour matches were booming serve, occasional volley, missed pass, 15-0?

At that time there were many interesting matches between baseliners and net-players. Now... it's all back. Uni-dimensional.

caleb_123
10-16-2007, 02:28 AM
i can't believe some of you clowns think you know better then Bjorkman, if you think of pure tennis then you know he's right the players today are more powerful and able to adapt on different surfaces then the players in the last generation. He's played in both generation so his opinion is valued not armchair critis who's never played a professional match in their lives. Armchair critics are the one who are full of shit on this forum.

RagingLamb
10-16-2007, 03:00 AM
Oh yes, Jonas Bjorkman, a 1000 yr veteran of the game is full of it :rolleyes:

Jonas' statements echo far and wide. Most people with a shred of decency and objectivity agree with him. Its undeniable that the game today is much deeper, more physically demanding, and more powerful than the game back in the day. You have to be solid everywhere, all shots, all surfraces to do well. If you are a headcase or have a mediocre shot? top 30 is all you'll get. 20 at the most. This is why someone like Lopez, with a nice game save his bh is where he is. Whereas in the 90's for example. a big serve and fh can win you a slam

I appreciate you sharing your opinion.

But this is what I wanted to know, which is why I asked about his schedule;

Bjorkman says he's better now than he was back in the day, yet he's ranked lower. therefore today's tennis is better.

It could be that he plays far less today than before, which would explain the ranking.

The guy had played a handful of matches all year and got to the semi's of Wimbledon (matching his best GS result ever). If I give him all the credit for that, I'd like to know how he manages to get older, play less, and yet do better than he's ever done.

Or alternatively, I'd like to hear a better explanation for his results.

World Beater
10-16-2007, 03:17 AM
The guy had played a handful of matches all year and got to the semi's of Wimbledon (matching his best GS result ever). If I give him all the credit for that, I'd like to know how he manages to get older, play less, and yet do better than he's ever done.
Or alternatively, I'd like to hear a better explanation for his results.

its not uncommon with pros who continue to play into their mid 30's. Agassi, bjorkman are just two players who have become better players. What they lost athletically, they more than made up for in other departments.

Playing less allows them to conserve their body and post good results in the tournaments that really count. Agassi is an excellent example.

There are less than a handful of players who say that previous eras etc featured better players but more than a handful that think the current generation is the result of the continued evolution of the game.

Lendl, borg, laver, jmac have all commented on how the overall standard is higher than it used to be. Other players like rafter, ivanisevic, krajicek, rios, bruguera, agassi have commented similarly about the depth and gone further to suggest that those at the top are among the best ever in the sport.

The other side of the coin features mainly only two players i can recall(perhaps you could provide some more) - sampras and becker. Stich has said some things but contradicted himself at times. Lets throw in kafelnikov as well because he worshipped sampras so much.

More than anything bjorkman is saying something that has been said by many others.

Lillith
10-16-2007, 04:09 AM
Gilbert was better at the net than Boredo. He also played in the era where wooden rackets evolved into metal ones.

The strongest era was the mid 1990s and still is. Sampras had great competition.

If Federer played mid 90s he'd have had to work an awful lot harder for his slams.

Boredo isn't the only mug to be ranked high, Massu the prick and Mugnacio Chela who have been in or close to top 10 in recent years wouldn't be top 30 in the 90s.

Chang, Ivanisevic, Henman, Philippoussis, Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Krajicek >>>>>>> Djokovic, Roddick, the PMK, Blake, Mugzalez, Boredo, Pics Ferrer.

The top 10 besides Fed/Nad now may be physically fitter, but not technically or mentally as good as the top players in the 90s.


So says a 22 year old? Unfortunately, I've watched tennis longer than you've been alive, so I think I'll trust my own eyes instead. This era is at least as good as the 90s, but probably a little better. The late 70s into the mid to late 80s was the best era in men's modern tennis, bar none. To assert that the 90s was the strongest is very likely just Sampras fanboyism.

Bruguera? Really? Oy.

RagingLamb
10-16-2007, 04:37 AM
its not uncommon with pros who continue to play into their mid 30's. Agassi, bjorkman are just two players who have become better players. What they lost athletically, they more than made up for in other departments.

Playing less allows them to conserve their body and post good results in the tournaments that really count. Agassi is an excellent example.

There are less than a handful of players who say that previous eras etc featured better players but more than a handful that think the current generation is the result of the continued evolution of the game.

Lendl, borg, laver, jmac have all commented on how the overall standard is higher than it used to be. Other players like rafter, ivanisevic, krajicek, rios, bruguera, agassi have commented similarly about the depth and gone further to suggest that those at the top are among the best ever in the sport.

The other side of the coin features mainly only two players i can recall(perhaps you could provide some more) - sampras and becker. Stich has said some things but contradicted himself at times. Lets throw in kafelnikov as well because he worshipped sampras so much.

More than anything bjorkman is saying something that has been said by many others.

That's a good response, and I agree that Agassi and Bjorkman maybe good examples, but I wonder if they represent what is generally true or whether they are exceptions to to the rule.

I know what current and past players have said about this and the previous era. And like everyone I have my opinions.

But this time, I am interested specifically in Bjorkman and his comment on being a better player today.

I have doubts about him being better. Although I can appreciate what Agassi did, I don't think Bjorkman is a similar case.

Action Jackson
10-16-2007, 05:05 AM
Mats beat Vilas at Vilas' own game.:worship:

I was watching Agassi vs. Mancini the Rome final 1989 and it was funny watching Agassi hitting some big backhand moonballs, especially with the mullet hairstyle.

Action Jackson
10-16-2007, 05:12 AM
it might have been the best at the time, but comparing it to robredo's bh which is pretty good, i dont think it is far superior. corretja is far superior tactically but this does not have anything to do with their strokes per say.

also, it doesn't matter what you start with but what you finish with. I dont care that corretja improved his bh so much but merely the end result. I'm not here to compare results or achievements but skills. You said it yourself that robredo hits a better fh but his net skills are worse. There isn't much that corretja does significantly better than robredo. Robredo also isnt finished his career.

Part of the reason i bring up corretja and robredo is that i dont find one particularly more skilled than the other, yet robredo is some mug when he was far better off the ground than many players in the 90's.

All I said was that Boredo might have a better forehand than Corretja nothing else. You are kidding really to compare those two.

Every other overall facet Corretja was better backhand, movement the net game, tactical sense, he played better against serve/volleyers, he was able with his game to win good titles on other surfaces but clay, using his superior variety of skills to do that.

The end result Corretja's backhand was a strength and Boredo's isn't.

leng jai
10-16-2007, 05:31 AM
Corretja's backhand was a thing of beauty and is what got him the to two French Open finals. He could hit with heavy spin or flatten it out cross court or down the line with equal ease. He also had superb disguise and you couldn't tell whether he was going down the line or cross court until the last minute. His slice backhand was awesome and the little dipper to incoming volleyer's was a gem. To compare it to Boredo's journeymen backhand is a travesty. Don't tell Alex you think Boredo's backhand is as good as his while hes eating or he'll show this forum a real choke.

Action Jackson
10-16-2007, 05:36 AM
Corretja's backhand was a thing of beauty and is what got him the to two French Open finals. He could hit with heavy spin or flatten it out cross court or down the line with equal ease. He also had superb disguise and you couldn't tell whether he was going down the line or cross court until the last minute. His slice backhand was awesome and the little dipper to incoming volleyer's was a gem. To compare it to Boredo's journeymen backhand is a travesty. Don't tell Alex you think Boredo's backhand is as good as his while hes eating or he'll show this forum a real choke.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

LeChuck
10-16-2007, 08:05 AM
Corretja's backhand was a thing of beauty and is what got him the to two French Open finals. He could hit with heavy spin or flatten it out cross court or down the line with equal ease. He also had superb disguise and you couldn't tell whether he was going down the line or cross court until the last minute. His slice backhand was awesome and the little dipper to incoming volleyer's was a gem. To compare it to Boredo's journeymen backhand is a travesty. Don't tell Alex you think Boredo's backhand is as good as his while hes eating or he'll show this forum a real choke.

I completely agree. There is no comparison to be made between the two players' backhands, or between their overall skill levels. In both categories, it is glaringly obvious that Robredo is simply not in the same league as Corretja.

Apemant
10-16-2007, 08:10 AM
And Roddick's groundstrokes can't be that
good. He didn't get further than the 3rd round at the French, Ivanisevic made three quarters.

It has something to do with Goran being raised on clay, don't you think? And Roddick just hates clay.

Just take a look at Hewitt, there is no reason why his game shouldn't work well on clay, and yet he has no big results there. Just because he wasn't raised on that surface.

Other than that I simply don't see Goran's groundstrokes as superior to Roddick.

I'd sooner say his serve was better. Much slower, yes, but had an uncanny ability to hit corner after corner, somoething that allowed him to hold his service games comfortably even on clay. Fast but poorly placed serves just don't do enough damage on clay, with people receiving 3 meters behind the baseline.

KaxMisha
10-18-2007, 01:25 AM
Looking at some of the older threads (from 2003 or 2004) where people tried to predict how many slam various then-young players would win, I find it funny how most said something along the lines of "no one will win more than 6 slams or so - the game is presently to deep". No the consensus, instead, is that there is a clown era. Yeah, makes sense! :rolleyes:

World Beater
10-18-2007, 01:37 AM
It has something to do with Goran being raised on clay, don't you think? And Roddick just hates clay.

Just take a look at Hewitt, there is no reason why his game shouldn't work well on clay, and yet he has no big results there. Just because he wasn't raised on that surface.

Other than that I simply don't see Goran's groundstrokes as superior to Roddick.

I'd sooner say his serve was better. Much slower, yes, but had an uncanny ability to hit corner after corner, somoething that allowed him to hold his service games comfortably even on clay. Fast but poorly placed serves just don't do enough damage on clay, with people receiving 3 meters behind the baseline.


hewitt plays with little spin. He doesnt have the same margin for error.

Action Jackson
10-18-2007, 01:44 AM
hewitt plays with little spin. He doesnt have the same margin for error.

Actually it's Hewitt's movement that is more of a problem. The movement was one of the big keys to his success and he didn't move as well on clay which is vital and also he struggled to the high ball to the backhand.

leng jai
10-18-2007, 01:46 AM
hewitt plays with little spin. He doesnt have the same margin for error.

If you hit flat on clay you have to be an attacking player i.e. Kuerten. Hewitt is a very defensive player with flat groundies and that sucks on clay. Also, his movement on clay isn't as good as it is on hard court and this hinders his court position and the footwork on his strokes.

World Beater
10-18-2007, 01:51 AM
If you hit flat on clay you have to be an attacking player i.e. Kuerten. Hewitt is a very defensive player with flat groundies and that sucks on clay. Also, his movement on clay isn't as good as it is on hard court and this hinders his court position and the footwork on his strokes.

ok. is that something different to what i said? :shrug:

kuerten doesn't play as flat as hewitt does. Kuerten used western grips, hewitt doesn't.

kuerten didnt moonball like bruguera either though. He didnt rotate the wrist completely like bruguera, berastegui. Or to a lesser extent nadal.