I miss the tennis of a few years ago [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

I miss the tennis of a few years ago

Xavier7
05-06-2009, 03:50 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.
There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.
Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.
Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

l_mac
05-06-2009, 03:52 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.
There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.
Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.
Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

:haha:

croat123
05-06-2009, 03:53 PM
agreed. i also think today's tennis is lacking in off-court personalities

Fumus
05-06-2009, 03:56 PM
When Malisse was firmly planted in the top 50? haha

JolánGagó
05-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.
There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.
Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.
Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

Crap.

DartMarcus
05-06-2009, 04:03 PM
Tennis died when Nadal reached the Wimbledon final for the first time.

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 04:07 PM
That era has gone, there will be another change soon enough.

Yes, there should be some diversity in the surface speeds, so that various styles can exist. Problem is most people forget how it came to what we have currently.

In the early to mid 90s, it was just serve tennis on the fast ice rinks. Might as well have started at the TBs, so they decided to use heavier balls and slow down the quicker surfaces, so the ball could actually be in play for more than 10 seconds.

I mean you don't always see the results straight away with the policies, these need to take time to filter down. The problem is they have gone too far with the slowing down of the faster surfaces and also the making the clay quicker, as much as it can be without the climatic impact.

Yes, I hated the big serving fests on those lightning surfaces and understand why the changes were made, at the same time it was great when Corretja and Guga won the end of year champs on those slick surfaces and Muster winning Essen thumping Sampras. I mean I'd love to see Rafa having a go at facing that challenge on those surfaces, but that isn't going to happen now.

kingfederer
05-06-2009, 04:21 PM
serve volley should be banned and players that played serve volley should have their names erased from the sport's record books, its not tennis. i have absolutely no respect at all for serve volley players, none at all. i think they are talentless, unfit, unskilled, boring, and have no right to play this sport. its the ultimate stain on the sport. i dont consider serve volley players athletes or sportsmen, they are a bunch of retarded circus clowns that play a 19th century style of tennis where they were unfit fat old men playing on sunday sipping cups of tea on court. just absolutely filthy repulsive and vulgar style of play. yuk! i spit on that style of play and i spit on the players that play that style past, present or future. ugh!

l_mac
05-06-2009, 04:24 PM
serve volley should be banned and players that played serve volley should have their names erased from the sport's record books, its not tennis. i have absolutely no respect at all for serve volley players, none at all. i think they are talentless, unfit, unskilled, boring, and have no right to play this sport. its the ultimate stain on the sport. i dont consider serve volley players athletes or sportsmen, they are a bunch of retarded circus clowns that play a 19th century style of tennis where they were unfit fat old men playing on sunday sipping cups of tea on court. just absolutely filthy repulsive and vulgar style of play. yuk! i spit on that style of play and i spit on the players that play that style past, present or future. ugh!

You're trying too hard.

JolánGagó
05-06-2009, 04:24 PM
serve volley should be banned and players that played serve volley should have their names erased from the sport's record books, its not tennis. i have absolutely no respect at all for serve volley players, none at all. i think they are talentless, unfit, unskilled, boring, and have no right to play this sport. its the ultimate stain on the sport. i dont consider serve volley players athletes or sportsmen, they are a bunch of retarded circus clowns that play a 19th century style of tennis where they were unfit fat old men playing on sunday sipping cups of tea on court. just absolutely filthy repulsive and vulgar style of play. yuk! i spit on that style of play and i spit on the players that play that style past, present or future. ugh!

:haha:

Pfloyd
05-06-2009, 04:26 PM
We'll go buy some DVD's of classic matches.

I enjoy serve and volleying tennis players as an exception to "baseline" tennis, because too much serve and volleying tennis is so boring, IMO.

Johnny Groove
05-06-2009, 04:28 PM
I'm just hoping that the next generation of players realize that baseline play along with serve and volley and forays into the net will be more effective than a one-dimensional style of play.

Hopefully the next gen is composed of more all-around players.

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 04:30 PM
Blaze, it depends if they want to be like Federer, well everything but the backhand of Federer. Or they want to run around like Nadal, training 25 hours a day.

Johnny Groove
05-06-2009, 04:34 PM
Blaze, it depends if they want to be like Federer, well everything but the backhand of Federer. Or they want to run around like Nadal, training 25 hours a day.

Therein lies the problem, Georgie.

Juniors try so much to be like one particular player instead of taking the best attributes from various players and incorporate them into their own game.

A junior that trains with numerous idols can take a Nadal forehand, a Safin backhand, Sampras serve, Edberg volley, Nadal movement, etc, and will be a much more effective player than someone who simply tried to emulate Federer to a T.

Sunset of Age
05-06-2009, 04:34 PM
:haha:

I don't see what's so funny about OP... he has merely stated his opinion, which might well be a dissenting one from yours. :shrug:


I mean you don't always see the results straight away with the policies, these need to take time to filter down. The problem is they have gone too far with the slowing down of the faster surfaces and also the making the clay quicker, as much as it can be without the climatic impact.


Exactly. The courts are too close in their properties right now, and the result is that everyone has basically the same baseline-style nowadays. It would be good to bring back more diversity in the courts, and as a natural result of that, more diversity in players' styles of playing.

serve volley should be banned and players that played serve volley should have their names erased from the sport's record books, its not tennis. i have absolutely no respect at all for serve volley players, none at all. i think they are talentless, unfit, unskilled, boring, and have no right to play this sport. its the ultimate stain on the sport. i dont consider serve volley players athletes or sportsmen, they are a bunch of retarded circus clowns that play a 19th century style of tennis where they were unfit fat old men playing on sunday sipping cups of tea on court. just absolutely filthy repulsive and vulgar style of play. yuk! i spit on that style of play and i spit on the players that play that style past, present or future. ugh!

When you see those words, all you can say is... kingfederer. :retard: :retard: :retard:
It's not even funny, mate.

JolánGagó
05-06-2009, 04:37 PM
Blaze, it depends if they want to be like Federer, well everything but the backhand of Federer. Or they want to run around like Nadal, training 25 hours a day.

You make it sound as if Nadal just "runs around" and training is a bad thing :shrug:

Ilovetheblues_86
05-06-2009, 04:43 PM
There´s no way. Today fans are the ones who like serve and volley + like federer + believe tennis should be offensive X the ones who like clay + Nadal + athleticism.

I agree with the thread opener that some players who like to finish points quickly are missing, this isn´t exactly the best strategy, but it´s more fun to watch and also I am a guy who get very frustrated when playing or watching clay matches where you can´t hit many winners.
Nadal fans should respect more serve and volleyers, it takes a lot of skill to know how to do it.

Sunset of Age
05-06-2009, 04:46 PM
There´s no way. Today fans are the ones who like serve and volley + like federer + believe tennis should be offensive X the ones who like clay + Nadal + athleticism.

Well, there are also tennis fans who appreciate both styles - and I wouldn't call Fed a natural S/V-style player at all. Point is that the diversity is gone, so for fans like me who fall in that aforementioned category, something is missing nowadays. It looks like there's no difference watching matches played on clay or on grass (or even on slow HC) anymore and personally I think that's bad.

Clay Death
05-06-2009, 04:48 PM
Blaze, it depends if they want to be like Federer, well everything but the backhand of Federer. Or they want to run around like Nadal, training 25 hours a day.


with all due respect action jackson, the game continues to evolve and progress in exactly the right direction.

you can never go back. not a single player can put any food on the table serving and volleying anymore. you can serve n volley as an element of surprise here and there in any one given game but that syle is gone forever.

i will keep it real simple. the game is just too fast and getting faster. the returns are coming in faster than the serve sometimes. players are capable of hitting backhands and forehands in the 90+ mph range fairly regularly. Djokovic, Gonzo, Fed, and some of the others have hit forehands well in excess of 100 mph.

its not easy to volley balls coming at you those speeds. now add serious topspin and the task of volleying becomes even more difficult.

Fed was asked this very question: he was asked why he doesnt try to play like Sampras or Edberg. his answer: a correct one at that was that it entailed too much risk.

that sums it all up. the game is being played the way it needs to be played. war on the court can be waged no other way. call it the game`s natural progression and evolution.

gone are the days of slam bam, thank you mam, game, set, and match. now you have to be able to play a complete game and be competent in all aspects of the sport. exhibit a single weakness and a great player will exploit it to death every bloody single time.

not only that, you may have to hit several great backands and several outstanding forehands in a single rally just to win a point.

the game is fast and getting faster. what is incredible is that most of the gains in speed are no longer coming from improved technologies.

most of the gains in power and the resulting speed on the courts are coming from the athletes.

you damn near have to guess at the baseline so you can just imagine what you would have to do at the net. you must structure a point from the backcourt and go in on your own terms or you are dead. and you have also have to be able to take full advantage of the first strike when possible. all short balls or weak replies should be attacked and finished off one way or another.

i cant make it any simpler than that. i think Fed answered this question the best.

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 04:48 PM
You make it sound as if Nadal just "runs around" and training is a bad thing :shrug:

Nadal didn't get where he did by being good looking, did he? If that was the case, then LaLo would be a multi GS champion.

kingfederer
05-06-2009, 04:51 PM
for people from english speaking countries, according to them spanish guys have no right to be number 1 in the world or have no right to win anywhere out of clay and should have no right to go into the 2nd round of wimbledon. and when a spanish guy does well at wimbledon the racist haters bring up conspiracy theories about grass being slow or some other excuse. i can name a few commentators that are like this as well, pure filthy racists that quite frankly are a stain on our human species.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Nadal didn't get where he did by being good looking, did he? If that was the case, then LaLo would be a multi GS champion.

This attempt at humour is flawed. LaLo is anything but good looking.

Kiedis
05-06-2009, 04:52 PM
That era has gone, there will be another change soon enough.

Yes, there should be some diversity in the surface speeds, so that various styles can exist. Problem is most people forget how it came to what we have currently.

In the early to mid 90s, it was just serve tennis on the fast ice rinks. Might as well have started at the TBs, so they decided to use heavier balls and slow down the quicker surfaces, so the ball could actually be in play for more than 10 seconds.

I mean you don't always see the results straight away with the policies, these need to take time to filter down. The problem is they have gone too far with the slowing down of the faster surfaces and also the making the clay quicker, as much as it can be without the climatic impact.

Yes, I hated the big serving fests on those lightning surfaces and understand why the changes were made, at the same time it was great when Corretja and Guga won the end of year champs on those slick surfaces and Muster winning Essen thumping Sampras. I mean I'd love to see Rafa having a go at facing that challenge on those surfaces, but that isn't going to happen now.

I hate the "bombers" era, too, where tennis was becoming basketball :(

Greg Rusedski
Height 193 cm (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 94 kg (208 lb)

Goran Ivanišević
Height 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 89 kg (198 lb)

Mark Philippoussis
Height 195 cm (6 ft 5 in)
Weight 107 kg (237 lbs)


Well, OP can enjoy Karlovic graceful and entertaining tennis at these days :rolleyes:

habibko
05-06-2009, 04:55 PM
just remember the reactions in MTF after Federer-Dent's match, those who watched pure S&V for the first time were drooling over Dent's style, and those of us who knew it remembered the good old days, or take Zverev as another more recent example.

variety is always a good thing, and I predict more variety in our sport the moment S&V players adapt to the new changes in the game and take that style to new levels, combining S&V with a solid baseline game, taking what Federer brought to the game to a new level, that is the future of the sport, at least the good version of it.

tennizen
05-06-2009, 04:57 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.

This portion of your post I have no problems with. It's your preference and you are welcome to miss it.

There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.

Not true.

Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.


This portion just deserves the customary MTF :haha:

Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

Again your opinion and you are welcome to it.

JolánGagó
05-06-2009, 04:57 PM
Greg Rusedski
Height 193 cm (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 94 kg (208 lb)

Goran Ivanišević
Height 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 89 kg (198 lb)

Mark Philippoussis
Height 195 cm (6 ft 5 in)
Weight 107 kg (237 lbs)

simply hideous, tennis has reborn like Fenix since those attempts at tennis players vanished from court.

miura
05-06-2009, 05:00 PM
Last time I saw this much shit I was looking down in a silo full of fertiliser.

Roddickominator
05-06-2009, 05:00 PM
just remember the reactions in MTF after Federer-Dent's match, those who watched pure S&V for the first time were drooling over Dent's style, and those of us who knew it remembered the good old days, or take Zverev as another more recent example.

variety is always a good thing, and I predict more variety in our sport the moment S&V players adapt to the new changes in the game and take that style to new levels, combining S&V with a solid baseline game, taking what Federer brought to the game to a new level, that is the future of the sport, at least the good version of it.

Right on habibko....good to see that everyone in this thread isn't trolling.

I think it'll get worse before it gets better....at least in terms of the slowing of the courts and balls. It'll come to a head like the ace-fests did....and eventually things will even out and we'll see more variety.

Clay Death
05-06-2009, 05:02 PM
You make it sound as if Nadal just "runs around" and training is a bad thing :shrug:


we might as well shoot down Vilas, Borg, and Muster cause they too had to put in a lot of court time--both match play and practice. Muster used to play 40 tournaments a year for instance and he spent endless hours training.

all great heavy topspin artists have relied on their great timing and accordingly, must put in long hours. its just a fact of life for them.

Borg used to put in 5-6 hours a day for instance just to get ready for Wimbly. he felt he needed better timing on grass so he was willing to pay the dues. he knew he had the time he needed on clay but adjustment on grass was a little more tricky. so hell bent was he with his court time that he skipped the warm-up events to Wimbledon. he felt they interfered with his hours on the court.

vilas was known to practice for 90 minutes to 2 hours even after his matches at tournaments at times.

clay warrior trains and puts in long hours that he does to keep his timing and his rhythm as much as possible. this is what it takes to rule the planet today. he just understands the requirements of his game better than most.

Myrre
05-06-2009, 05:04 PM
You actually have to be extremely fit to play serve & volley. It's small sprints to the net over and over again. Very tiring. Edberg was often referred to as the fittest player on the tour.

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 05:05 PM
CD, there was no need for the essay, it wasn't relevant at all to what I was saying.

Things evolve, doesn't mean the direction has to be liked. Federer grew up playing a certain way and adjusted to the current time he is in. Both he and Nadal will eventually fade, then the cycle continues, just commonsense.

I haven't said anything at all about serve/volleying.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-06-2009, 05:15 PM
simply hideous, tennis has reborn like Fenix since those attempts at tennis players vanished from court.

tennis was born with serve and volley.

Clay Death
05-06-2009, 05:16 PM
CD, there was no need for the essay, it wasn't relevant at all to what I was saying.

Things evolve, doesn't mean the direction has to be liked. Federer grew up playing a certain way and adjusted to the current time he is in. Both he and Nadal will eventually fade, then the cycle continues, just commonsense.

I haven't said anything at all about serve/volleying.

i was just making a general comment AJ. i think the game is going in its natural direction and there is nothing that can be done to reverse its course or the course of nature. absolutely nothing.

and i disagree about the idea that the direction does not have to be liked. we all have to evolve with the times as well or we fail to experience and enjoy what is transpiring before our eyes.

those who are married to the past can always keep watching the old matches. here their cries and weeping will essentially fall on deaf ears. or they can just skip this sport and move on to another one.

i find that its generally those who dont quite understand exactly how the war must be waged on the court in tennis with each passing year that cry the most about the past.

you happen to be one of the most informed tennis observers i have ever known so these remarks do not pertain to you.

dusk
05-06-2009, 05:17 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.
There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.
Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.
Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

I somehow don't see Agassi there.
The only one I liked to watch from that group is Henman.
Personally, I like only few s&v players, the rest is just too boring for my taste since, points either end too quickly or you just see the ruthless passing shots. Agassi, on the other hand is boring on a different level.
If the ESP and the ARG labels bother you that much, try not to pay attention to the country. Tennis is an individual sport (although the style is very much influenced by the surface on which players learn how to play), there is no cemented game pattern based on nationality.
Borg and Edberg come from the same country, Hewit and Philippoussis, Cilic and Ancic...they all have different game.

Nadal and Lopez both have ESP next to their names. Would you say they have the same style?

I mean whatever works for you. If you're bored, you're bored but there's really no need to blame it on Spanish or Argentinian players for that.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Perhaps serve and volleying or approachs to the net has not vanished quite yet. If aplayer with Nadal phusic, mentality and regularity manages to be quite good at the net, playing a mixed style of attacking/defensive tennis, knowing how to attacklike Sampras/Federer and to defend/play on clay like Nadal, we still can see a net rusher champion style. Not hard to know this player would probably be the GOAT since he would have mastered all aspects of the game. Some people say S&V is not anymore an aspect of the game, I disagree, I still think ther´s room for it.

dusk
05-06-2009, 05:27 PM
variety is always a good thing, and I predict more variety in our sport the moment S&V players adapt to the new changes in the game and take that style to new levels, combining S&V with a solid baseline game, taking what Federer brought to the game to a new level, that is the future of the sport, at least the good version of it.

Exactly.
And more and more players do that now.
The volley is still there, only not mixed with the serve, but executed from the rallies. Imo, it's much more interesting, since you get to see more than mare serve and running to the net right after.

Erica86
05-06-2009, 05:33 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.
There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.
Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.
Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

These players you mention would lose most of the times they played against either Nadal or Federer.
Your post is one of the most stupid threads I have seen, and like somebody suggests, it is biassed against non-English speaking players.

JolánGagó
05-06-2009, 05:34 PM
clay warrior trains and puts in long hours that he does to keep his timing and his rhythm as much as possible. this is what it takes to rule the planet today. he just understands the requirements of his game better than most.

Exactly. End of Story.

Next.

Burrow
05-06-2009, 05:42 PM
Who else really misses the tennis of the 90s and early 00s.
I miss the players I grew up with watching like Agassi, Henman, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis.
Most of all I miss the serve volley style of play.
There was so much more diversity in the players styles in those days.
Nowadays you just see all these players with ESP or ARG next to their name coming up through challengers and you know before you even see them play exactly what their style of play is.
Tennis just isn't as entertaining as it was.

Agreed 100%.

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 05:48 PM
Finally a good thread.

Anyone who disagrees with this is just a Nadull fanboy who can't see the world beyond his Nadull posters.

Erica86
05-06-2009, 05:51 PM
Finally a good thread.

Anyone who disagrees with this is just a Nadull fanboy who can't see the world beyond his Nadull posters.

:zzz::zzz:

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 05:55 PM
:zzz::zzz:

I guess they should have never installed internet in mental institutions. :o

Erica86
05-06-2009, 06:00 PM
I guess they should have never installed internet in mental institutions. :o

Oh! I did not know you were in a mental hospital. Sorry!

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 06:03 PM
Oh! I did not know you were in a mental hospital. Sorry!

Are they still saying you're in a "shelter" and that everybody there is normal?

A shame, I always thought they should break the news quickly to the patients.

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 06:07 PM
i was just making a general comment AJ. i think the game is going in its natural direction and there is nothing that can be done to reverse its course or the course of nature. absolutely nothing.

and i disagree about the idea that the direction does not have to be liked. we all have to evolve with the times as well or we fail to experience and enjoy what is transpiring before our eyes.

those who are married to the past can always keep watching the old matches. here their cries and weeping will essentially fall on deaf ears. or they can just skip this sport and move on to another one.

i find that its generally those who dont quite understand exactly how the war must be waged on the court in tennis with each passing year that cry the most about the past.

you happen to be one of the most informed tennis observers i have ever known so these remarks do not pertain to you.

Alright, duly noted. Well the game did get changed with the homogenisation of the surfaces, as I stated in my original point as to why this came around. Then again for too many people there is only the present, not how what happened in the past was what influenced the type of tennis you see today, then there will be the next change and another direction will happen.

It's bullshit about having to like it, only if you are gnat who can't think for themselves and believe what they are told. There are people who like the product at the moment and are able to come to that conclusion with clarity and reasoning, there are others yay my favourite player rules at the moment and that is good for me, then there are others who don't like the direction at the moment for various reasons, then there are the sceptics.

It's like any other form of entertainment, whether it's football the proper one played with the feet, music or other things, just cause it's current, doesn't mean it's the best, that is very narrow thinking and it's just as narrow not to think the future will bring something different, that maybe something more palatable or worse even.

Got to look at the evolutionary stages, some things are best forgotten and others not. I mean Nadal is a perfect example of the fusion between past and present.

GugaF1
05-06-2009, 06:17 PM
Oh! I did not know you were in a mental hospital. Sorry!

Very clever response. Nicely done.. lol..... quick Advice, don`t go any further. Because you are dealing with the Nadal of trolls.

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 06:19 PM
Very clever response. Nicely done.. lol..... quick Advice, don`t go any further. Because you are dealing with the Nadal of trolls.

No surprise you of all people would think that was smart. That's what happens when you're brain-damaged.

GugaF1
05-06-2009, 06:22 PM
This serve and volley staff is so tiring, is annoying.

Every era of tennis, there was something to complain about. as in F1, Football, basketball there is always soemething. And for some the past seems to always be better than the present. Past glory hunters...

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 06:31 PM
Serve and volley staff? Are they the workers of a store called Serve & volley? :lol:

41-stroke rallies ending with an UE. That's the definition of monotonous and boring.

green25814
05-06-2009, 06:34 PM
A balance is what's needed. I remember watching tennis in the late 90s/early 00s, and i hated the dominance of huge servers. Don't get me wrong, i always loved volleying and appreciated that style more and more as i got older. But acefests are just BORING. The returners would simply have zero chance, and it made for a game which was far too predictable.

The funny thing is i know im not alone, huge amounts of tennis fans were tired of that style of play at that time. So now we've gone to the other extreme where its almost impossible to hit an ace, and no-one is brave enough to go to the net.

The tennis world needs to find a balance in the changing of the surfaces, there's no reason for having the game at one extreme to the other.

Xavier7
05-06-2009, 07:51 PM
Your post is one of the most stupid threads I have seen, and like somebody suggests, it is biassed against non-English speaking players.

No its not. Its hardly racist if I want to see more players with a different style of play to what Spain and Argentina happen to generally produce.

r2473
05-06-2009, 08:01 PM
Serve and Volley
~verb/noun
1. Best and most effective, reliable and powerful style of tennis, no matter if a S&V player didn’t win a challenger for 700 years.
2. Real tennis. Non S&V tennis needs to be renamed something else (teeNeZ, te@n@s, Pong).

Mindless Bashing:
~verb/noun
1. Non-S&V teeNeZ.
2. Pong.

All court game.
~noun
1. When a MTF poster likes a player, automatically this player has an All Court Game, no matter what the heck having an All Court Game means.
2. Tennis style which is better because it has the word “all” on it, and nothing can be better than “all”.

Xavier7
05-06-2009, 08:03 PM
Tennis was never really that one sided towards serve volley as it is to baseliners now.
There were a lot of baseliners at the top of the game back in the 90s and early 00s like Agassi, Rios, Moya, Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Corretja, Hewitt
I enjoy both serve volley and baseline play and think there should be a mixture.
By the way Sampras would have crushed Nadal on grass.

Xavier7
05-06-2009, 08:07 PM
Quote:
Greg Rusedski
Height 193 cm (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 94 kg (208 lb)

Goran Ivanišević
Height 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 89 kg (198 lb)

Mark Philippoussis
Height 195 cm (6 ft 5 in)
Weight 107 kg (237 lbs)

Those guys were great to watch.
Aggressive tennis where people will power down a big serve and charge to the net to try and hit a winner is exciting.

Xavier7
05-06-2009, 08:09 PM
nah dont pull that bullshit on me mate, u hate the fact i called u out and told the truth. its like an elephant in the room no one talks about, racism is very much alive in tennis.

No you didn't.
You're just a troll looking to start an argument.
If someone wants to see some serve and volley play it is racist against the Spanish and South Americans now is it? :rolleyes:

wally1
05-06-2009, 08:17 PM
Same tired old discussion. I love to see players attack the net, but the simple truth is the lack of net rushing and S&V these days has got sweet FA to do with the court surface. It's to do with rackets/strings enabling returners and baseliners to hit the holy crap out of the ball and still keep it in, and hit passing shots at full stretch with the ball about 2 inches off the ground. The ball is just moving too fast for the net rusher - I remember an interview with Rod laver a few years ago where he said the same thing. Lets remember a number of great players in the past have won RG or reached the final playing S&V, totally (or very nearly) impossible today.

I've seen a lot of tennis in person in the last few years on courts that were plenty quick and low bouncing, at Queens, Surbiton, Roehampton, Nottingham and other places. Everyone still plays from the baseline. It's not going to get any different until racket technology goes into reverse (impossible), or a bunch of super new athletes develops who can handle volleying the extreme pace, or serves get even faster so that they become impossible to return again.

rofe
05-06-2009, 08:22 PM
I don't think it is a matter of missing tennis from a few years ago. I definitely did not enjoy the serve fest from that era. My main issue with tennis today is more one of uniformity. Every surface plays similarly in terms of speed and bounce. So, in terms of what I don't like:

1) Changing the speed of the courts post US Open to medium. ATP should have left some of the tournaments as medium-fast to fast carpet.

2) Changing the bounce of almost all tournament surfaces pre-USO to be similar. I am ok with minimal changes in the speed of the court but they should at least have introduced variable bounce. For example, I am fine with the speed of the surface in Wimbly but I strongly disagree with what they have done with the bounce. Wimbly currently plays like a HC and the best thing about grass was the challenge that players faced with the variable and low bounce on grass. It doesn't seem to play like that anymore and that is a shame.

Matt01
05-06-2009, 09:00 PM
Tennis died when Nadal reached the Wimbledon final for the first time.


No, that was its rebirth.

tangerine_dream
05-06-2009, 10:13 PM
It'll be interesting to see what the group of players coming after this generation will play like and how much influence Fedal, etc. had on them. It seems like every generation manages to outplay the previous one and I'm wondering where or how it will cap off.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-06-2009, 10:21 PM
Where is Boris Becker? Where is Pat Rafter? Where is Kafelnikov?? Where is Agassi? Wheres is Chang? Where is mr. Medvedev? Where is Albert Costa? Where is IVANISEVIC?? Where are the real mens?? Tennis in 90´s was grunge, badass, awesome, tennis on 2000 WITH THE LIKES OF Gasquet, Simon, Verdasco is babyface, is EMO.; HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP!!! ! :sad:

nastoff
05-06-2009, 10:30 PM
Nonsense it was more boring with all those big servers and those serve volley freaks squaring up against each other. Not that the personalities that are around now can match up to the legends of the past in any way but lets be honest watching boom boom Becker hitting 20 aces a game in every single match was bloody yawning.
Go back and watch him and some of the others now and tell me what you think.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-06-2009, 10:36 PM
I loved Becker. German´s efficiency. Blitkrieg on a tennis court. :banana:

Angle Queen
05-07-2009, 01:54 AM
It's fun to reminisce about past but I don't miss it. Going back to the 70s, I've loved watching every decade except, perhaps, the Sampras years. The surfaces have changed as have the playing styles (and I'm not sure whether we've got a 'chicken or egg' thing going on) but what I've come to miss most, I fear, are the "characters." Today's crop of ultra-talented, polite, philanthropic players are just...well...not too terribly exciting to me personally. Luckily, I enjoy the "sport" more than its competitors so I still watch. Guess I'll have to wait around for the next "You cannot be serious" guy to steal my heart away.

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-07-2009, 03:07 AM
serve volley should be banned and players that played serve volley should have their names erased from the sport's record books, its not tennis. i have absolutely no respect at all for serve volley players, none at all. i think they are talentless, unfit, unskilled, boring, and have no right to play this sport. its the ultimate stain on the sport. i dont consider serve volley players athletes or sportsmen, they are a bunch of retarded circus clowns that play a 19th century style of tennis where they were unfit fat old men playing on sunday sipping cups of tea on court. just absolutely filthy repulsive and vulgar style of play. yuk! i spit on that style of play and i spit on the players that play that style past, present or future. ugh!

Another one who sees the light.

How many have been converted by RFK in the last 5 years. Truly perfect.

fast_clay
05-07-2009, 03:18 AM
It's fun to reminisce about past but I don't miss it. Going back to the 70s, I've loved watching every decade except, perhaps, the Sampras years. The surfaces have changed as have the playing styles (and I'm not sure whether we've got a 'chicken or egg' thing going on) but what I've come to miss most, I fear, are the "characters." Today's crop of ultra-talented, polite, philanthropic players are just...well...not too terribly exciting to me personally. Luckily, I enjoy the "sport" more than its competitors so I still watch. Guess I'll have to wait around for the next "You cannot be serious" guy to steal my heart away.

yeah... we need to hear more about the locker room stuff that never sees the light of day... like when murray gave a urinal a good ol' fashioned clean with nadal's toothbrush at miami this year... jokes all round... but, the poeple need to hear about it...

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 03:26 AM
Another one who sees the light.

How many have been converted by RFK in the last 5 years. Truly perfect.

He wasnt converted by you fakerboy. He doesnt think Faker is a Spartan like you do. Shows how much you know about Sparta.

Now go fake somewhere else.

moon language
05-07-2009, 03:58 AM
As the 90s went on the serve-fests got boring after a while and I actually prefer the way things are now.

My favorite time was the late 70s early 80s before the power game took over. Things were much more tactical as the equipment was only capable of so much in terms of power, spin, and control, resulting in a more level playing field so to speak. Players had to use their brains.

heartbroken
05-07-2009, 05:53 AM
For me, I've always found a way to enjoy the tennis being played at any given period of time. Sure, some times were more exciting to me than others, but in the end, I always just liked tennis. I don't expect my love of tennis to ever disappear. Players come and go, styles go in and out of favor, and the speed of the game may change. I'll keep watching. There will always be interesting characters and storylines for me to enjoy.

Black Adam
05-07-2009, 10:14 AM
Blaze, it depends if they want to be like Federer, well everything but the backhand of Federer. Or they want to run around like Nadal, training 25 hours a day.
There are 24 hours in a day:rolleyes:
As the 90s went on the serve-fests got boring after a while and I actually prefer the way things are now.
well said.
Your post is one of the most stupid threads I have seen, and like somebody suggests, it is biassed against non-English speaking players.
The OP is living in the 50's and his lanuage shows you much. It's almost as if he is saying non-english players stand for what the game isn't about:rolleyes: Quite biggotted imo. He is also just bored that Fedy isn't the top dog anymore :help: Lock up these folks in an asylum.

FairWeatherFan
05-07-2009, 10:28 AM
Fantastic post by the OP. It really astounds me that some people think that what the sport is in now is a 'great era'. This could not be further from the truth. I have been watching tennis for many years, and I have never seen an era with poorer play or more boring to watch than the one in which we currently reside.
The players play 90% the same way. There are only a few rays of light (seeing Zverev have some success recently with his gamestyle was a great pleasure to see). Grasscourt tennis is utterly dead, and claycourt tennis close to dead as well. Seeing Nadal maul the entire tour to death on clay is no fun to me, and I'm sure no fun to fans of claycourt tennis either. Simply put, there are now many more enjoyable sports than tennis, and this is coming from someone who has always regarded tennis as the second-best sport.

tennizen
05-07-2009, 02:11 PM
Fantastic post by the OP. It really astounds me that some people think that what the sport is in now is a 'great era'. This could not be further from the truth. I have been watching tennis for many years, and I have never seen an era with poorer play or more boring to watch than the one in which we currently reside.
The players play 90% the same way. There are only a few rays of light (seeing Zverev have some success recently with his gamestyle was a great pleasure to see). Grasscourt tennis is utterly dead, and claycourt tennis close to dead as well. Seeing Nadal maul the entire tour to death on clay is no fun to me, and I'm sure no fun to fans of claycourt tennis either. Simply put, there are now many more enjoyable sports than tennis, and this is coming from someone who has always regarded tennis as the second-best sport.

I hope you are feeling better now that you have got that off your chest:hug: I hope you shed a few tears too. I hear its therapeutic

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 02:15 PM
No, that was its rebirth.

Wrong, that was its death.

LeChuck
05-07-2009, 02:17 PM
I continue to enjoy watching tennis nowadays both at tour level, and also challenger level whenever I can. However I do miss the days that we had more variety, both in surface conditions and playing styles. The grass at Wimbledon in the 90s was too fast IMO and had to be slowed down, but I agree that they've gone too far. In the 90s, the grass at Queen's used to be slightly slower and have a marginally higher bounce than the grass at Wimbledon. However nowadays the Queen's grass is definately faster and lower bouncing. I for one would be delighted if the Wimbledon grass played the same way as the current Queen's grass. IMO that would be a happy medium between the 90s surface that was too fast, and the current surface which is too slow. I remember watching the US-Chile Davis Cup QF in 2006, and thinking that the grass laid out at Rancho Mirage for that tie, was the perfect example of how the Wimbledon grass should play like. I generally much preferred the serve-volleyer vs baseliner tussles at Wimbledon over the ones involving 2 serve-volleyers or 2 baseliners.
I loved the extreme surface polarization of the 90s. The grass was faster, the indoor courts were faster, the clay was slower, and there was also more variety in how different hard courts played.
It was so much tougher to have consistently good results right across the season back then. We basically had 2 or 3 tours for the price of one, with guys disappearing during one part of the season and coming to the fore during another. They were so many specialists on any particular surface who could be a daunting prospect for the big name players to be drawn against. I loved that. I know that many fans nowadays like to the see the same big name players reaching the latter stages of tournaments across the season without having to change their games that much, extending their rivalries and h2hs from surface to surface. Tournament directors certainly do.
However I appreciated the unpredictability we used to get, with often had drastically different semi-final line-ups at Melbourne, RG and Wimbledon for instance, and a larger number of players getting the opportunity to shine at different times. Djokovic is an excellent player of course, but he barely has to adapt his game from hard to clay to grass to have success right through the year. You pretty know what you're going to get from him regardless of the surface. However in the 90s because there was so much more variety in playing styles, often players would come up against opponents with drastically different styles from day in day in a particular event, and from week to week across the tour. A serve and volley player, an all courter, a huge serve, a counterpuncher, a power baseliner, a grinder etc. It was fiercely difficult for them to adapt to that unpredictability and uncertainty, and I enjoyed that aspect of tennis.

Like I said before, tennis is still a sport that I'm hugely passionate about, and that will continue to be the case despite crooks like Tiriac trying to ruin it. I watch as many matches as I can and there are many players that I don't support who I enjoy watching. However I just wish that there wasn't so much surface homogenisation and uniformity in playing styles.

Action Jackson
05-07-2009, 02:43 PM
I loved the extreme surface polarization of the 90s. The grass was faster, the indoor courts were faster, the clay was slower, and there was also more variety in how different hard courts played.
It was so much tougher to have consistently good results right across the season back then. We basically had 2 or 3 tours for the price of one, with guys disappearing during one part of the season and coming to the fore during another. They were so many specialists on any particular surface who could be a daunting prospect for the big name players to be drawn against. I loved that. I know that many fans nowadays like to the see the same big name players reaching the latter stages of tournaments across the season without having to change their games that much, extending their rivalries and h2hs from surface to surface. Tournament directors certainly do..

That's pretty much it, and there is no way I am a fan of grass tennis, as it was in the 90s because it wasn't serve/volley tennis, it was serve tennis. They did have to something about it, as it was turning people away, hence that got most of the focus as this was where the main problem was.

Yes, the clay was slower then, you could still see a lot of spin and jump on the ball. Ever since using the lighter ball and having less clay on the top surface, with less clay it's becomes quite slick and slippery especially with warm climatic conditions. Look at how Rome plays normally, though the fact with less on at Rome than say Monte Carlo and also the base is cement, then it's going to be faster.

Like I said before it was good seeing the guys who did better on clay winning on those fast surfaces if good enough and vice versa for the clay.

Now, it's the same style of play for all surfaces and that makes sense given the current clime.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 02:44 PM
I continue to enjoy watching tennis nowadays both at tour level, and also challenger level whenever I can. However I do miss the days that we had more variety, both in surface conditions and playing styles. The grass at Wimbledon in the 90s was too fast IMO and had to be slowed down, but I agree that they've gone too far. In the 90s, the grass at Queen's used to be slightly slower and have a marginally higher bounce than the grass at Wimbledon. However nowadays the Queen's grass is definately faster and lower bouncing. I for one would be delighted if the Wimbledon grass played the same way as the current Queen's grass. IMO that would be a happy medium between the 90s surface that was too fast, and the current surface which is too slow. I remember watching the US-Chile Davis Cup QF in 2006, and thinking that the grass laid out at Rancho Mirage for that tie, was the perfect example of how the Wimbledon grass should play like. I generally much preferred the serve-volleyer vs baseliner tussles at Wimbledon over the ones involving 2 serve-volleyers or 2 baseliners.
I loved the extreme surface polarization of the 90s. The grass was faster, the indoor courts were faster, the clay was slower, and there was also more variety in how different hard courts played.
It was so much tougher to have consistently good results right across the season back then. We basically had 2 or 3 tours for the price of one, with guys disappearing during one part of the season and coming to the fore during another. They were so many specialists on any particular surface who could be a daunting prospect for the big name players to be drawn against. I loved that. I know that many fans nowadays like to the see the same big name players reaching the latter stages of tournaments across the season without having to change their games that much, extending their rivalries and h2hs from surface to surface. Tournament directors certainly do.
However I appreciated the unpredictability we used to get, with often had drastically different semi-final line-ups at Melbourne, RG and Wimbledon for instance, and a larger number of players getting the opportunity to shine at different times. Djokovic is an excellent player of course, but he barely has to adapt his game from hard to clay to grass to have success right through the year. You pretty know what you're going to get from him regardless of the surface. However in the 90s because there was so much more variety in playing styles, often players would come up against opponents with drastically different styles from day in day in a particular event, and from week to week across the tour. A serve and volley player, an all courter, a huge serve, a counterpuncher, a power baseliner, a grinder etc. It was fiercely difficult for them to adapt to that unpredictability and uncertainty, and I enjoyed that aspect of tennis.

Like I said before, tennis is still a sport that I'm hugely passionate about, and that will continue to be the case despite crooks like Tiriac trying to ruin it. I watch as many matches as I can and there are many players that I don't support who I enjoy watching. However I just wish that there wasn't so much surface homogenisation and uniformity in playing styles.

That is a great post.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 02:45 PM
I continue to enjoy watching tennis nowadays both at tour level, and also challenger level whenever I can. However I do miss the days that we had more variety, both in surface conditions and playing styles. The grass at Wimbledon in the 90s was too fast IMO and had to be slowed down, but I agree that they've gone too far. In the 90s, the grass at Queen's used to be slightly slower and have a marginally higher bounce than the grass at Wimbledon. However nowadays the Queen's grass is definately faster and lower bouncing. I for one would be delighted if the Wimbledon grass played the same way as the current Queen's grass. IMO that would be a happy medium between the 90s surface that was too fast, and the current surface which is too slow. I remember watching the US-Chile Davis Cup QF in 2006, and thinking that the grass laid out at Rancho Mirage for that tie, was the perfect example of how the Wimbledon grass should play like. I generally much preferred the serve-volleyer vs baseliner tussles at Wimbledon over the ones involving 2 serve-volleyers or 2 baseliners.
I loved the extreme surface polarization of the 90s. The grass was faster, the indoor courts were faster, the clay was slower, and there was also more variety in how different hard courts played.
It was so much tougher to have consistently good results right across the season back then. We basically had 2 or 3 tours for the price of one, with guys disappearing during one part of the season and coming to the fore during another. They were so many specialists on any particular surface who could be a daunting prospect for the big name players to be drawn against. I loved that. I know that many fans nowadays like to the see the same big name players reaching the latter stages of tournaments across the season without having to change their games that much, extending their rivalries and h2hs from surface to surface. Tournament directors certainly do.
However I appreciated the unpredictability we used to get, with often had drastically different semi-final line-ups at Melbourne, RG and Wimbledon for instance, and a larger number of players getting the opportunity to shine at different times. Djokovic is an excellent player of course, but he barely has to adapt his game from hard to clay to grass to have success right through the year. You pretty know what you're going to get from him regardless of the surface. However in the 90s because there was so much more variety in playing styles, often players would come up against opponents with drastically different styles from day in day in a particular event, and from week to week across the tour. A serve and volley player, an all courter, a huge serve, a counterpuncher, a power baseliner, a grinder etc. It was fiercely difficult for them to adapt to that unpredictability and uncertainty, and I enjoyed that aspect of tennis.

Like I said before, tennis is still a sport that I'm hugely passionate about, and that will continue to be the case despite crooks like Tiriac trying to ruin it. I watch as many matches as I can and there are many players that I don't support who I enjoy watching. However I just wish that there wasn't so much surface homogenisation and uniformity in playing styles.


i think its time people wake up and smell the coffee. surfaces have absolutely nothing to do with the natural direction the sport was going to go into anyway. game is fast and getting faster and war must be waged from the backcourt.

what has taken place and continues to take place is a perfectly natural evolution of the sport

there is no such thing as darkness. there is only failure to see.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 02:48 PM
i think its time people wake up and smell the coffee. surfaces have absolutely nothing to do with the natural direction the sport was going to go into anyway. game is fast and getting faster and war must be waged from the backcourt.

what has taken place and continues to take place is a perfectly natural evolution of the sport

there is no such thing as darkness. there is only failure to see.

That's why Ferrer was murdered by Voltchkov (semi-retired player) on carpet at Minsk in DC a few years ago, right?

Stupidity knows no bounds.

~EMiLiTA~
05-07-2009, 02:48 PM
I agree, I am rapidly losing interest in it now. It seems to have lost a lot of its character, to instead be replaced by big bucks and commercialism. I enjoyed watching from the late 80s to about 2003 - now the whole ATP is a piece of shit and the circuit is full of robots

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 02:51 PM
Finally a good thread.

Anyone who disagrees with this is just a Nadull fanboy who can't see the world beyond his Nadull posters.


You're your own parody now!

Action Jackson
05-07-2009, 02:51 PM
CD, don't be foolish. Considering there are no indoor carpet events these days, that are laid on wooden boards, since that surface doesn't exist and it was very fast and low bouncing. The grass bounces higher now than what carpet does.

The change of surface speeds has changed the game, whether for the better or the worse, that is up to the individual. The players have adapted to the climate and will do so again, when there is another shift.

To say it hasn't had an impact is to say the Earth doesn't rotate around the Sun.

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 02:52 PM
i think its time people wake up and smell the coffee. surfaces have absolutely nothing to do with the natural direction the sport was going to go into anyway. game is fast and getting faster and war must be waged from the backcourt.

what has taken place and continues to take place is a perfectly natural evolution of the sport

there is no such thing as darkness. there is only failure to see.

You and your war BS, why dont you go join the army or something.

Now go join the army.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 02:53 PM
That's why Ferrer was murdered by Voltchkov (semi-retired player) on carpet at Minsk in DC a few years ago, right?

Stupidity knows no bounds.

Ferrer can lose to anyone, as he just proved yesterday. This is pointless, we all know what was tennis long ago, a few years ago, and now. We all have different preferences on what to watch. So what?

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 02:57 PM
Ferrer can lose to anyone, as he just proved yesterday. This is pointless, we all know what was past tennis long ago, a few years ago, and now. We all have different preferences on what to watch. So what?

Are you as stupid as him?

Ferrer was a top 10 player back then and lost to a guy who wasn't even playing in the regular tour. All that mattered was the surface. Real indoor carpet laid on wood = real fast courts.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 03:04 PM
Are you as stupid as him?

Ferrer was a top 10 player back then and lost to a guy who wasn't even playing in the regular tour. All that mattered was the surface. Real indoor carpet laid on wood = real fast courts.

I know that and if it depended on me, I would bring wood back and real carpet. But honestly taking Ferrer as an example of how competitive modern tennis is or comparing one generation with another...

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 03:08 PM
I know that and if it depended on me, I would bring wood back and real carpet. But honestly taking Ferrer as an example of how competitive modern tennis is or comparing one generation with another...

My point is the following, if you couldn't get it from my previous posts: SURFACES MATTER. I used an example of how a surface completely changed the outcome of a match.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 03:11 PM
CD, don't be foolish. Considering there are no indoor carpet events these days, that are laid on wooden boards, since that surface doesn't exist and it was very fast and low bouncing. The grass bounces higher now than what carpet does.

The change of surface speeds has changed the game, whether for the better or the worse, that is up to the individual. The players have adapted to the climate and will do so again, when there is another shift.

To say it hasn't had an impact is to say the Earth doesn't rotate around the Sun.

i know exactly what you are saying AJ. and i think you are smart enough to know exactly what i am saying. people just need to take a deeper, more profound look at the sport and its natural progression. and that doesnt mean you. you undertand the sport.

there would have been absolutely no stopping the impact of advances in technology and better training and generally better athletes. just look at the speeds of the serves and the groundstrokes today as compared to just 10 years ago.

grass is still grass and its plenty fast. people refuse to take into account the advances of technology, sports medicine, and generally better, faster, and stronger athletes.

they are no longer just hitting the ball. they are launching themselves into the ball. the movement and fitness has never been more important than it is now. even the women are demolishing the ball. this was not the case 10 years ago.

all this has nothing to do with the surface they are standing on. even you suggest that the clay is faster than it has ever been for instance.

the game is fast and continues to get faster and the war has to be waged from the backcourt. there is no other way to put food on the table.

Grass is still grass and hard courts are still hard courts. it didt stop Fed from hitting 84 winners and blasting 26 aces in the last Wimby final.

hard courts didnt stop Verdasco from blasting 95 winners past Nadal and 18+ aces at the last Australian Open semi.

they have not touched the Queens surface. we all know who won there last. even Roddick, who owns the biggest serve in tennis, could not afford to come in there. Dr. Ivo blasted no less than 35 aces there last year in a single match against Nadal. and still lost.

yur points are valid but it would be a mistake to think that the variables you mention carry anymore weight then they do. and yes you are right. they have had an impact but a very small impact. its not the surface. its the technology and better athletes and a better way of attacking the ball. 2 handed backhand has also revolutionized the sport.

its just a myth to think they are playing the way they are playing just because of surface changes. there would have been no stopping the game`s natural progression.

a i have suggested before, Fed has been asked this very question many times. now here is dude who once held serve nearly 90% of the time based on 2007 stats. even he could not afford to play like Sampras or Edberg. his answer was that, given the speed of the sport and how it was getting even faster, going to the net simply entailed too much risk. i think the guy who has 13 slams and is competing at the highest level possible knows the deal better than most.

habibko
05-07-2009, 03:14 PM
My point is the following, if you couldn't get it from my previous posts: SURFACES MATTER. I used an example of how a surface completely changed the outcome of a match.

of course they do, it also explains why Nadal hasn't had any success in Shanghai.

as I said before, the tour needs more variety, the tour must range from very fast HC to slow clay evenly distributed, this will give more depth and character to the tour and allow for more variety of styles.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 03:17 PM
I know that and if it depended on me, I would bring wood back and real carpet. But honestly taking Ferrer as an example of how competitive modern tennis is or comparing one generation with another...

did you expect anything better Bazooka. consider the clueless source.

tennizen
05-07-2009, 03:17 PM
of course they do, it also explains why Nadal hasn't had any success in Shanghai.


:rolls: He did not play in 2005 and 2008 and he reached the SF the two times he did play and lost to Fed both times. Yes, it explains your point very well.

habibko
05-07-2009, 03:21 PM
:rolls: He did not play in 2005 and 2008 and he reached the SF the two times he did play and lost to Fed both times. Yes, it explains your point very well.

my point is: surfaces do indeed matter, how come Nadal has had great success against Federer in all sorts of surfaces but his game was reduced to ashes in the surface that doesn't take spin well? surfaces are of course a factor.

however that's not all to it, as CD says, there is also the natural evolution of the sport, players are stronger and faster which makes it harder to attack the net and easier to hit a passing shot, however I'm among those who believe that S&V can also improve and catch up with the evolution of the game, how exactly will that happen is yet to be seen.

Action Jackson
05-07-2009, 03:22 PM
The grass at Wimbledon isn't the same, since the composition was changed so it would have a better durabilty and it resulted it in higher bounce, therefore that is where the surface has changed and the playing style on grass these days reflects this.

Technological advances are accounted for, same in any sport, that is like in any field. Yes, surface doesn't matter. Pim Pim Johansson hadn't played in ages comes out and beats Nadal on a very fast surface indoors, yes it is not a factor.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 03:24 PM
of course they do, it also explains why Nadal hasn't had any success in Shanghai.

as I said before, the tour needs more variety, the tour must range from very fast HC to slow clay evenly distributed, this will give more depth and character to the tour and allow for more variety of styles.

nagative general habibko. that is a sample of one. its just the Clay Monster. how about Ferru. looks like he had a decent Masters Cup there in 2007.

Clay Monster is usually spent by the end of the season and also his very heavy topspin strokes are less penetrating on those quick surfaces at times.

finally, he is a little different player now than he was in 2007. he of course did not play the masters cup in 2008. he has been trying to learn to play a little better on hard courts. he is learning to hit a more destructive backhand and he is also learning to make some positional adjustments on quicker surfaces.

also one other point: it is a little too much to think that a player can dominate on every single surface out there today. the game is more demanding today than it has ever been and his game is not exactly efficient. still, i believe he is trying his best to prove that he can be a factor everywhere.

on quick indoor hard courts, the serve and the return of serve are critical. that is 2 areas where he is relatively weak and it shows a little more clearly on quick indoor hard courts.

like i said, he is tryinng to overcome some of those limitations.

Action Jackson
05-07-2009, 03:27 PM
There are hardly any quick indoor courts these days.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 03:31 PM
The grass at Wimbledon isn't the same, since the composition was changed so it would have a better durabilty and it resulted it in higher bounce, therefore that is where the surface has changed and the playing style on grass these days reflects this.

Technological advances are accounted for, same in any sport, that is like in any field. Yes, surface doesn't matter. Pim Pim Johansson hadn't played in ages comes out and beats Nadal on a very fast surface indoors, yes it is not a factor.


Nadal is a poor example and its also a sample of one. you know all too well that there were a number of players who could run him off the court on hard courts not too long ago. look at what Tsonga did to him at the 2008 Australian Open.

guys like Berdych, Blake, Gonzo, Fed, and a number of others have had some success against him but that was in the past. slowly and surely he has learned to play better on hard courts.

indoor surfaces are still a problem for him but there too, he has shown some progress.

using Johansson alone is also a sample of one. how many other useless clowns are able to pull off what he pulled off.

also consider his heavy topspin. i know you are intelligent enough to understand this. his extremely heavy topspin strokes are less penetrating on hard courts. he has the tendency to drop them short and players are able to attack him.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 03:33 PM
did you expect anything better Bazooka. consider the clueless source.

You talking about cluelessness is comparable to Hitler talking about human rights. No credibility.

my point is: surfaces do indeed matter, how come Nadal has had great success against Federer in all sorts of surfaces but his game was reduced to ashes in the surface that doesn't take spin well? surfaces are of course a factor.

however that's not all to it, as CD says, there is also the natural evolution of the sport, players are stronger and faster which makes it harder to attack the net and easier to hit a passing shot, however I'm among those who believe that S&V can also improve and catch up with the evolution of the game, how exactly will that happen is yet to be seen.

You do know what's the synonym for that, right?

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 03:34 PM
Nadal is a poor example and its also a sample of one. you know all too well that there were a number of players who could run him off the court on hard courts not too long ago. look at what Tsonga did to him at the 2008 Australian Open.

guys like Berdych, Blake, Gonzo, Fed, and a number of others have had some success against him but that was in the past. slowly and surely he has learned to play better on hard courts.

indoor surfaces are still a problem for him but there too, he has shown some progress.

using Johansson alone is also a sample of one. how many other useless clowns are able to pull off what he pulled off.

also consider his heavy topspin. i know you are intelligent enough to understand this. his extremely heavy topspin strokes are less penetrating on hard courts. he has the tendency to drop them short and players are able to attack him.

Gilles Simon.

:lol:

tennizen
05-07-2009, 03:36 PM
my point is: surfaces do indeed matter, how come Nadal has had great success against Federer in all sorts of surfaces but his game was reduced to ashes in the surface that doesn't take spin well? surfaces are of course a factor.


First off his game was not reduced to ashes. In 2006, they played a very tight, tense match which was quite competitive. In 2007, for the majority of the first set Nadal was dominating the baseline rallies. He faded/Fed picked up only in the second set.

Secondly, there is no denying the fact that Nadal's game on hard courts was a work in progress. In fact, the lack of hard court/indoor success for Nadal in 2006-2007 can actually be used to indicate that differences in surfaces still exist:lol:

MacTheKnife
05-07-2009, 03:38 PM
It's fun to reminisce about past but I don't miss it. Going back to the 70s, I've loved watching every decade except, perhaps, the Sampras years. The surfaces have changed as have the playing styles (and I'm not sure whether we've got a 'chicken or egg' thing going on) but what I've come to miss most, I fear, are the "characters." Today's crop of ultra-talented, polite, philanthropic players are just...well...not too terribly exciting to me personally. Luckily, I enjoy the "sport" more than its competitors so I still watch. Guess I'll have to wait around for the next "You cannot be serious" guy to steal my heart away.

I was waiting patiently for someone to post this. I hate to be the same one posting it all the time. Although I do really miss the varying styles as well as the "characters". We at least still get to see Mac on the champions tour still ranting at 50 years old.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 03:38 PM
My point is the following, if you couldn't get it from my previous posts: SURFACES MATTER. I used an example of how a surface completely changed the outcome of a match.

Surfaces matter, but your example sucks.

Surface still matters nowadays, look at Nadal in current indoor courts even if they're not happening in true carpet courts. I would like more diversity too, but I clearly don't find more interesting Lyon, St. Petersburg and Basel than the current outdoor HC. Hating Nadal is not worth ruining the whole sport, is it? :confused:

End of year title should be on real carpet, the 2 AMS preceding it too, but that's all the adjustments I would do, the rest of the toor looks fine for me.

habibko
05-07-2009, 03:38 PM
Nadal is a poor example and its also a sample of one. you know all too well that there were a number of players who could run him off the court on hard courts not too long ago. look at what Tsonga did to him at the 2008 Australian Open.

guys like Berdych, Blake, Gonzo, Fed, and a number of others have had some success against him but that was in the past. slowly and surely he has learned to play better on hard courts.

indoor surfaces are still a problem for him but there too, he has shown some progress.

using Johansson alone is also a sample of one. how many other useless clowns are able to pull off what he pulled off.

also consider his heavy topspin. i know you are intelligent enough to understand this. his extremely heavy topspin strokes are less penetrating on hard courts. he has the tendency to drop them short and players are able to attack him.

then we all agree to the fact that surfaces do matter, the fact that there is no carpet or fast indoor surfaces anymore shows that about 85% of the surfaces nowadays are considered "slow" , how can anyone deny this as a factor to the homogenity of the game?

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 03:39 PM
There are hardly any quick indoor courts these days.

i dont care if they were playing on ice today or tomorrow. they will play exactly the way they are playing now.

nobody can afford to put any food on the table playing any other way. they are bigger, better, and stronger now than ever before.

they also have the benefits of better technology and the benefits of more advanced sports medicine and better training and and better recovery methods.

who the hell is stopping them from playing the way they did 10 years ago? they cant do it. they would starve to death.

Sampras, Edberg, Cash, Rafter, and johhny Mac and the like would be eaten alive today given the way they used to play.

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 03:40 PM
You talking about cluelessness is comparable to Hitler talking about human rights. No credibility.


:haha::haha::haha:

rocketassist
05-07-2009, 03:41 PM
There are no carpet events. De Villiers, and then Rafito and Fedclown's whining killed it.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 03:42 PM
First off his game was not reduced to ashes. In 2006, they played a very tight, tense match which was quite competitive. In 2007, for the majority of the first set Nadal was dominating the baseline rallies. He faded/Fed picked up only in the second set.

Secondly, there is no denying the fact that Nadal's game on hard courts was a work in progress. In fact, the lack of hard court/indoor success for Nadal in 2006-2007 can actually be used to indicate that differences in surfaces still exist:lol:

she has a point general habibko.

Action Jackson
05-07-2009, 03:43 PM
Nadal is a poor example and its also a sample of one. you know all too well that there were a number of players who could run him off the court on hard courts not too long ago. look at what Tsonga did to him at the 2008 Australian Open.

guys like Berdych, Blake, Gonzo, Fed, and a number of others have had some success against him but that was in the past. slowly and surely he has learned to play better on hard courts.

indoor surfaces are still a problem for him but there too, he has shown some progress.

using Johansson alone is also a sample of one. how many other useless clowns are able to pull off what he pulled off.

also consider his heavy topspin. i know you are intelligent enough to understand this. his extremely heavy topspin strokes are less penetrating on hard courts. he has the tendency to drop them short and players are able to attack him.

It all relates, if the indoor fast surfaces were like they used to be, then you'd be still having guys playing like Krajicek, Enqvist, Ivanisevic, but as they don't have those types of courts these days, then those types of players aren't prevalent as before, therefore one leads into the other.

Topspin was around before Nadal, but he does not face the challenges of improvising and tweaking his game to succeed on lightning fast surfaces, due to the fact there aren't the event. Simple Corretja beat Sampras on a lightning fast court at the TMC and Guga defeated Sampras and Agassi in a row. Nadal doesn't play events on surfaces this quick, as those surfaces don't exist. If they did, then big powerful servers would benefit from this.

Those guys mentioned can play well against Nadal on hardcourts, that's all that is, nothing and nothing less.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-07-2009, 03:49 PM
Nadal only started winning recently on HC because indeed he´s not the GOAT, nnot because the courts were reaaaly fast.

As for a better future,
They can use the grass in my house garden. Hardly I can hit more than two shots on the wall. Jungle surface.

habibko
05-07-2009, 03:52 PM
she has a point general habibko.

maybe she is right, but what does that prove? that surfaces are not a factor at all to the dominant style with which the game is played now? it's a complex of factors, if there were more fast courts around more players growing up will favor different styles and they will have successes in them, we can't dismiss this factor as well.

as I said many times before, I don't believe that this baseline power game is the final evolutionary state of the game.

Action Jackson
05-07-2009, 03:58 PM
i dont care if they were playing on ice today or tomorrow. they will play exactly the way they are playing now.

nobody can afford to put any food on the table playing any other way. they are bigger, better, and stronger now than ever before.

they also have the benefits of better technology and the benefits of more advanced sports medicine and better training and and better recovery methods.

who the hell is stopping them from playing the way they did 10 years ago? they cant do it. they would starve to death.

Sampras, Edberg, Cash, Rafter, and johhny Mac and the like would be eaten alive today given the way they used to play.

You fail to realise what has lead to the current status we have at the moment, as I said, it doesn't matter whether I like it or not, if you don't understand how it came to this and what the by product is, then you aren't going to get, who, what and how the next major change once the next generational shift and yes there will be more to come.

Next of all, the surfaces are homogenised, therefore players are going to play the way that suits those particular conditions. I only said this about 10 posts ago. Hence what is currently being played now is what suits the conditions and court surfaces, they aren't the same as 10 yrs ago, so surprise surprise they aren't going to play the same way as they are today.

Those guys you mentioned wouldn't play the same way now as they would then, why because they were a product of their environment, that is just commonsense. Champions would be champions in era, there are certain skills that champions have that pass through generations.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 04:06 PM
It all relates, if the indoor fast surfaces were like they used to be, then you'd be still having guys playing like Krajicek, Enqvist, Ivanisevic, but as they don't have those types of courts these days, then those types of players aren't prevalent as before, therefore one leads into the other.

Topspin was around before Nadal, but he does not face the challenges of improvising and tweaking his game to succeed on lightning fast surfaces, due to the fact there aren't the event. Simple Corretja beat Sampras on a lightning fast court at the TMC and Guga defeated Sampras and Agassi in a row. Nadal doesn't play events on surfaces this quick, as those surfaces don't exist. If they did, then big powerful servers would benefit from this.

Those guys mentioned can play well against Nadal on hardcourts, that's all that is, nothing and nothing less.


all valid points and relevant to the discussion in question. lets also consider this: a big serve alone today is not enough. rest of your game also has to world class if you want to be a top player or a top 3 or top 4.

my point is simply this: i know you know the deal but some are not that receptive to it.

the game is moving and evolving to its very natural progression. it is going in the direction it has had to. surface changes may have expedited that but not to the extent that people believe it did. there would have been no stopping the increasing speed of the sport. stick around another 10 years. its going to get a lot faster.

it is significantly fast now and getting faster. there is no other way to wage the war on any court other than to do it the way it is being done. for those who love the forecourt, volleys are not going to be extinct. you just have to go in own your own terms and you better be able to end the point that is begging to be ended.

for instance, you have said in the past that they are playing a hard court game on clay. lets just use that as an example. the name of the game is power and speed and more power and more speed. its more about aggression now than it has ever been in the past.

only this aggression is from the backcourt. why? because of the speed of the game. its best to pull the trigger on the right short. you have to create your opportunities and you need to be very agggressive in doing so. attack or be attacked. on quicker hard courts, first strike advantage is near critical.

clay lends itself to point construction obviously but they are launching themselves into the oncoming balls off both wings. on slighly faster courts, all weak replies are attacked mercilessly.

this more aggresive game is only possible from the backcourt given the speed of the game. put in a weak reply and you have to guess one way or the other even from the backcourt. can you imagine what you would be doing at the net?

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 04:10 PM
You fail to realise what has lead to the current status we have at the moment, as I said, it doesn't matter whether I like it or not, if you don't understand how it came to this and what the by product is, then you aren't going to get, who, what and how the next major change once the next generational shift and yes there will be more to come.

Next of all, the surfaces are homogenised, therefore players are going to play the way that suits those particular conditions. I only said this about 10 posts ago. Hence what is currently being played now is what suits the conditions and court surfaces, they aren't the same as 10 yrs ago, so surprise surprise they aren't going to play the same way as they are today.

Those guys you mentioned wouldn't play the same way now as they would then, why because they were a product of their environment, that is just commonsense. Champions would be champions in era, there are certain skills that champions have that pass through generations.

actually i understand quite well the current evolutionary state of the sport. this is not rocket science. most everybody saw it coming several years ago. what is incredible is that the game is fast and getting faster right before our very eyes.

runaway speed of the game would have and indeed have outrun any surface changes anyway. the proof is right before your eyes.

in any case, relatively good discussion on your part. i appreciate the input.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-07-2009, 04:16 PM
You have slower courts: volleys bounce more and approach shots don´t go further, bouncing too much, making impossible to go to the net.
Then they use better equipment to make it possible to shot faster shots on the back court, but this eqwuipment won´t help the volleys.

If they made faster surfaces with low bouncing maybe some players could arffod the power coming from the backcourt with a more close to the net strategy and serving power. Is that the point?

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 04:21 PM
You have slower courts: volleys bounce more and approach shots don´t go further, bouncing too much, making impossible to go to the net.
Then they use better equipment to make it possible to shot faster shots on the back court, but this eqwuipment won´t help the volleys.

If they made faster surfaces with low bouncing maybe some players could arffod the power coming from the backcourt with a more close to the net strategy and serving power. Is that the point?

False. Example: Borg volleys on RG clay were definitive, and it was a slow, high bounce surface. Volleys bounce more nowadays because players don't know how to volley. Watch the volleys of top double players like Mike Brian or Zimonjic.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-07-2009, 04:27 PM
False. Example: Borg volleys on RG clay were definitive, and it was a slow, high bounce surface. Volleys bounce more nowadays because players don't know how to volley. Watch the volleys of top double players like Mike Brian or Zimonjic.

But you are telling about something that happened more than 30 years ago, since the 80´s good volleyeres couldn´t play well on RG because the tour got more quality, and also Borg could volley better because he intended to win Wimbledon which was a very fast court too. Why players can´t volley, because they are worried about playing in the back, plus the standard teachings of academies like Bolletieri or Sanchez plus the decrease of courts speed.

habibko
05-07-2009, 04:29 PM
all valid points and relevant to the discussion in question. lets also consider this: a big serve alone today is not enough. rest of your game also has to world class if you want to be a top player or a top 3 or top 4.

my point is simply this: i know you know the deal but some are not that receptive to it.

the game is moving and evolving to its very natural progression. it is going in the direction it has had to. surface changes may have expedited that but not to the extent that people believe it did. there would have been no stopping the increasing speed of the sport. stick around another 10 years. its going to get a lot faster.

it is significantly fast now and getting faster. there is no other way to wage the war on any court other than to do it the way it is being done. for those who love the forecourt, volleys are not going to be extinct. you just have to go in own your own terms and you better be able to end the point that is begging to be ended.

for instance, you have said in the past that they are playing a hard court game on clay. lets just use that as an example. the name of the game is power and speed and more power and more speed. its more about aggression now than it has ever been in the past.

only this aggression is from the backcourt. why? because of the speed of the game. its best to pull the trigger on the right short. you have to create your opportunities and you need to be very agggressive in doing so. attack or be attacked. on quicker hard courts, first strike advantage is near critical.

clay lends itself to point construction obviously but they are launching themselves into the oncoming balls off both wings. on slighly faster courts, all weak replies are attacked mercilessly.

this more aggresive game is only possible from the backcourt given the speed of the game. put in a weak reply and you have to guess one way or the other even from the backcourt. can you imagine what you would be doing at the net?

of course you are right about the evolution of the sport CD, and it's a valid point that the slowing of the courts was a move to prolong the points and allow for more tennis to be played, not just a serve fest or a 4-5 shots rallies.

however what we call for is a little variation, faster courts will allow more success to those players who like to wage their war at the net and finish points fast, and tennis spectators love to see that as well, surfaces should be able to reflect the depth and the possibilities of many styles that tennis can be played in, this is not possible in the current state of the court surfaces.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 04:37 PM
False. Example: Borg volleys on RG clay were definitive, and it was a slow, high bounce surface. Volleys bounce more nowadays because players don't know how to volley. Watch the volleys of top double players like Mike Brian or Zimonjic.

Then what is the reason players can't volley? Volleying is not being worked on nowadays, because surfaces are too slow for net rushing to be effective.

rafa_maniac
05-07-2009, 04:48 PM
Grass. Greener.

Johnny Groove
05-07-2009, 04:50 PM
Then what is the reason players can't volley? Volleying is not being worked on nowadays, because surfaces are too slow for net rushing to be effective.

Not really.

The serve volley game can still be effective, but people all have that mindset that surfaces are too slow for it to be effective, and they camp at the baseline.

Just because it takes a little bit of hard work to develop a serve volley game, most juniors don't feel like doing it and neither do their coaches. Baseliners dominate the tour as a result. I can't wait for the young kid that has the cojones to develop his net game in conjunction with his baseline game to create the hybrid player of the future.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Then what is the reason players can't volley? Volleying is not being worked on nowadays, because surfaces are too slow for net rushing to be effective.

Not really. Volleys are underrated in tennis training nowadays because now you can make winners safely from the baseline, 30 years ago with wooden racquets it was very difficult to do that.

Think at it this way. 30 years ago there were fast surfaces, OK? but we had slow racquets and less powerful players. But since 15-20 years ago players became more powerful because of modern racquets, and also because of more professional training and technique. It was only a natural thing to do to slow down the courts and balls to compensate for that extra speed.

I see the 90's (still fast courts, plus modern equipment and racquets) as an anomaly that needed correction, and enjoy much more the previous and following eras. I understand that some people here can believe that a Sampras-Ivanisevic servefest may be the top expression of the sport, but you must equally understand and respect people that really enjoyed more the last Wimbledon final, which I suspect is a vast majority.

Having said that, some end of year carpet would add a nice variety to the game, but I suspect it would attract much less the general crowd and not make enough money.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 05:23 PM
Not really.

The serve volley game can still be effective, but people all have that mindset that surfaces are too slow for it to be effective, and they camp at the baseline.

Just because it takes a little bit of hard work to develop a serve volley game, most juniors don't feel like doing it and neither do their coaches. Baseliners dominate the tour as a result. I can't wait for the young kid that has the cojones to develop his net game in conjunction with his baseline game to create the hybrid player of the future.

i can lead a horse to the water but i cant make him drink it. and some of course are way too blind to know what is really happening on the court.

lets just take the hamburg surface. its plenty slow and may even be the slowest clay around. and during that time of the year, its just plain damp and cold in Hamburg.

last year, in a single set, Djokovic was able to hit an astounding 21 winners on the Clay Warrior who is not exactly slow on clay. why?

i think Murray blasted 22 winners past Nadal at Monte Carlo just a few days ago in a single set. that is mind blowing number of winners on dirt in a single set. again, how is that possible?

once again, this is not the same game that you saw even 5 years ago, let alone 10 years ago. the game is fast and getting faster.

you are not allowed to volley as you please anymore. not a single player--that is right, not a single bloody player can put any food on the table--trying to conduct business at the net.

you simply must go in own your own terms or you are taking a massive risk. you dont give these players too many bites at the cherry when you are at the net.

if you damn near have to guess at the baseline you can only imagine what you would be doing at the net. that is right. you will be getting killed at the net left and right.

clay monster is the only top player who has not learned to be relatively competent at the net but he manages anyway. stop looking at him as the representative of the entire sport. he creates his opportunities and does what he can at the net.

there is no better volleyer on the planet that Fed aned even he is helpless at the net unless he goes in own his own terms.

Murray and Djokovic are plenty confident at the net and quite competent at volleying but you dont see them mindlessly rushing to the net.

Edberg, Sampras, Cash, Rafter did what they had to. they were able to get away with serving and volleying. also, they did not have particularly robust, bullet proof backhands so they could not really dominate from the backcourt.

you have to be rock solid off both wings today and you have to have finishing power off either wing. Agassi was a pioneer in that respect. when he was playing, lot of people had big forehands but nobody had any real backhand, the one that was equally destructive. he had that and he forced others to improve.

he had his difficulties with Sampras but that is because Sampras had just too big of a serve for even Agassi. he had also had a little bit of mental edge over Agassi. that is a topi for another day anyway.

the reason you are not seeing people rushing to the net is because they will essentially go hungry if they did. the game has changed.

you are not only being forced to volley balls that are moving significanly faster but also balls that have significantly more spin at times. its just too risky to be at the net today.

it has nothing to do with players not being able to volley. they just cant volley what they cant see.

Johnny Groove
05-07-2009, 05:29 PM
CD, I understand what you're saying, but what would Murray and Djokovic do against a really good net rusher that could also hang with them from the baseline? This player would serve and rush the net about 1/3rd of the time while staying back the other 2/3rds.

Just enough to keep them guessing, but not enough for them to get into a passing shot groove. Serve and volley is about spot serving and rushing the net strategically. You don't just run up there off shitty approaches like Roddick and hope to hit volleys like Mcenroe.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 05:35 PM
CD, I understand what you're saying, but what would Murray and Djokovic do against a really good net rusher that could also hang with them from the baseline? This player would serve and rush the net about 1/3rd of the time while staying back the other 2/3rds.

Just enough to keep them guessing, but not enough for them to get into a passing shot groove. Serve and volley is about spot serving and rushing the net strategically. You don't just run up there off shitty approaches like Roddick and hope to hit volleys like Mcenroe.

my post was not directed at you groove dude. my mistake. i should have made that clear from the start. i know you know the game.

i agree with what you are saying. it adds a little element of surprise and also keeps them from getting into some kind of rhythm.

that said, that has to be its only purpose. good post.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Not really. Volleys are underrated in tennis training nowadays because now you can make winners safely from the baseline, 30 years ago with wooden racquets it was very difficult to do that.

Think at it this way. 30 years ago there were fast surfaces, OK? but we had slow racquets and less powerful players. But since 15-20 years ago players became more powerful because of modern racquets, and also because of more professional training and technique. It was only a natural thing to do to slow down the courts and balls to compensate for that extra speed.

I see the 90's (still fast courts, plus modern equipment and racquets) as an anomaly that needed correction, and enjoy much more the previous and following eras. I understand that some people here can believe that a Sampras-Ivanisevic servefest may be the top expression of the sport, but you must equally understand and respect people that really enjoyed more the last Wimbledon final, which I suspect is a vast majority.

Having said that, some end of year carpet would add a nice variety to the game, but I suspect it would attract much less the general crowd and not make enough money.

No. We don't have to respect anyone who thinks the last Wimbledon final is how tennis should be played on grass. Get a clue mate. Grass tennis should be S&V. Simple as that.

The 90s weren't an anomaly. Are you brain dead? The 90s had everything - you had a Filippini kind of guy going far in RG, you had a Alexander Popp going far in Wimbledon, you had the occasional American guy going far in fast HCs. You had everything. Nowadays it's always the same - therefore, tennis has lost its identity of a varied sport, with space for many different strategies and game styles.

Tennis has always made money. This "courts have been slowed down to attract more public" talk is pure and complete bullshit.

You give too much value for this whole "tennis players have become more professional" rambling. Are you saying Lendl wasn't professional? Sampras wasn't professional? They trained as much as players today train. However, in their time, you could play much more on technique and not so much on physique, therefore making the training of technique much more important.

Also players today all dope. Probably 98% or even more.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 05:39 PM
my post was not directed at you groove dude. my mistake. i should have made that clear from the start. i know you know the game.

i agree with what you are saying. it adds a little element of surprise and also keeps them from getting into some kind of rhythm.

that said, that has to be its only purpose. good post.

:haha:

This is like Stalin saying "Comrade Hitler, you are the most sensitive, trustable and reasonable leader in the history of the world".

:haha:

prima donna
05-07-2009, 05:43 PM
No. We don't have to respect anyone who thinks the last Wimbledon final is how tennis should be played on grass. Get a clue mate. Grass tennis should be S&V. Simple as that.

The 90s weren't an anomaly. Are you brain dead? The 90s had everything - you had a Filippini kind of guy going far in RG, you had a Alexander Popp going far in Wimbledon, you had the occasional American guy going far in fast HCs. You had everything. Nowadays it's always the same - therefore, tennis has lost its identity of a varied sport, with space for many different strategies and game styles.

Tennis has always made money. This "courts have been slowed down to attract more public" talk is pure and complete bullshit.

You give too much value for this whole "tennis players have become more professional" rambling. Are you saying Lendl wasn't professional? Sampras wasn't professional? They trained as much as players today train. However, in their time, you could play much more on technique and not so much on physique, therefore making the training of technique much more important.



Well put.

JolánGagó
05-07-2009, 05:44 PM
No. We don't have to respect anyone who thinks the last Wimbledon final is how tennis should be played on grass.

who's "we" :shrug:

Get a clue mate. Grass tennis should be S&V. Simple as that.

Utterly conservatistic bullshit.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 05:47 PM
who's "we" :shrug:



Utterly conservatistic bullshit.

exactly. bullshit of the highest possible order from the truly clueless, aimless, and the mindless.

at least some are consistent in their near complete ignorance of realities on the ground.

Fumus
05-07-2009, 05:52 PM
exactly. bullshit of the highest possible order from the truly clueless, aimless, and the mindless.

at least some are consistent in their near complete ignorance of realities on the ground.

Are you claiming that you live in reality? :confused:

rocketassist
05-07-2009, 05:56 PM
No. We don't have to respect anyone who thinks the last Wimbledon final is how tennis should be played on grass. Get a clue mate. Grass tennis should be S&V. Simple as that.

The 90s weren't an anomaly. Are you brain dead? The 90s had everything - you had a Filippini kind of guy going far in RG, you had a Alexander Popp going far in Wimbledon, you had the occasional American guy going far in fast HCs. You had everything. Nowadays it's always the same - therefore, tennis has lost its identity of a varied sport, with space for many different strategies and game styles.

Tennis has always made money. This "courts have been slowed down to attract more public" talk is pure and complete bullshit.

You give too much value for this whole "tennis players have become more professional" rambling. Are you saying Lendl wasn't professional? Sampras wasn't professional? They trained as much as players today train. However, in their time, you could play much more on technique and not so much on physique, therefore making the training of technique much more important.

Agree with a lot of this. Diversity is dead and that's one of the reasons we have one of the weakest eras in tennis history.

If Nadal can use heavy topspin strokes to win Wimbledon, Fakervic's hardcourt tennis be Nadal's greatest competition on clay and 2009 Fed can still beat most guys on any surface when playing shit it says it all.

W E A K E R A.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 06:03 PM
who's "we" :shrug:

Utterly conservatistic bullshit.

Tennis is a sport based on tradition. If you want novelty, there's always football.

Agree with a lot of this. Diversity is dead and that's one of the reasons we have one of the weakest eras in tennis history.

If Nadal can use heavy topspin strokes to win Wimbledon, Fakervic's hardcourt tennis be Nadal's greatest competition on clay and 2009 Fed can still beat most guys on any surface when playing shit it says it all.

W E A K E R A.

Yep.

Fumus
05-07-2009, 06:04 PM
Best Tennis ERA ever.

rocketassist
05-07-2009, 06:08 PM
Best Tennis ERA ever.

Yeah, an era where Roddick's forehand is a moonballing loopy pile of shit instead of 2004 when he was cracking them like a ballbasher.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 06:11 PM
I think Fumus is being a bit ironic. Maybe not. You never know.

Matt01
05-07-2009, 06:12 PM
Murray and Djokovic are plenty confident at the net and quite competent at volleying but you dont see them mindlessly rushing to the net.


That last part made me laugh...I admit that Djoker is/was trying to improve his net game but when does Murray ever come to the net?



Edberg, Sampras, Cash, Rafter did what they had to. they were able to get away with serving and volleying. also, they did not have particularly robust, bullet proof backhands so they could not really dominate from the backcourt.


Edberg for example had a very good backhand, much better than his forhand. And Sampras and Rafter didn't need a "robust" backhand, since with their volley game it was more useful to have one-handed slice backhand than to have a "robust", powerful two-handed one.

Matt01
05-07-2009, 06:14 PM
Yeah, an era where Roddick's forehand is a moonballing loopy pile of shit instead of 2004 when he was cracking them like a ballbasher.


That's one of the reasons why he doesn't win Slams anymore. Thank god!

BaselineSmash
05-07-2009, 06:16 PM
Most of us miss Rafter, on that at least we can agree.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 06:18 PM
No. We don't have to respect anyone who thinks the last Wimbledon final is how tennis should be played on grass. Get a clue mate. Grass tennis should be S&V. Simple as that.

The 90s weren't an anomaly. Are you brain dead? The 90s had everything - you had a Filippini kind of guy going far in RG, you had a Alexander Popp going far in Wimbledon, you had the occasional American guy going far in fast HCs. You had everything. Nowadays it's always the same - therefore, tennis has lost its identity of a varied sport, with space for many different strategies and game styles.

Tennis has always made money. This "courts have been slowed down to attract more public" talk is pure and complete bullshit.

You give too much value for this whole "tennis players have become more professional" rambling. Are you saying Lendl wasn't professional? Sampras wasn't professional? They trained as much as players today train. However, in their time, you could play much more on technique and not so much on physique, therefore making the training of technique much more important.

Also players today all dope. Probably 98% or even more.

:rolleyes:

I am afraid this debate is pure nostalgy for some people here, the game has evolved into a sport, accept it. What's so special about Filippini or Alexander Popp making a QF??? I don't get it, please elaborate.

And about doping, don't even get me started, in the 90's everybody doped massively and there were barely any tests, right now drugs are there, for sure, but tests are much more frequent and effective.

Erica86
05-07-2009, 06:21 PM
Not really. Volleys are underrated in tennis training nowadays because now you can make winners safely from the baseline, 30 years ago with wooden racquets it was very difficult to do that.

Think at it this way. 30 years ago there were fast surfaces, OK? but we had slow racquets and less powerful players. But since 15-20 years ago players became more powerful because of modern racquets, and also because of more professional training and technique. It was only a natural thing to do to slow down the courts and balls to compensate for that extra speed.

I see the 90's (still fast courts, plus modern equipment and racquets) as an anomaly that needed correction, and enjoy much more the previous and following eras. I understand that some people here can believe that a Sampras-Ivanisevic servefest may be the top expression of the sport, but you must equally understand and respect people that really enjoyed more the last Wimbledon final, which I suspect is a vast majority.

Having said that, some end of year carpet would add a nice variety to the game, but I suspect it would attract much less the general crowd and not make enough money.

Exactly. This is contributing well to the topic.
Some people who gave their opinion in this post are haters whose only goal is just dismiss the current number 1.

jonathancrane
05-07-2009, 06:25 PM
What happens here is that all of you haters can't stand the BEST EVER ATHLETE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT SHOWING HOW TENNIS MUST BE PLAYED NOW AND EVER
Rafita would have crushed Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Amrstrong, Jordan and Garrincha without any problems
VAMOS RAFITO YOU'RE THE BEST

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 06:30 PM
:rolleyes:

I am afraid this debate is pure nostalgy for some people here, the game has evolved into a sport, accept it. What's so special about Filippini or Alexander Popp making a QF??? I don't get it, please elaborate.

And about doping, don't even get me started, in the 90's everybody doped massively and there were barely any tests, right now drugs are there, for sure, but tests are much more frequent and effective.

The point is they were specialists of clay and grass, respectively. At those times, they were benefitted by the diversity of surfaces, something that has vanished nowadays.

Drug tests nowadays are only for the lower-ranked players.

Erica86
05-07-2009, 06:35 PM
The point is they were specialists of clay and grass, respectively. At those times, they were benefitted by the diversity of surfaces, something that has vanished nowadays.

Drug tests nowadays are only for the lower-ranked players.

:haha::haha: How the hell do you know about that? Unless you are shit player and they come to your house everyday, I just can't understand what you say.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 06:49 PM
:rolleyes:

I am afraid this debate is pure nostalgy for some people here, the game has evolved into a sport, accept it. What's so special about Filippini or Alexander Popp making a QF??? I don't get it, please elaborate.

And about doping, don't even get me started, in the 90's everybody doped massively and there were barely any tests, right now drugs are there, for sure, but tests are much more frequent and effective.

good post. to be more precise, some of this debate is honest and intelligent but some of it is just a indirect reflection of a massive hatred of Nadal. what a pity that some refuse to grow up even as they are being laughed at for being so ignonrant.

the latest issue of TENNIS magazine has a big article on this very subject. the pros and the experts clearly reach the same conclusion that myself and a few others like the groove dude and yourself have expressed. i appreciate action jackson`s input as well.

Peter Lunndgren says specifically and in no uncertain terms that the size, strength, and the speed of the athletes, much more so than than the modern equipment or the efforts to slow down the surfaces, is the cause of the style of play we see today.

this is consistent with what i have been saying. all gains in power and speed of the game will come from the athletes themselves and in a way they launch themselves into the ball.

according to the article, slower courts can only account for so much whn the players continue to hit the ball harder and harder.

the article continues:

"there was once a time in men`s tennis when a reasonably good approach shot, a ball hit fairly hard and deep and close to the line, was a safe bet. Today, every attempt to take the initiative during the point is fraught with danger, even if it forces an oponent to scamble wide of the doubles alley......".

i can go on and on but whats the point. you can only lead the horse to the water. you have to be able to see it for yourself.

Clay Death
05-07-2009, 06:52 PM
What happens here is that all of you haters can't stand the BEST EVER ATHLETE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT SHOWING HOW TENNIS MUST BE PLAYED NOW AND EVER
Rafita would have crushed Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Amrstrong, Jordan and Garrincha without any problems
VAMOS RAFITO YOU'RE THE BEST

you just hit the nail right on the head. well done.

some truly ignorant ones dont know when the game is over. they just need to shut up now and go home.

their cries here will fall on deaf ears. worse, they are laughed at for having ZERO credibility.

Fumus
05-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Yeah, an era where Roddick's forehand is a moonballing loopy pile of shit instead of 2004 when he was cracking them like a ballbasher.

Who is this player that you speak of? Didn't he retire after that 05' AO semi final against Hewitt? Yes, yes, I do say, it must be him. I remember that chap, yes he retired. He hired some terrible impostor to play out the rest of his career for him, clever move eh, governor?. I think he lives in Otisburgh now. Otisss-burgh? Yes mister Lut-thor.

I think Fumus is being a bit ironic. Maybe not. You never know.

Glenn you're a sexy beast.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 06:56 PM
:haha::haha: How the hell do you know about that? Unless you are shit player and they come to your house everyday, I just can't understand what you say.

What about this: Puerta, Coria, Beck are caught by anti-doping but other clear dopers, like Agassi and others, never got caught.

A_Skywalker
05-07-2009, 06:57 PM
What about this: Puerta, Coria, Beck are caught by anti-doping but other clear dopers, like Agassi and others, never got caught.

What makes you think Agassi was a doper ?

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 06:58 PM
Glenn you're a sexy beast.

Wow, you're being dead serious! :o

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 06:58 PM
What makes you think Agassi was a doper ?

36 year-old playing like a 20 year-old, with a broken back??????

D-o-p-e.

Jimnik
05-07-2009, 07:02 PM
This is what Wimbledon were scared of:

IYDABjLoUOw&hl

This was not serve-volley tennis - just serve. Sampras only had to volley on 50% of his service points and Ivanisevic on only 30%. Goran didn't even need a decent volley, in fact he lost most points when the serve came back.

Fumus
05-07-2009, 07:04 PM
Wow, you're being dead serious! :o

It's true, you're my human lie detector.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-07-2009, 07:11 PM
This is what Wimbledon were scared of:


This was not serve-volley tennis - just serve. Sampras only had to volley on 50% of his service points and Ivanisevic on only 30%. Goran didn't even need a decent volley, in fact he lost most points when the serve came back.

This is: serve or volley. Quite nice actually.:worship:

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 07:49 PM
This is what Wimbledon were scared of:

IYDABjLoUOw&hl

This was not serve-volley tennis - just serve. Sampras only had to volley on 50% of his service points and Ivanisevic on only 30%. Goran didn't even need a decent volley, in fact he lost most points when the serve came back.

Sorry mate, but Wimbledon was never scared of that. You were, probably, on the other hand.

Wimbledon changed their surface because the claycourters at the end of the 90s started making too much pressure about the courts.

jonathancrane
05-07-2009, 07:57 PM
This is what Wimbledon were scared of:


This was not serve-volley tennis - just serve. Sampras only had to volley on 50% of his service points and Ivanisevic on only 30%. Goran didn't even need a decent volley, in fact he lost most points when the serve came back.

You are talking about one match. Watch the other Goran-Sampras matches at Wimbledon and you'll see much more than only serves.
Think about it: this kind of tennis only happened during a few weeks in the year, the people who love it only had those few tournaments in the whole year. Why kill it?

BTW- I got no problem with that 94 final, impressed me a lot when i saw it and still love it

LeChuck
05-07-2009, 08:17 PM
There were some interesting tid bits in Sampras's autobiography. He admitted that entertainment-wise Goran and him were a bad match-up for each other. I didn't know this, but apparently they slowed down the grass in 1995. Pete said that no-one noticed this because most players continued to come to the net on both 1st and 2nd serves anyway. He felt that unlike the 1994 final, the 1995 final against Becker was an entertaining, high quality match, and I would agree with that. The Becker-Agassi SF was also great viewing, despite my dislike of both players. 1995 is easily my favourite tennis season since I started following the sport.
He said that he was delighted to face Agassi in the 1999 final, as it enabled him to play the same way that he would have done on other surfaces. He wished that he was able to face Agassi more often at Wimbledon, especially in the final, as it would have made more entertaining viewing for spectators. The 1999 final was an excellent match, and despite Agassi being on the receiving end of a tennis clinic from Pete, I still maintain that he played pretty well in that match, and on the previous day he had impressively disposed of Rafter in straight sets in their SF. He also thought that Rafter and him were a good match-up for each other, as Rafter didn't have a huge serve, but it was very accurate and 'kicked like a mule' so to speak. Plus he stayed back occasionally.
From my point of view at Wimbledon in the 90s, I would have liked to have seen more players continuing to come to the net on 1st serves, but staying back on 2nd serves.

Erica86
05-07-2009, 09:09 PM
This is what Wimbledon were scared of:

IYDABjLoUOw&hl

This was not serve-volley tennis - just serve. Sampras only had to volley on 50% of his service points and Ivanisevic on only 30%. Goran didn't even need a decent volley, in fact he lost most points when the serve came back.

If this is the type of tennis some people like, I must say that I prefer cricket to this kind of tennis; at least you can talk to your friends in the stands all the time.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 09:14 PM
36 year-old playing like a 20 year-old, with a broken back??????

D-o-p-e.

Yeah, like that 31 guy that was doing shit for two years, then won a slam. :cool:

Accusing someone of doping with just supossitions to back you is :retard::help::retard:, I have my own theories about some of the players in the 80's and 90's that probably doped but will never say a word on it unless evidence shows up. Being a conspiracy theorist will only give you the approval of people with a similar degree of touch with reality.

P.S.: I don't think the 31 guy I mentioned really doped, just doing a little Reductio ad absurdum.

About specialists: I also think they were cool, but fastening surfaces won't bring them back!!! The day graphite racquets were added to the game, all of this was destined to happen, there is no other possible outcome. For a while you saw players with modern racquets that had grown up with old ones, that's why it didn't mean a huge change in the game except in serve. But kids that have had a graphite racquet since they left the craddle, at 12 can hit a winner from the baseline that Laver wouldn't believe possible, and here come the final consequences of this evolution. Groundstrokes are powerful and with a lot of topspin, even in grass (yeah, the fucking SAME grass, only a little more regular in bounce and marginally slower).

Ilovetheblues_86
05-07-2009, 09:34 PM
If this is the type of tennis some people like, I must say that I prefer cricket to this kind of tennis; at least you can talk to your friends in the stands all the time.

I cry because that video was too beautiful. :sad:

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 09:40 PM
I cry because that video was too beautiful. :sad:

:confused:

Well, you perverts had your decade, now it's our turn to watch some sport!

Erica86
05-07-2009, 09:42 PM
I cry because that video was too beautiful. :sad:

In that case I can suggest bowling to you. Here, you throw the ball, and that's it:no response.
People just get wild shouting 'Strike' or 'Spare' and that's it, there is no a stupid person who returns the ball you throw.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-07-2009, 09:49 PM
In that case I can suggest bowling to you. Here, you throw the ball, and that's it:no response.
People just get wild shouting 'Strike' or 'Spare' and that's it, there is no a stupid person who returns the ball you throw.

That's your opinion. It´s not like tennis was like that all the time. At least at Wimbledon it was and I liked it, fast serves and net job. I used to like clay a lot too, Kuerten is my favorite idol with his topspin forehand being my favorite shot of his in opposite of everyone liking his backhand, but now I get nervous with the clay season, because it lasts a lot of more time than it should.

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 09:52 PM
There were some interesting tid bits in Sampras's autobiography. He admitted that entertainment-wise Goran and him were a bad match-up for each other. I didn't know this, but apparently they slowed down the grass in 1995. Pete said that no-one noticed this because most players continued to come to the net on both 1st and 2nd serves anyway. He felt that unlike the 1994 final, the 1995 final against Becker was an entertaining, high quality match, and I would agree with that. The Becker-Agassi SF was also great viewing, despite my dislike of both players. 1995 is easily my favourite tennis season since I started following the sport.
He said that he was delighted to face Agassi in the 1999 final, as it enabled him to play the same way that he would have done on other surfaces. He wished that he was able to face Agassi more often at Wimbledon, especially in the final, as it would have made more entertaining viewing for spectators. The 1999 final was an excellent match, and despite Agassi being on the receiving end of a tennis clinic from Pete, I still maintain that he played pretty well in that match, and on the previous day he had impressively disposed of Rafter in straight sets in their SF. He also thought that Rafter and him were a good match-up for each other, as Rafter didn't have a huge serve, but it was very accurate and 'kicked like a mule' so to speak. Plus he stayed back occasionally.
From my point of view at Wimbledon in the 90s, I would have liked to have seen more players continuing to come to the net on 1st serves, but staying back on 2nd serves.

Thanks for the info. The Agassi/Becker semi was awesome, but it sucked in the sense that my fave player at the time lost and that we didnt have another Pete/Andre final. I would have liked to see them played at at least one more Wimby final. The other one was very entertaining even though Pete was in the zone. Agassi was at his peak yet Pete ripped him a new one. But when Pete was serving like that not even the best returner could do something, the same thing happened at the USO. It was very frustrating if you were an Andre fan. I mean every time he got a chance to break or something Pete would just serve an ace, even on second serves. In that sense it was kinda boring. In todays conditions for instance i could see Agassi do a lot better against Pete. I would have loved for Fed to have been around then to see what he would have done to Rafter, Pete, Andre and Becker. That would have been something. I think Fed would have done exceptionally well all the same.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 10:34 PM
If this is the type of tennis some people like, I must say that I prefer cricket to this kind of tennis; at least you can talk to your friends in the stands all the time.

Only someone with animal-like behaviour would talk during a tennis point.

Yeah, like that 31 guy that was doing shit for two years, then won a slam. :cool:

Accusing someone of doping with just supossitions to back you is :retard::help::retard:, I have my own theories about some of the players in the 80's and 90's that probably doped but will never say a word on it unless evidence shows up. Being a conspiracy theorist will only give you the approval of people with a similar degree of touch with reality.

P.S.: I don't think the 31 guy I mentioned really doped, just doing a little Reductio ad absurdum.

About specialists: I also think they were cool, but fastening surfaces won't bring them back!!! The day graphite racquets were added to the game, all of this was destined to happen, there is no other possible outcome. For a while you saw players with modern racquets that had grown up with old ones, that's why it didn't mean a huge change in the game except in serve. But kids that have had a graphite racquet since they left the craddle, at 12 can hit a winner from the baseline that Laver wouldn't believe possible, and here come the final consequences of this evolution. Groundstrokes are powerful and with a lot of topspin, even in grass (yeah, the fucking SAME grass, only a little more regular in bounce and marginally slower).

Take off that blindfold, mate. Graphite rackets were introduced in the 60s, mixed with wood or metal and then as 100% "graphite" (actually epoxy and carbon fiber composites) in the early-mid eighties. If your theory were right, what is happening today should have happened a long time ago. You are very naďve to think professionals can't adapt to new rackets.

On the blindfold theme, if you're afraid of saying what needs to be said, it's your problem. Everybody knows the dopers on tour.

MacTheKnife
05-07-2009, 10:42 PM
You are talking about one match. Watch the other Goran-Sampras matches at Wimbledon and you'll see much more than only serves.
Think about it: this kind of tennis only happened during a few weeks in the year, the people who love it only had those few tournaments in the whole year. Why kill it?

BTW- I got no problem with that 94 final, impressed me a lot when i saw it and still love it

Exactly !!! It "was" just something different to watch and enjoy. And I don't care what anybody thinks, that's damn tough tennis to play. The reflexes and hand-eye required are off the charts.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 10:44 PM
Exactly !!! It "was" just something different to watch and enjoy. And I don't care what anybody thinks, that's damn tough tennis to play. The reflexes and hand-eye required are off the charts.

The main problem is: Nadull fanboys are morons who have never even held a racket in their hands. They don't get how hard it is to play a net-rushing game. They simply don't understand how hard it is to pull it off.

nadal il mito
05-07-2009, 10:49 PM
The main problem is: Nadull fanboys are morons who have never even held a racket in their hands. They don't get how hard it is to play a net-rushing game. They simply don't understand how hard it is to pull it off.

you have never seen a vagina. :sad::sad::sad:

l_mac
05-07-2009, 10:51 PM
you have never seen a vagina. :sad::sad::sad:

:haha: :haha: :haha:

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 10:55 PM
you have never seen a vagina. :sad::sad::sad:

Your sister will tell you otherwise. :)

nadal il mito
05-07-2009, 10:59 PM
Your sister will tell you otherwise. :)

my sister is a men now.

Bazooka
05-07-2009, 11:15 PM
Take off that blindfold, mate. Graphite rackets were introduced in the 60s, mixed with wood or metal and then as 100% "graphite" (actually epoxy and carbon fiber composites) in the early-mid eighties. If your theory were right, what is happening today should have happened a long time ago. You are very naďve to think professionals can't adapt to new rackets.

They started using the material when you say, but the "widebody" design (originally from Wilson) was invented in 1987, and combined with the modern materials is what really changed the sport.

The shot motions have changed, you really didn't notice?


On the blindfold theme, if you're afraid of saying what needs to be said, it's your problem. Everybody knows the dopers on tour.

Afraid? more like aware of the responsibility of my own words. False accusations are maybe one of the most harmful and unfair things in this world. I *know* of no dopers on the tour. Nor do you.

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 11:24 PM
They started using the material when you say, but the "widebody" design (originally from Wilson) was invented in 1987, and combined with the modern materials is what really changed the sport.

The shot motions have changed, you really didn't notice?



Afraid? more like aware of the responsibility of my own words. False accusations are maybe one of the most harmful and unfair things in this world. I *know* of no dopers on the tour. Nor do you.

The widebody frame dates back from 1985 actually. The Pro Staff 6.1 is from 1986.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 12:45 AM
The widebody frame dates back from 1985 actually.

Not really.

In 1987, Wilson came up with an idea for increasing racquet stiffness without finding a stiffer material. Wilson's Profile racquet was the first "widebody." In retrospect, it seems strange that no one thought of the idea sooner to increase the thickness of the frame along the direction in which it must resist the impact of the ball

http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/evolmodracquet_3.htm


The next innovation of racquet technology would come in 1987, with the introduction of Wilson's Profile. Wilson increased racquet stiffness without finding a stiffer material, by utilizing their "widebody" concept.

http://www.tennisexpress.com/info~topic~wilson%20tennis%20racquets.htm

By 1987, designers had resumed the quest for stiffness, with the development of powerful widebody rackets such as the Wilson Profile

http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research-development/387221-1.html

Hope that helps.

Clay Death
05-08-2009, 01:37 AM
Not really.



http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/evolmodracquet_3.htm




http://www.tennisexpress.com/info~topic~wilson%20tennis%20racquets.htm



http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research-development/387221-1.html

Hope that helps.

not really. nothing helps the clueless ones and the damn liars and the false accusers.

why are you even having a discussion with a brick?

mods: how about holding people responsible for providing links and proofs for those who accuse the modern tennis players of doping.

dont you think it has gone far enough. this is truly a disgrace to have people like these on MTF.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 01:44 AM
not really. nothing helps the clueless ones and the damn liars and the false accusers.

why are you even having a discussion with a brick?

mods: how about holding people responsible for providing links and proofs for those who accuse the modern tennis players of doping.

dont you think it has gone far enough. this is truly a disgrace to have people like these on MTF.

Don't be too hard with him. He's having a bad year. :D

Clay Death
05-08-2009, 01:48 AM
Don't be too hard with him. He's having a bad year. :D

how about him insulting about 10 posters a day here. and what about the lies and false accusations of the tourning pros playing today.

its the other way around, isnt it. mods have been too damn easy on him.

he is a total and utter disgrace to this forum.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 01:52 AM
he is a total and utter disgrace to this forum.

Heh, but again, who isn't!!!! :angel:

;)

Clay Death
05-08-2009, 02:01 AM
good post. to be more precise, some of this debate is honest and intelligent but some of it is just a indirect reflection of a massive hatred of Nadal. what a pity that some refuse to grow up even as they are being laughed at for being so ignonrant.

the latest issue of TENNIS magazine has a big article on this very subject. the pros and the experts clearly reach the same conclusion that myself and a few others like the groove dude and yourself have expressed. i appreciate action jackson`s input as well.

Peter Lunndgren says specifically and in no uncertain terms that the size, strength, and the speed of the athletes, much more so than than the modern equipment or the efforts to slow down the surfaces, is the cause of the style of play we see today.

this is consistent with what i have been saying. all gains in power and speed of the game will come from the athletes themselves and in a way they launch themselves into the ball.

according to the article, slower courts can only account for so much whn the players continue to hit the ball harder and harder.

the article continues:

"there was once a time in men`s tennis when a reasonably good approach shot, a ball hit fairly hard and deep and close to the line, was a safe bet. Today, every attempt to take the initiative during the point is fraught with danger, even if it forces an oponent to scamble wide of the doubles alley......".

i can go on and on but whats the point. you can only lead the horse to the water. you have to be able to see it for yourself.


here is a little more from that article in the latest issue of TENNIS magazine:

Larry Stefanki also makes some remarks in that article. he says this is the best of times in tennis.

Patrick Mac`s quick take from that article:

"you've got extremely versatile players, and players with different styles," says Patrick McEnroe, the U.S Davis captain. "You've got these bigger guys, Tsonga and Cilic, del Potro, who are now better athletes, who can do it all. It's pretty awesome to see."

its an interesting article. i strongly recommend getting hold of this issue and checking it out.

bottom line is that the gains from technology are now just about complete. going forward, all the gains in power and speed of the game are coming from the athletes themselves.

the game is fast and getting faster. wait another 10 years or so. those 90 mph drives off either wings to the corners will approach 100-105 mph. the returns already come in faster than the serve sometimes but will become even more common in a few years. Fed, Nadal, Monfils, Gonzo and any others can hit forehands in excess of 100 mph. these types of speeds off both wings will be quite common in another 10-15 years.

you basically cant volley what you cant reach or cant see. every iniative you take will be subject to huge risk so you will have to pick and choose your spots carefully.

GlennMirnyi
05-08-2009, 02:05 AM
Not really.

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/prostaffad86.html

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/prostaffcon86.html

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/prostaffedb86.html

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/wilson-ad_1985-2.html

Ads from 1985 and 1986.

GlennMirnyi
05-08-2009, 02:06 AM
not really. nothing helps the clueless ones and the damn liars and the false accusers.

why are you even having a discussion with a brick?

mods: how about holding people responsible for providing links and proofs for those who accuse the modern tennis players of doping.

dont you think it has gone far enough. this is truly a disgrace to have people like these on MTF.

Actually the mods would do better banning you and your constant drivel from this forum, forever.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 02:17 AM
http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/prostaffad86.html

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/prostaffcon86.html

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/prostaffedb86.html

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/wilson-ad_1985-2.html

Ads from 1985 and 1986.

I see no widebody.

However we can agree that modern racquets, similar to today's, populated the tour 1985-1987 (there were still wooden ones in Wimbledon 87). Supports my point, Roger, Safin, Hewitt, etc. were 6-7 those years, they're the first generation born under 100% modern equipment. Sampras/Agassi played with a weak racquet until 14-15 probably.

Clay Death
05-08-2009, 02:19 AM
here is a little more from that article in the latest issue of TENNIS magazine:

Larry Stefanki also makes some remarks in that article. he says this is the best of times in tennis.

Patrick Mac`s quick take from that article:

"you've got extremely versatile players, and players with different styles," says Patrick McEnroe, the U.S Davis captain. "You've got these bigger guys, Tsonga and Cilic, del Potro, who are now better athletes, who can do it all. It's pretty awesome to see."

its an interesting article. i strongly recommend getting hold of this issue and checking it out.

bottom line is that the gains from technology are now just about complete. going forward, all the gains in power and speed of the game are coming from the athletes themselves.

the game is fast and getting faster. wait another 10 years or so. those 90 mph drives off either wings to the corners will approach 100-105 mph. the returns already come in faster than the serve sometimes but will become even more common in a few years. Fed, Nadal, Monfils, Gonzo and any others can hit forehands in excess of 100 mph. these types of speeds off both wings will be quite common in another 10-15 years.

you basically cant volley what you cant reach or cant see. every iniative you take will be subject to huge risk so you will have to pick and choose your spots carefully.

i wanted to bump this. so its all transpiring before your very eyes. see the game and take a deep, profound look at the sport. and make up your own mind as to why and how the game is evolving in the direction that it is.

surfaces would have never stopped the runaway speed of the game. it simply must take its true, natural course.

again, this is not me taking. it is all there for all of us to see. and secondly, it also is the opnion of the some of the best minds in tennis.

you can see for yourself and you can read what the best minds in the sport are saying or you can even look at the studies.

or you can feed clueless cockroaches here if that happens to suit your fancy.

GlennMirnyi
05-08-2009, 02:19 AM
I see no widebody.

However we can agree that modern racquets, similar to today's, populated the tour 1985-1987 (there were still wooden ones in Wimbledon 87). Supports my point, Roger, Safin, Hewitt, etc. were 6-7 those years, they're the first generation born under 100% modern equipment. Sampras/Agassi played with a wooden one until 14-15 probably.

So?

Again, it's naďve to think pros can't adapt to newer technology.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 02:25 AM
So?

Again, it's naďve to think pros can't adapt to newer technology.

It's naive to think adapting is the same thing than having been born with a modern racquet in your hand. You don't use your elbow as much, and use your whole body to add spin. And you can't change your forehand at 14. Slight adjustment at most. But you already know that.

Clay Death
05-08-2009, 02:25 AM
i wanted to bump this. so its all transpiring before your very eyes. see the game and take a deep, profound look at the sport. and make up your own mind as to why and how the game is evolving in the direction that it is.

surfaces would have never stopped the runaway speed of the game. it simply must take its true, natural course.

again, this is not me taking. it is all there for all of us to see. and secondly, it also is the opnion of the some of the best minds in tennis.

you can see for yourself and you can read what the best minds in the sport are saying or you can even look at the studies.

or you can feed clueless cockroaches here if that happens to suit your fancy.

mods:


make sure you hold accountable those who lie and spread false accusations about the current tourning pros. force them to come up with links and proofs. it hurts the credibility of this great forum to let these clueless ones infest it with total garbage. this type of malicious trolling should not be allowed at all.

habibko
05-08-2009, 02:34 AM
mods:

make sure you hold accountable those who lie and spread false accusations about the current tourning pros. force them to come up with links and proofs. it hurts the credibility of this great forum to let these clueless ones infest it with total garbage. this type of malicious trolling should not be allowed at all.

agreed, those doping remarks are taking things too far, if one wants to make accusations he must present a proof or be accounted for his words, simple as that.

Clay Death
05-08-2009, 02:42 AM
agreed, those doping remarks are taking things too far, if one wants to make accusations he must present a proof or be accounted for his words, simple as that.

affirmative. i humbly urge the mods to take a good look at this poster. his only objective here is to run down and insult posters every single day and to spread false and malicious lies about the top tourning pros.

as habib has suggested, this is way over the lines.

this type of pathetic trolling not only soils the name of these great pro players but also detracts from the credibility of this forum.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 02:45 AM
but also detracts from the credibility of this forum.

Da whut???? :cool:

GlennMirnyi
05-08-2009, 03:26 AM
It's naive to think adapting is the same thing than having been born with a modern racquet in your hand. You don't use your elbow as much, and use your whole body to add spin. And you can't change your forehand at 14. Slight adjustment at most. But you already know that.

You're telling me Sampras forehand isn't on par with the forehands from today's players?

agreed, those doping remarks are taking things too far, if one wants to make accusations he must present a proof or be accounted for his words, simple as that.

Pure naďveté.

habibko
05-08-2009, 03:31 AM
Pure naďveté.

cette accusation est une affaire sérieuse.

Quadruple Tree
05-08-2009, 03:39 AM
It's naive to think adapting is the same thing than having been born with a modern racquet in your hand. You don't use your elbow as much, and use your whole body to add spin. And you can't change your forehand at 14. Slight adjustment at most. But you already know that.

Sampras switched from a two handed backhand to a one hander at 14 because he wanted to play an all court game. I don't think changing the mechanics of ones swing is quite as radical as changing from two hands to one hand, so I don't see any reason why someone with pro level talent couldn't make major changes to his forehand even at 14.

GlennMirnyi
05-08-2009, 03:45 AM
cette accusation est une affaire sérieuse.

Si vous ne voulez pas voir la verité, je ne peux rien faire.

habibko
05-08-2009, 03:47 AM
Si vous ne voulez pas voir la verité, je ne peux rien faire.

ce n'est pas la vérité, et tu le sais.

kingfederer
05-08-2009, 03:49 AM
Si vous ne voulez pas voir la verité, je ne peux rien faire.

muahahahhahahhahhahha mugs!

fast_clay
05-08-2009, 03:59 AM
this kingfederer fellow is rather tiresome is he not...?

GlennMirnyi
05-08-2009, 04:52 AM
ce n'est pas la vérité, et tu le sais.

Je la sais, certainement.

muahahahhahahhahhahha mugs!

I take you can't understand it. :)

Action Jackson
05-08-2009, 08:11 AM
Sampras switched from a two handed backhand to a one hander at 14 because he wanted to play an all court game. I don't think changing the mechanics of ones swing is quite as radical as changing from two hands to one hand, so I don't see any reason why someone with pro level talent couldn't make major changes to his forehand even at 14.

Edberg changed as well, it didn't hurt either his or Sampras's career. It's not hard to understand the faster, stronger the athletes, the more physical the game in combo with the slowing of the surface, lead to what the current staus is.

Seriously on a carpet court laid on shiny wooden boards, like the indoor events used to be. There aren't going to be a multitude of rallies, unless both players are predominantely clay court players.