Anyone's missing the good old days?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Anyone's missing the good old days??

Pages : [1] 2

safinou
08-25-2009, 11:03 AM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

Lebeuf
08-25-2009, 11:11 AM
Yeah well , it's always like that in any sports , you'll always be nostalgic of the era you grow up with or the first era you watched.True that the players were maybe more charismatic but I think thats just variance or hazard.In 5 years we could end up with a very charasmatic top 3 who knows.Maybe in 10 years if we dotn see anybody winning like Fed you will miss seeing a player so clutch and you'll say damn I miss having a player that choked so rarely and close the deal so often , a great rivalry between number 1 & 2 or things like that.Maybe in 10 years nobody in the top 3 will have more than 2 or 3 slams.Sometimes it's when it's over than you enjoy something , but it's too late , kindda like the girlfriend you were never particularly THAT in love with while with her but then she left and you realise you had it good with her lol

safinou
08-25-2009, 11:27 AM
True.. It definitely has something to do with the fact that I grew up watching them.. but still very objectively speaking it was a lot more fun back then.. We (I) used to enjoy the players as much as their game. I feel like it's no longer the case. Now, I happen to like a player's game (like Murray's) but not the player himself. and to be a "fan", I really think you need to have both. It's supposed to be a whole.. At least that's what I think..

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 11:28 AM
MTF needs to get rid of all those nostalgiatards, or at least open them a sub-forum where they can whine, cry and talk about the good ol' days... :zzz:

Lebeuf
08-25-2009, 11:31 AM
True.. It definitely has something to do with the fact that I grew up watching them.. but still very objectively speaking it was a lot more fun back then.. We (I) used to enjoy the players as much as their game. I feel like it's no longer the case. Now, I happen to like a player's game (like Murray's) but not the player himself. and to be a "fan", I really think you need to have both. It's supposed to be a whole.. At least that's what I think..

Yeah well , I feel the same about Murray and others , if you dont like the person you cant like the player , I like Rafa the person but i just hate his game , thats why I always root for Roger.

Time Violation
08-25-2009, 11:33 AM
MTF needs to get rid of all those nostalgiatards, or at least open them a sub-forum where they can whine, cry and talk about the good ol' days... :zzz:

Don't say that again... maybe in 10 years time you will be whining for the good ol' days when Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were in top form. :cool:

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 11:35 AM
Don't say that again... maybe in 10 years time you will be whining for the good ol' days when Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were in top form. :cool:

Not at all... I used to enjoy the Becker/Edberg rivalry back in the day, yet I don't miss it or at least am not bitching around...

safinou
08-25-2009, 11:42 AM
Not at all... I used to enjoy the Becker/Edberg rivalry back in the day, yet I don't miss it or at least am not bitching around...

If you have sth interesting to say regarding that topic I'd be glad to read it. If not, feel free to move on to another topic.. I honestly don't see why you need to be rude here..

duong
08-25-2009, 11:45 AM
Yeah well , it's always like that in any sports , you'll always be nostalgic of the era you grow up with or the first era you watched.

exactly for me it's the 80s McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Cash, Wilander ... later Becker :cool:

There was some game and some charisma :cool:

And I was totally boring during the period Safinou mentions :lol:

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 11:48 AM
If you have sth interesting to say regarding that topic I'd be glad to read it. If not, feel free to move on to another topic.. I honestly don't see why you need to be rude here..

I'm not rude, just stating my opinion... If you can't take other people's opinion you better not start a thread in GM :shrug:

As for the topic, obviously you're just a safinette that can't get over the fact that Marat's career went south for years because of stronger opposition... :)

andylovesaustin
08-25-2009, 11:50 AM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

I miss certain players but what I miss more are the rivalries. With Pete's era, for example, as success as he was on fast courts, he would struggle at the French. He didn't dominate on clay. Plus Andre had at least some success, and of course there was Guga.
But even so, I remember reading and hearing people getting bored with Pete winning so much. :shrug:

Now, with Rafa having his problems, it's just not competitive. I don't think the other players are "mugs." I would agree Roger is probably the GOAT. But it just seems to me the other players are content with coming in second or something. Like now Novak is even saying, "he" was born in the wrong era. Andy Roddick already says it! :LOL: Who's to say things would have had necessarily been different if Andy Roddick would have met another player in Wimby finals, for example.

I dunno. I just never heard Andre say he was born in the "wrong" era in spite Pete's success :shrug: At his best, Guga believes he would have beaten Roger at his best, for example. I mean, he doesn't say, "Well, Roger is the GOAT, so I was just lucky he and I were born in different eras!" I don't hear or read him say, "Wow, I'm just lucky Rafa and I were born in different eras--or Borg and I were born in different eras." :lol:

There is just something weird about this era that the players seem so ready to defer to Roger. And yeah, a lot of that is Roger, of course. But then again, a lot the players just seem like their content with their "fate" or something! :lol: I can't explain it very well...

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 11:51 AM
I definitely don't miss that much the early 2000s. The level of play was higher than today but it was already veering towards this boring baseline grinding crap.

Feketepuss
08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
I'm sure in ten or fifteen years time, someone will be posting how they "miss the great rivalries like Querrey versus Isner", when the players were "real characters" unlike the wooden puppets on stilts we have NOW.

andylovesaustin
08-25-2009, 12:00 PM
I'm sure in ten or fifteen years time, someone will be posting how they "miss the great rivalries like Querrey versus Isner", when the players were "real characters" unlike the wooden puppets on stilts we have NOW.

Actually, I think this era has some characters. But most of them are playing for second-place or runner-up. They will all believe they were born in the wrong era, particularly if Roger keeps playing and winning until he's 35!

Besides, Roger has an OK personality. I think Roger is more entertaining personality-wise than Pete. To me, Pete has shown more of his personality after retirement than he ever did while he was playing.

tennis2tennis
08-25-2009, 12:00 PM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

ok

safinou
08-25-2009, 12:07 PM
I miss certain players but what I miss more are the rivalries. With Pete's era, for example, as success as he was on fast courts, he would struggle at the French. He didn't dominate on clay. Plus Andre had at least some success, and of course there was Guga.
But even so, I remember reading and hearing people getting bored with Pete winning so much. :shrug:

Now, with Rafa having his problems, it's just not competitive. I don't think the other players are "mugs." I would agree Roger is probably the GOAT. But it just seems to me the other players are content with coming in second or something. Like now Novak is even saying, "he" was born in the wrong era. Andy Roddick already says it! :LOL: Who's to say things would have had necessarily been different if Andy Roddick would have met another player in Wimby finals, for example.

I dunno. I just never heard Andre say he was born in the "wrong" era in spite Pete's success :shrug: At his best, Guga believes he would have beaten Roger at his best, for example. I mean, he doesn't say, "Well, Roger is the GOAT, so I was just lucky he and I were born in different eras!" I don't hear or read him say, "Wow, I'm just lucky Rafa and I were born in different eras--or Borg and I were born in different eras." :lol:

There is just something weird about this era that the players seem so ready to defer to Roger. And yeah, a lot of that is Roger, of course. But then again, a lot the players just seem like their content with their "fate" or something! :lol: I can't explain it very well...

I totally agree with that. It's like averyone's resigned when it comes to Federer.. So tiring

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 12:16 PM
Yup, players tried harder when facing Pete back in the day than today's pansies when facing Fed... :rolleyes:




:secret: Fed is just miles better than Pete ever was, doesn't take rocket science...........

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 12:26 PM
Yup, players tried harder when facing Pete back in the day than today's pansies when facing Fed... :rolleyes:




:secret: Fed is just miles better than Pete ever was, doesn't take rocket science...........

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/7436/original/Double_Facepalm.jpg?1249329993

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 12:37 PM
I totally agree with that. It's like averyone's resigned when it comes to Federer.. So tiring


Im not sure everyone is really "resigned". A bunch of players had proven Fed is beatable since a couple of years now. Even in slams, some players came really close to take him out...

FiBeR
08-25-2009, 12:39 PM
lQZJxX0LEZw

mandeep
08-25-2009, 12:43 PM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

I think federer, nadal and djokovic have just as much personality as Guga, Safin, Ferrero, Sampras and Agassi.

In about 10 years you will start to miss Nadal's fist pumping and will be passing off youtube links to djokovic's impressions while talking about the good old times.

Bargearse
08-25-2009, 12:44 PM
I'm as happy with the men's game now as I was when it was Sampras/Agassi etc... I do however miss the good old days of women's tennis, but that's a matter for the WTF.:crying2:

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 01:13 PM
like tennis as much now as i did back then tbh

andylovesaustin
08-25-2009, 01:14 PM
Yup, players tried harder when facing Pete back in the day than today's pansies when facing Fed... :rolleyes:




:secret: Fed is just miles better than Pete ever was, doesn't take rocket science...........

As I said, Roger has proven himself to be the better player, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I just think if Roger's contemporaries go into a grand slam match in particular, doubting they can win, then more often they won't. :shrug:

After Roger's win at the French, Guga was asked if he'd be the favorite v Roger on clay, for example. Well, Guga said, of course he'd be the favorite. Now would he really be the favorite? I guess that's for us fans to debate. But the point is that Guga BELIEVES he would be the favorite, and he'd go in thinking he has a shot at winning whether we think he'd have a chance or not.

I understand being respectful of Roger---I do. But for a player as young as Novak to be saying he was born in the wrong era, I just don't get. For Andy Roddick to say it, I think is a little lame, too, because he would have still had to play somebody for the titles/matches he lost against Roger. It's not like he'd automatically be the winner anyway. How does he know he win v anyone else necessarily. But Andy seems convinced even though that's not necessarily the case. Why can't he convince himself he can beat Roger--at least believe he can in spite of his losing record against him?

Hell.. why even play the finals.. if they were all born in the wrong era. Just give Roger the title already, then they the rest can play for second place.

out_here_grindin
08-25-2009, 01:16 PM
O good, I was getting worried that we would not have our daily rip on the current era thread today. My heart rate is back to normal and I can go about my day.

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 01:16 PM
Guga sucks nuts, one surface pony

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 01:32 PM
Guga sucks nuts, one surface pony

Guga 3 GS >>>>> Murray 0 GS.

:lol:

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/5298/original/Reality.jpg?1247467999

scoobs
08-25-2009, 01:33 PM
Guga sucks nuts, one surface pony
how can you say that when he beat Sampras and Agassi on a pretty fast indoor court in 2000 at the WTF?

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 01:34 PM
how can you say that when he beat Sampras and Agassi on a pretty fast indoor court in 2000 at the WTF?

mug era back then :shrug:

scoobs
08-25-2009, 01:39 PM
mug era back then :shrug:
all eras are mug eras.

all of them.

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 01:40 PM
all eras are mug eras.

all of them.

Some are worse... Clearly the early 2000s were a damn poor one... :o

andylovesaustin
08-25-2009, 01:41 PM
Didn't mean hijack the thread to debate Guga's worth. :lol:

The point I was trying to make is that it really doesn't matter what we think. It really doesn't matter what the media think. It only matters what Guga believes--even if 99.9% of fans thinks he sucks. And Guga apparently believes he could have competed with Roger--even to the point of being the favorite v Roger. And I have a feeling with Guga it wouldn't be just lip service or trash talk, particularly on clay. I think he'd go down fighting.. if he went down at all.

Anyway.. that kind of attitude is what I miss in this current crop of players. I just wish some of them (like YOUNG Novak and Andy Roddick) would quit saying they were born in the wrong era. I don't recall players of other eras saying that... Even the late Vitus Giralutis (sp??) said, "Nobody beat Vitus G 18 times"--or something like that! And he meant it.

I do agree with you all that the current players definitely have some interesting personalities.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 01:45 PM
how can you say that when he beat Sampras and Agassi on a pretty fast indoor court in 2000 at the WTF?

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/8131/original/1249283337478.jpg?1250035478

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 01:46 PM
And Guga apparently believes he could have competed with Roger--even to the point of being the favorite v Roger

What a petulant diva... :rolleyes: and people believe Guga was a saint or something... The guy surely likes to suck his own c#ck... :o

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 01:46 PM
Some are worse... Clearly the early 2000s were a damn poor one... :o

For you they were, when Fraud was gettin' owned by Hornas, Corretjas, Mantillas, Arazis. :lol:

SloKid
08-25-2009, 01:47 PM
MTF needs to get rid of all those nostalgiatards, or at least open them a sub-forum where they can whine, cry and talk about the good ol' days... :zzz:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=22

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 01:48 PM
For you they were, when Fraud was gettin' owned by Hornas, Corretjas, Mantillas, Arazis. :lol:

Yup, Fed was not even a kid back then :shrug: no shame in losing tennis matches :o

JamesBengt
08-25-2009, 01:49 PM
Guga 3 GS >>>>> Murray 0 GS.

:lol:


Well, if it's that easy... :

Fed 15 GS >>> Pete 14 GS

Seriously, why do you keep posting? If there was an ignore function, I bet you would be on everyone's list by now.

PS. Looking forward to the "Who the fuck are you" and "Fed's GS were taken in a mug era" remarks . I guess it's only in the Guga vs Murray case things are that easy?

Dini
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Well, if it's that easy... :

Fed 15 GS >>> Pete 14 GS

Seriously, why do you keep posting? If there was an ignore function, I bet you would be on everyone's list by now.

PS. Looking forward to the "Who the fuck are you" and "Fed's GS were taken in a mug era" remarks . I guess it's only in the Guga vs Murray case things are that easy?

There is an ignore function. :o

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 01:52 PM
Well, if it's that easy... :

Fed 15 GS >>> Pete 14 GS

Seriously, why do you keep posting? If there was an ignore function, I bet you would be on everyone's list by now.

PS. Looking forward to the "Who the fuck are you" and "Fed's GS were taken in a mug era" remarks . I guess it's only in the Guga vs Murray case things are that easy?It was too easy a trap to lay :sport:

andylovesaustin
08-25-2009, 01:56 PM
What a petulant diva... :rolleyes: and people believe Guga was a saint or something... The guy surely likes to suck his own c#ck... :o

Baiter..

But I'll bite just lest you have forgotten..

Uh... I don't recall Guga audibly blubbering, uncontrollably like a child for 15 to 20 minutes on international television, no less, after losing a title---to the point where one his opponent had to comfort him! Now... let's see.. where did I see that lately? Could that have been Roger, the GOAT? Could have been just as recent as January, upon losing the AO? Boy, Rod Laver really looked impressed by his behavior! Gotta love the GOAT. No.. he never makes mistakes, does he?

No.. Guga isn't a saint. Guga is as diva as they come. But how would you describe Roger? I wonder whose dick he sucks if not his own?

Oh but we have gone off-topic.

Carry on

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 01:56 PM
Yup, Fed was not even a kid back then :shrug: no shame in losing tennis matches :o

He was taken to the bushes by Horna the same year he won his first GS.

No excuses.

Well, if it's that easy... :

Fed 15 GS >>> Pete 14 GS

Seriously, why do you keep posting? If there was an ignore function, I bet you would be on everyone's list by now.

PS. Looking forward to the "Who the fuck are you" and "Fed's GS were taken in a mug era" remarks . I guess it's only in the Guga vs Murray case things are that easy?

There is an ignore function, Einstein.

Sampras won his 14 GSs in a much stronger era. You know it, why are you making me say it?

There's a huge difference between a legend of the sport (Guga) and a moonballer grinding kid full of sh** who can't win when it matters - a real tosser and bottler (Murray). All talk, no action. One is a GS winner, the other is a MM tournament winner.

JamesBengt
08-25-2009, 02:00 PM
All right, my mistake then. Goodbye Glenn and Burrows! Hope you'll have a real interesting era discussion!

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 02:00 PM
Baiter..

But I'll bite just lest you have forgotten..

Uh... I don't recall Guga audibly blubbering, uncontrollably like a child for 15 to 20 minutes on international television, no less, after losing a title---to the point where one his opponent had to comfort him! Now... let's see.. where did I see that lately? Could that have been Roger, the GOAT? Could have been just as recent as January, upon losing the AO? Boy, Rod Laver really looked impressed by his behavior! Gotta love the GOAT. No.. he never makes mistakes, does he?

No.. Guga isn't a saint. Guga is as diva as they come. But how would you describe Roger? I wonder whose dick he sucks if not his own?

Oh but we have gone off-topic.

Carry on

:lol:

That's a good one.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 02:01 PM
All right, my mistake then. Goodbye Glenn and Burrows! Hope you'll have a real interesting era discussion!

Go back to the institution for mentally handicapped people, mate.

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 02:02 PM
Baiter..

But I'll bite just lest you have forgotten..

Uh... I don't recall Guga audibly blubbering, uncontrollably like a child for 15 to 20 minutes on international television, no less, after losing a title---to the point where one his opponent had to comfort him! Now... let's see.. where did I see that lately? Could that have been Roger, the GOAT? Could have been just as recent as January, upon losing the AO? Boy, Rod Laver really looked impressed by his behavior! Gotta love the GOAT. No.. he never makes mistakes, does he?

No.. Guga isn't a saint. Guga is as diva as they come. But how would you describe Roger? I wonder whose dick he sucks if not his own?

Oh but we have gone off-topic.

Carry on

Oh yes, crying trully shows someone's arrogance... You're arrogant when you're a "just-above-average" player (Guga) and feels like you're some great of the game, dissing greater players... :rolleyes:

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:02 PM
Yes I'm sure Guga was on the brink of capturing his 14th major and then inexplicably collapsed in the 5th set when he was favourite for the match. I'm sure he experienced such pressure and expectation. :worship:

You keep going on about the tears...you remind me of a certain Black Adam. 90% of his posts are about the "blackest day in tennis". I hate the fact that he cried, but I know he's human and also a very emotional guy. It sure was one of his most embarassing moments in his carrer - he said so himself also, but he bounced back from that. And to do that requires belief and confidence that he can still do it no matter what the previous downfalls have been.

Guga was portrayed as the nicest guy the tour has ever seen, but a very respectable, experienced French journalist and TV presenter thinks otherwise when he saw what Guga did off court. Not that personalities are the most important thing in tennis - to me they mean sh!t little in fact. I loved Guga as a player but if I was looking to support personalities as opposed to players and playing styles I'd rather watch Big Brother instead.

gulzhan
08-25-2009, 02:03 PM
I like the top 4 now. I only wish Gasquet be back to the game.

D.a.n.y
08-25-2009, 02:03 PM
Please, Ferrero and Sampras were both far from charismatic. There may be a point with some of the other players, but as has been said, people tend to prefer the generation they grew up watching

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 02:08 PM
Yes I'm sure Guga was on the brink of capturing his 14th major and then inexplicably collapsed in the 5th set when he was favourite for the match. I'm sure he experienced such pressure and expectation. :worship:

You keep going on about the tears...you remind me of a certain Black Adam. 90% of his posts are about the "blackest day in tennis". I hate the fact that he cried, but I know he's human and also a very emotional guy. It sure was one of his most embarassing moments in his carrer - he said so himself also, but he bounced back from that. And to do that requires belief and confidence that he can still do it no matter what the previous downfalls have been.

Guga was portrayed as the nicest guy the tour has ever seen, but a very respectable, experienced French journalist and TV presenter thinks otherwise when he saw what Guga did off court. Not that personalities are the most important thing in tennis - to me they mean sh!t little in fact. I loved Guga as a player but if I was looking to support personalities as opposed to players and playing styles I'd rather watch Big Brother instead.

:haha: :haha:

Fangirl alert!

Fraud cried because he can't stand Nadull owning him again and again and again ad nauseam. Because he's arrogant and can't stand that a moonballer without game owns him so thoroughly he can't win even on his best surfaces.

Emotional? It's more like an arrogant spoilt kid whose toys have been taken away. :lol:

There's something called respect and even though I think Nadull deserves none, Fraud should have showed a little bit during the ceremony.

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:11 PM
Whatever you say ex-fedfan. :hatoff:

You didn't read my post...I said I hated that he cried and don't care for the reasons. If he cried because of losing 5 times in a row it's quite understanable for an arrogant prick like him.

:D

His toys were taken away after he won Gold Doubles, Wimbledon 03, 07, FO 09 too. Face it he's an emotional guy.

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 02:20 PM
Guga was portrayed as the nicest guy the tour has ever seen, but a very respectable, experienced French journalist and TV presenter thinks otherwise when he saw what Guga did off court.

Was that Nelson Montfort ? What did that journalist say ?

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 02:21 PM
Whatever you say ex-fedfan. :hatoff:

You didn't read my post...I said I hated that he cried and don't care for the reasons. If he cried because of losing 5 times in a row it's quite understanable for an arrogant prick like him.

:D

His toys were taken away after he won Gold Doubles, Wimbledon 03, 07, FO 09 too. Face it he's an emotional guy.

Emotional guy... you're listening to Falco too much.

He just has a very distorted self-image. He's just an athlete, for f***'s sake. He's becoming freaking Bono, that fat clown who thinks he's gonna save the world.

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:22 PM
Emotional guy... you're listening to Falco too much.

He just has a very distorted self-image. He's just an athlete, for f***'s sake. He's becoming freaking Bono, that fat clown who thinks he's gonna save the world.

OK master. He's just a robot, that doesn't care shit about winning or losing WITH THE EXCEPTION of losing against Nadal. Happy? :D

Bono :haha: - that was quite random. :lol:

rocketassist
08-25-2009, 02:23 PM
I miss the diversity of surfaces and every slam having unique players who would do well.

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:23 PM
Was that Nelson Montfort ? What did that journalist say ?

Yes him.

It was in one of those "On the road with..." vids from this year. I'll try to find it.

Burrow
08-25-2009, 02:24 PM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

It is boring now, now characters.

As Meligeni said, "robots".

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 02:24 PM
Guga was portrayed as the nicest guy the tour has ever seen, but a very respectable, experienced French journalist and TV presenter thinks otherwise when he saw what Guga did off court.


Neslon Monfort is surely a reliable source :yeah: :)

andylovesaustin
08-25-2009, 02:24 PM
Oh yes, crying trully shows someone's arrogance... You're arrogant when you're a "just-above-average" player (Guga) and feels like you're some great of the game, dissing greater players... :rolleyes:

Whatever :rolleyes:

I've said what I had to say. And I stand by it. Roger has done his fair share of--passively aggressively dissing opponents, acting like a diva, and his own "dick-sucking."

However, he's not the worst in attitude that ever stepped on a court. And neither is/was Guga. And no, Guga isn't GOAT: Roger is. But Guga had his success at the French. Why should he defer to Roger (like everybody else) when Guga has had HIS OWN success?

My goodness.. disrespect. You act like a player having confidence in his own ability v Roger is somehow disrespecting him. See.. right there's the problem. Why is having confidence in one's ability "disrespectful" to the GOAT, particularly when Guga has won the French 3 time? Why shouldn't Guga believe he's the "favorite"? It's not like he was saying he'd be the favorite at Wimby..

Man.. Roger's fans...

P.S. If some of you all think Guga would have EVER stood there sobbing and blubbering for 20 minutes, disrupting an awards ceremony because he was the verge of breaking some sort of record, but didn't, well no...Guga it wouldn't have happened.

I'm not saying Roger is a bad person. I'm just saying, it wasn't a shining moment for the GOAT.

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:25 PM
I miss the diversity of surfaces and every slam having unique players who would do well.

I miss that too a bit. Why is everything so much slower these days? :sad:

rocketassist
08-25-2009, 02:27 PM
I miss that too a bit. Why is everything so much slower these days? :sad:

It's not the speed so much, it's the players. Every player does the same on every surface. The quality of clay courters and grass court specialists has died a pretty tragic death, so we are left with basically hard court tennis on all surfaces, bar Nadal, Andreev and the odd journeyman like Monaco.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 02:27 PM
OK master. He's just a robot, that doesn't care shit about winning or losing WITH THE EXCEPTION of losing against Nadal. Happy? :D

Bono :haha: - that was quite random. :lol:

Not random. Both are people with a distorted self-image.

rocketassist
08-25-2009, 02:29 PM
Guga was as humble and respectful as anyone. :shrug: The Edberg of his generation both in playing beautiful tennis (albeit a different kind) and the way he conducted himself.

Commander Data
08-25-2009, 02:30 PM
:haha: :haha:

Fangirl alert!

Fraud cried because he can't stand Nadull owning him again and again and again ad nauseam. Because he's arrogant and can't stand that a moonballer without game owns him so thoroughly he can't win even on his best surfaces.

Emotional? It's more like an arrogant spoilt kid whose toys have been taken away. :lol:

There's something called respect and even though I think Nadull deserves none, Fraud should have showed a little bit during the ceremony.

Fed plays so much better then Samprass, Guga and Courier that it fucks your eyeballs. Just let it go.

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 02:30 PM
Whatever. :rollseyes:

I've said what I had to say. And I stand by it. Roger has done his far share of--passively aggressively dissing opponents, acting like a diva, and his own "dick-sucking."

However, he's not the worst in attitude that ever stepped on a court. And neither is/was Guga. And no, Guga isn't GOAT: Roger is. But Guga had his success at the French. Why should he defer to Roger (like everybody else) when Guga has had HIS OWN success?

My goodness.. disrespect. You act like a player having confidence in his own ability v Roger is somehow disrespecting him. See.. right there's the problem. Why is having confidence in one's ability "disrespectful" to the GOAT, particularly when Guga has won the French 3 time? Why shouldn't Guga believe he's the "favorite"? It's not like he was saying he'd be the favorite at Wimby..

Man.. Roger's fans...


I don't mind players believing in their chances, but statesments such as "I would be up there with that guy" when you're long retired is a bolt statement to say the least....... would be like some old golf player (not Nicklaus) saying he would own Tiger... would only make him look like a fool...

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:30 PM
It's not the speed so much, it's the players. Every player does the same on every surface. The quality of clay courters and grass court specialists has died a pretty tragic death, so we are left with basically hard court tennis on all surfaces, bar Nadal, Andreev and the odd journeyman like Monaco.

Well slowing down the grass has a few things to do with it in my opinion. There's no/negligible serve and volleyeing and rallies easily last over 20 strokes on grass and consistently so...

I think it's a combination of both.

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 02:30 PM
Guga was as humble and respectful as anyone. :shrug: The Edberg of his generation both in playing beautiful tennis (albeit a different kind) and the way he conducted himself.

:tape: :tape: :tape:

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 02:31 PM
Yes him.

It was in one of those "On the road with..." vids from this year. I'll try to find it.

Neslon Monfort is surely a reliable source :yeah: :)


lol

Nelson Monfort is not the most reliable source either... The dude is quite special at times. But Id like to see that video :)

rocketassist
08-25-2009, 02:33 PM
:tape: :tape: :tape:

Go and find me some evidence of his 'arrogance' then :lol:

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 02:35 PM
Go and find me some evidence of his 'arrogance' then :lol:

Nelson Monfort :shrug: the guy would never say anything bad on an athlete unless he's a true jackass... Guga surely was all charm when the cameras were on........

As for arrogance, saying that he would challenge Fed is slightly arrogant... Or is that just self-confidence :scratch: :lol:

ad-out
08-25-2009, 02:36 PM
I totally agree with the OP. This "newer generation" is for the most part boring.. If fact, the last few days of almost any tournament now is a snooze-fest. The only time it is fun is when an unexpected player does well (a la Soderling at the FO) Anyway, I was a "new balls" fan and I really miss those days. Especially Safin at his best... :hearts:

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 02:38 PM
Nelson Monfort :shrug: the guy would never say anything bad on an athlete unless he's a true jackass... Guga surely was all charm when the cameras were on........



He also talked bullshit more than once :rolleyes:

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 02:40 PM
He also talked bullshit more than once :rolleyes:

That Guga episode is described in his book... Not sure he would have made up the whole story... :o Guga is not the only player he bashes, but one of the few males... (He did say that most female players were annoying divas though :o :D)

Dini
08-25-2009, 02:41 PM
Found it:

http://www.roadtorolandgarros.com/#/video20_uk/

Quadruple Tree
08-25-2009, 02:44 PM
Yes, I miss when guys like Thomas Johansson were Slam winners and Magnus Norman and Jiri Novak were Top 5 players. Truly a great era for tennis.

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 02:54 PM
Found it:

http://www.roadtorolandgarros.com/#/video20_uk/


Thanks.

That's weird...

Ichiban1920
08-25-2009, 02:57 PM
Yes, I miss when guys like Thomas Johansson were Slam winners and Magnus Norman and Jiri Novak were Top 5 players. Truly a great era for tennis.

As opposed to Tommy Boredo, Nadull, Mugfils, Mugrinka, Rodmug, Mug Simon? Mug era.

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 02:58 PM
Well I dunno if it had to do with Nelson Montfort himself, but a friend of mine had the occasion to meet him, and she told me he's not the most likeable person either...

Quadruple Tree
08-25-2009, 03:04 PM
As opposed to Tommy Boredo, Nadull, Mugfils, Mugrinka, Rodmug, Mug Simon? Mug era.

Roddick won his only Slam during the "good old days" and was #1. When was the last time he won a Slam or even AMS? I'm not really sure how his career shows that today is any weaker than the early 00's. Nadal is hardly a clay court mug. None of the other guys you mentioned have ever sniffed a Slam much less won one.

rocketassist
08-25-2009, 03:08 PM
Roddick won his only Slam during the "good old days" and was #1. When was the last time he won a Slam or even AMS? I'm not really sure how his career shows that today is any weaker than the early 00's. Nadal is hardly a clay court mug. None of the other guys you mentioned have ever sniffed a Slam much less won one.

Because Roddick was much better in 03, not cause the competition is better.

duong
08-25-2009, 03:25 PM
Was that Nelson Montfort ? What did that journalist say ?

yes Nelson Monfort talked about that in his book,

saying that Kuerten was very bad with the "small employees".

Ububub
08-25-2009, 03:34 PM
I am proud not only to have witnessed the FIRST Cedric Pioline-Pete Sampras Slam Final, but I also saw the SECOND Pernfors-Sampras Slam Final. Oh the days! Funny how reality never quite lives up to our memories.

Lleyton_
08-25-2009, 03:37 PM
It's funny that many of his colleagues and people who know him personally almost always mention what a nice and down to earth guy Federer is. People who don't like him are anonymous internet geeks who are not happy with their lives but no question they know better.

Commander Data
08-25-2009, 03:55 PM
Yes, I miss when guys like Thomas Johansson were Slam winners and Magnus Norman and Jiri Novak were Top 5 players. Truly a great era for tennis.

Indeed, how beautiful it was to watch this gracile gods of tennis. So interesting...

Ichiban1920
08-25-2009, 04:02 PM
Roddick won his only Slam during the "good old days" and was #1. When was the last time he won a Slam or even AMS? I'm not really sure how his career shows that today is any weaker than the early 00's. Nadal is hardly a clay court mug. None of the other guys you mentioned have ever sniffed a Slam much less won one.

Nadull's one-dimensional talentless moonballing winning him 6 slams is more than enough evidence of the mug era we're currently living in. Also Roddick millions times better in 2003. I mentioned the other guys because it goes to show what mugs are or were recently
in the top 10 today.

safinou
08-25-2009, 04:07 PM
Found it:

http://www.roadtorolandgarros.com/#/video20_uk/

Thanks for the link!
To be totally honest, what Nelson said doens't mean a thing. Everyone can show a lit bit of impatience from time to time, right after losing a tough match or sth... ESPECIALLY when it's Nelson Monfort who is interviewing. This guy can drive you totally nuts. He asks the question in english and right after translates it in french with his amazingly crapping tone(and usually it takes forever before he's done)..and the worst part : he interrupts the players every 2 sec to translate (sometimes not even correctly). It's normal to get frustrated in front of someone like him

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 04:09 PM
Thanks for the link!
To be totally honest, what Nelson said doens't mean a thing. Everyone can show a lit bit of impatience from time to time, right after losing a tough match or sth... ESPECIALLY when it's Nelson Monfort who is interviewing. This guy can drive you totally nuts. He asks the question in english and right after translates it in french with his amazingly crapping tone(and usually it takes forever before he's done)..and the worst part : he interrupts the players every 2 sec to translate (sometimes not even correctly). It's normal to get frustrated in front of someone like him

Monfort is one of the few French journo that can actually speak proper English and Spanish... Players love him.

elessar
08-25-2009, 04:17 PM
Guga was portrayed as the nicest guy the tour has ever seen, but a very respectable, experienced French journalist and TV presenter thinks otherwise when he saw what Guga did off court.
:haha:

elessar
08-25-2009, 04:22 PM
Thanks for the link!
To be totally honest, what Nelson said doens't mean a thing. Everyone can show a lit bit of impatience from time to time, right after losing a tough match or sth... ESPECIALLY when it's Nelson Monfort who is interviewing. This guy can drive you totally nuts. He asks the question in english and right after translates it in french with his amazingly crapping tone(and usually it takes forever before he's done)..and the worst part : he interrupts the players every 2 sec to translate (sometimes not even correctly). It's normal to get frustrated in front of someone like him
Nelson is a legend, a LEGEND! You traitor :mad:

Burrow
08-25-2009, 04:24 PM
Kuerten is totally overrated as some gentleman, he might have been a nice guy but it wasn't like he didn't show his anger on court, he wasn't all smiles like some people think, I doubt the people who think this go by youtube videos.

duong
08-25-2009, 04:37 PM
I am proud not only to have witnessed the FIRST Cedric Pioline-Pete Sampras Slam Final, but I also saw the SECOND Pernfors-Sampras Slam Final. Oh the days! Funny how reality never quite lives up to our memories.

I guess you mean Pioline, not Pernfors ;)

By the way, Montfort doesn't speak about Kuerten's relations with him but with the other employees.

On the main topic : I loved the tennis in the 80s, liked it in the beginning of the 90s, and completely lost interest from the 2nd part of the 90s. Then got back my interest with Fed's emergence.

Yes I miss the 80s ... but in the meantime, I like as much the current period :shrug:

jmsx521
08-25-2009, 04:41 PM
Yeah well , it's always like that in any sports , you'll always be nostalgic of the era you grow up with or the first era you watched.Not me! I started watching tennis in the Courier, Agassi, Sampras era. But now I enjoy this Federer & Nadal era more.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 04:46 PM
Yes, I miss when guys like Thomas Johansson were Slam winners and Magnus Norman and Jiri Novak were Top 5 players. Truly a great era for tennis.

Jiri Novak >>>>>>> Del Pony, Ferrer.

At least Johansson won his slam against decent players.

Kuerten is totally overrated as some gentleman, he might have been a nice guy but it wasn't like he didn't show his anger on court, he wasn't all smiles like some people think, I doubt the people who think this go by youtube videos.

Who cares.

Since when Kuerten's demeanor has to do with the old era or how he should be compared to other players? Is Safin one of these "all smiles" kind of player?

We're in a mug era and anyone who thinks otherwise needs a reality check. ASAP.

ballbasher101
08-25-2009, 04:56 PM
I am not one to dwell on the past but I think I am going to cry the day Federer retires :sad:. I do regret not seeing the likes of Becker and McEnroe at their best.

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 05:10 PM
Uh... I don't recall Guga audibly blubbering, uncontrollably like a child for 15 to 20 minutes on international television, no less, after losing a title---to the point where one his opponent had to comfort him! Now... let's see.. where did I see that lately? Could that have been Roger, the GOAT? Could have been just as recent as January, upon losing the AO? Boy, Rod Laver really looked impressed by his behavior! Gotta love the GOAT. No.. he never makes mistakes, does he?

No.. Guga isn't a saint. Guga is as diva as they come. But how would you describe Roger? I wonder whose dick he sucks if not his own?

Oh but we have gone off-topic.

Carry onwho cares... Fed always shows the emotion... more so even when he wins so why ppl are so outraged by AO 09.

He was took to the bushes by Horna the same year he won his first GS.

No excuses.

:lol: idiotic statement

so Sampras lost to Van Rensburg in 1r Wimbledon the year he won his 1st GS, what does that say

Yes, I miss when guys like Thomas Johansson were Slam winners and Magnus Norman and Jiri Novak were Top 5 players. Truly a great era for tennis.the truth is .. there was no bad era, any player who wins a big title earns it and peaks in the rankings where he deserves and they dont need to be put down for it just because someone didnt like their style of tennis. ppl who only think players have a useless existence because they havnt won 5+ GS's and play a style they dont like are utter twats who dont even deserve to be debated with

their pea brains judge era's by titles won rather than standard of tennis produced.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 05:24 PM
who cares... Fed always shows the emotion... more so even when he wins so why ppl are so outraged by AO 09.

:lol: idiotic statement

so Sampras lost to Van Rensburg in 1r Wimbledon the year he won his 1st GS, what does that say

the truth is .. there was no bad era, any player who wins a big title earns it and peaks in the rankings where he deserves and they dont need to be put down for it just because someone didnt like their style of tennis. ppl who only think players have a useless existence because they havnt won 5+ GS's and play a style they dont like are utter twats who dont even deserve to be debated with

their pea brains judge era's by titles won rather than standard of tennis produced.

Idiotic is repeating bullshit like this is a strong era just to justify the titles of your idol. If you think his achievements are legit, you don't have to justify them. The fact that you and other Fraudtards need to keep justifying time and time again how Fed's achievements are worth something just shows how insecure you are.

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 05:27 PM
Thanks for the link!
To be totally honest, what Nelson said doens't mean a thing. Everyone can show a lit bit of impatience from time to time, right after losing a tough match or sth... ESPECIALLY when it's Nelson Monfort who is interviewing. This guy can drive you totally nuts. He asks the question in english and right after translates it in french with his amazingly crapping tone(and usually it takes forever before he's done)..and the worst part : he interrupts the players every 2 sec to translate (sometimes not even correctly). It's normal to get frustrated in front of someone like him


Well I dunno if it had anything to do with Nelson Montfort himself, but a friend of mine had the occasion to meet him, and she told me he's not the most likeable person either...

this.

Monfort is one of the few French journo that can actually speak proper English and Spanish... Players love him.

Players might like him because he can speak their languages, but hey sometimes the dude can drive you nuts big time... Can hardly stand the guy tbh. What he said about Guga might be true iono but may be Guga was just off that day.

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 05:37 PM
Idiotic is repeating bullshit like this is a strong era just to justify the titles of your idol. If you think his achievements are legit, you don't have to justify them. The fact that you and other Fraudtards need to keep justifying time and time again how Fed's achievements are worth something just shows how insecure you are.you are the insecure one, the only reason you carry on this never ending era nonsense is because a player you hate, Nadal, is winning titles playing a style of tennis you hate.

you laugh at Fed losing matches to Arazi, Horna and Clement's when Pete was losing to Yzaga, Van Rensburg and Kucera's .. all it proves is the era's had plenty of good players.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 05:47 PM
you are the insecure one, the only reason you carry on this never ending era nonsense is because a player you hate, Nadal, is winning titles playing a style of tennis you hate.

you laugh at Fed losing matches to Arazi, Horna and Clement's when Pete was losing to Yzaga, Van Rensburg and Kucera's .. all it proves is the era's had plenty of good players.

Yzaga >>>> Horna, Arazi. Sorry. I guess you missed that simple point.

Kucera was #6! How can you compare him to Horna?

I carry on this "nonsense", that is actually the reality to anyone not a Fraudtard, because I'm not going to let a bunch of people who only care about a single player throw mud at the sport's history.

The fact that Nadull, one of the most mediocre players in history, is winning titles says a lot about the strength of this era, and about how good Frauderer supposedly is.

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 05:53 PM
Yzaga >>>> Horna, Arazi. Sorry. I guess you missed that simple point.

Kucera was #6! How can you compare him to Horna?

I carry on this "nonsense", that is actually the reality to anyone not a Fraudtard, because I'm not going to let a bunch of people who only care about a single player throw mud at the sport's history.

The fact that Nadull, one of the most mediocre players in history, is winning titles says a lot about the strength of this era, and about how good Frauderer supposedly is.well you were saying Clement in one thread, a GS finalist >>>>>>> Yzaga and Kucera, and this GS final was 2001... a time i am guessing you still think was in the "strong era" times of tennis

i dont even think you believe yourself anymore with the stuff you are saying about Nadal

you just dont accept that time moves on, new players who are bigger, stronger, faster and better come along

Echoes
08-25-2009, 05:59 PM
Neslon Monfort is surely a reliable source :yeah: :)

Is it ironical?

Commander Data
08-25-2009, 06:09 PM
The fact that Nadull, one of the most mediocre players in history, is winning titles says a lot about the strength of this era, and about how good Frauderer supposedly is.

Nadal would have destroyed Samprass so badly on clay, that you can only thank God they did not play in the same era. That would have been so ugly :rolleyes:.. Samprass is overrated, his game was pretty boring and he produced quite some clown matches. Just because of his serve he was able to collect so many Wimbledon titles and thus sneak to 14 Slams. Thank god we don't have to discuss anymore that Samprass was the best player of all time nonsense, because the choosen one, RF, has restored the natural order.

Nadal_Fanatic
08-25-2009, 06:13 PM
I'll be looking forward to the days when Federer starts getting old. I'm sick of him. But I did enjoy seeing Agassi win a lot back then. Wimbledon 1992 brings back some great memories.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 06:16 PM
well you were saying Clement in one thread, a GS finalist >>>>>>> Yzaga and Kucera, and this GS final was 2001... a time i am guessing you still think was in the "strong era" times of tennis

i dont even think you believe yourself anymore with the stuff you are saying about Nadal

you just dont accept that time moves on, new players who are bigger, stronger, faster and better come along

So? Losing to Clement is still pathetic.

90s = strong era. Can't you read?

Are you a Nadull fanboy now? No surprise, as being a Nadull fanboy makes Frauderer's mug era achievements look good if he's only losing to a good player. Too bad he's not a good player, he's pathetic.

This is all bullshit. Players today can't slice and can't volley. They can only moonball, grind and run. Therefore, they aren't better.

The illusion that 90s players would lose to players today is absolutely hilarious.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 06:20 PM
Nadal would have destroyed Samprass so badly on clay, that you can only thank God they did not play in the same era. That would have been so ugly :rolleyes:.. Samprass is overrated, his game was pretty boring and he produced quite some clown matches. Just because of his serve he was able to collect so many Wimbledon titles and thus sneak to 14 Slams. Thank god we don't have to discuss anymore that Samprass was the best player of all time nonsense, because the choosen one, RF, has restored the natural order.

:haha:

Keep with the bullshit.

Nadull already humiliates Frauderer on clay. 4 games at RG's final? What's the parameter?

I don't care about how Nadull would do against Sampras. He'd never play Sampras on clay in the 90s, he'd lose much earlier to really good claycourters.

Echoes
08-25-2009, 06:23 PM
Just because of his serve he was able to collect so many Wimbledon titles and thus sneak to 14 Slams.

Sampras' serve was average.

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 06:25 PM
Is it ironical?

No, it isn't :shrug: :)

jonathancrane
08-25-2009, 06:27 PM
So? Losing to Clement is still pathetic.

90s = strong era. Can't you read?

Are you a Nadull fanboy now? No surprise, as being a Nadull fanboy makes Frauderer's mug era achievements look good if he's only losing to a good player. Too bad he's not a good player, he's pathetic.

This is all bullshit. Players today can't slice and can't volley. They can only moonball, grind and run. Therefore, they aren't better.

The illusion that 90s players would lose to players today is absolutely hilarious.

Exactly

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 06:28 PM
This is all bullshit. Players today can't slice and can't volley. They can only moonball, grind and run. Therefore, they aren't better.

The illusion that 90s players would lose to players today is absolutely hilarious.i see many players who can slice and can volley when they want to, the one having illusions is you, 90's fanboy :o

if there was so many brilliant s+v'ers in 90's why only Sampras won Wimbledon every year

Echoes
08-25-2009, 06:30 PM
No, it isn't


Well sorry, he's a nice fellow but I don't like the way he's interrupting the interviewee every 5 seconds to translate what he said. His questions always last for 2 hours. I couldn't help laughing when I saw Michael Johnson leaving him alone. :haha:

bokehlicious
08-25-2009, 06:33 PM
Well sorry, he's a nice fellow but I don't like the way he's interrupting the interviewee every 5 seconds to translate what he said. His questions always last for 2 hours. I couldn't help laughing when I saw Michael Johnson leaving him alone. :haha:

Still, he wouldn't lie about such things in a book, what would be the point? It's not like he would sell more or anything, no-one really cares...

Arkulari
08-25-2009, 06:34 PM
it's nice to watch older matches, but living on the past is just pointless and stupid, will we be able to enjoy the sport if all we think about is how Laver played or how good Sampras volleyed? :shrug:

I like a lot of players from previous eras, but that won't stop me from enjoying this era or the one that will come next :shrug:

duong
08-25-2009, 06:35 PM
No, it isn't


Well sorry, he's a nice fellow but I don't like the way he's interrupting the interviewee every 5 seconds to translate what he said. His questions always last for 2 hours. I couldn't help laughing when I saw Michael Johnson leaving him alone. :haha:

I don't like Monfort as anb interviewer either,

but once again about Kuerten, he didn't speak about the player's reaction to him but about his relations with the "small employees".

Voo de Mar
08-25-2009, 06:35 PM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top)

Time is relative. For me old times are 60's/70's because it was a time I didn't exist even in the mind of my parents. I think nostalgy is always connected with the period in which you started watching/listening something. It's a normal thing. One day in the future Federer or Nadal will be appear like funny old-schoolers but people who began watching tennis in this decade will be missing them, etc. etc...

Castafiore
08-25-2009, 06:38 PM
Found it:

http://www.roadtorolandgarros.com/#/video20_uk/
Thanks for the link. :)

I don't really think it says a lot, though. It just proves that Guga is not a saint but there could be a number of reasons why he was not in the mood to be cheerful and was only able to put up an act when the cameras were rolling.

Of course, maybe Guga really is a total prick but that one episode and this one "journalist" is not really enough to categorize him IMO. :shrug:
Granted, I was never a Guga fan so I don't read up on what he's like behind the scenes but still...

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 06:38 PM
I like a lot of players from previous eras, but that won't stop me from enjoying this era or the one that will come next :shrug:same here, i started watching tennis in the 90's and it was great, the styles of tennis changes but still plenty of good matches and players as far as i can see.

how exactly it is supposed to be so bad now is beyond me, i must be blind.

you get a few dodgy perfomances and matches now and then but the same happened in the 90's, only idiots try and say differently.

duong
08-25-2009, 06:39 PM
it's nice to watch older matches, but living on the past is just pointless and stupid, will we be able to enjoy the sport if all we think about is how Laver played or how good Sampras volleyed? :shrug:

I like a lot of players from previous eras, but that won't stop me from enjoying this era or the one that will come next :shrug:

the same for me.

Praising the 90s for "slice and volley" is crazy if you compare them to the 60s to 80s :lol:

I wish I had seen Laver and Rosewall play :cool:

But yet, I like current period ... and I don't miss at all the 90s (except the first part), quite boring tennis for me, especially on serve and also on clay :shrug:

Quadruple Tree
08-25-2009, 06:55 PM
i see many players who can slice and can volley when they want to, the one having illusions is you, 90's fanboy :o

if there was so many brilliant s+v'ers in 90's why only Sampras won Wimbledon every year

Because he was a better serve and volleyer than the others. It's the same reason why Federer has won all those Wimbledon and US Open titles. He's just a better player than his peers.

tangerine_dream
08-25-2009, 06:59 PM
Excellent job winding up the Fedtards, safinou. :hatoff:

Ichiban1920
08-25-2009, 07:07 PM
Fed/Nadull-tards are too blind to realize how much of a mug era we're living in, winning GS against absolute mugs. :lol:

Dini
08-25-2009, 07:08 PM
Excellent job winding up the Fedtards, safinou. :hatoff:

You were one not so long ago. ;)

Ichiban1920
08-25-2009, 07:09 PM
well you were saying Clement in one thread, a GS finalist >>>>>>>

you just dont accept that time moves on, new players who are bigger, stronger, faster and better come along

New racquet technology, new diet/nutrition/fitness programs and regiments. No shit players today are going to be faster and stronger than before. Mug era.

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 07:09 PM
No, it isn't


Well sorry, he's a nice fellow but I don't like the way he's interrupting the interviewee every 5 seconds to translate what he said. His questions always last for 2 hours. I couldn't help laughing when I saw Michael Johnson leaving him alone. :haha:

The one with the Chang incident at RG was not bad either :lol:

reggie1
08-25-2009, 07:16 PM
MTF needs to get rid of all those nostalgiatards, or at least open them a sub-forum where they can whine, cry and talk about the good ol' days... :zzz:Ageism me thinks, you'd do well at the BBC my love!
We're not all 12 years old and just want to continually wax lyrical about Fed and Nadal you know or end up having yawn and vomit inducing rants about who is the best player and who is indeed the best poster with the most realistic view of the tennis world ;) There are, heavens forbid, a few posters on here over the age of 35!

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 07:32 PM
Exactly

;)

i see many players who can slice and can volley when they want to, the one having illusions is you, 90's fanboy :o

if there was so many brilliant s+v'ers in 90's why only Sampras won Wimbledon every year

Many? Of course you can't use names, or your point would be self-defeating.

Because he was better than they were? Sampras was a true great. He played much better players in each of the surfaces.

it's nice to watch older matches, but living on the past is just pointless and stupid, will we be able to enjoy the sport if all we think about is how Laver played or how good Sampras volleyed? :shrug:

I like a lot of players from previous eras, but that won't stop me from enjoying this era or the one that will come next :shrug:

If you have no standards, it's your problem. Don't extrapolate.

Arkulari
08-25-2009, 07:41 PM
my standards should be S&V Gu? I respect your tastes but you have the tendency to disregard other people's opinions, not everyone has to like the same exact thing and you can't be right all the time :shrug:

you are free to like what you like and that doesn't make what you like better than what other people like, after all, this is a common passion amongst us and like everything that involves feelings, it is very different on each person :shrug:

Certinfy
08-25-2009, 07:45 PM
No.

Commander Data
08-25-2009, 07:54 PM
:haha:

Keep with the bullshit.

Nadull already humiliates Frauderer on clay. 4 games at RG's final?

So what? Federer was out of form and had a bad day. Samprass would would be lucky to get 4 Games in top form.

Myrre
08-25-2009, 08:10 PM
I don't mind players believing in their chances, but statesments such as "I would be up there with that guy" when you're long retired is a bolt statement to say the least....... would be like some old golf player (not Nicklaus) saying he would own Tiger... would only make him look like a fool...

It's "the older I get, the better I used to be" syndrome.

Echoes
08-25-2009, 08:22 PM
The one with the Chang incident at RG was not bad either :lol:

Luigi ! :lol:

barbadosan
08-25-2009, 08:26 PM
GlennMirnyi, you ever gave any thought to what kind of personality you'd come across as if you were by any chance a top ten tennis pro? Just wondering....

ShotmaKer
08-25-2009, 08:27 PM
Luigi ! :lol:

:rolls:

This monfort is really good !

Echoes
08-25-2009, 08:36 PM
Praising the 90s for "slice and volley" is crazy if you compare them to the 60s to 80s :lol:


I remember the French Eurosport commentators saying that S&V players were an endangered species in the 90's. I was quite surprised to hear that. I thought they were still quite numerous (Sampras, Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Stich, Edberg, Mirnyi, ...). Now I understand that. Racket technology already allowed for more power and less "finesse". I would even say it began in the mid eighties when every player dropped their wooden or aluminum rackets for the new graffite oversized rackets. For example, McEnroe claimed that Becker greatly benefitted from the new racket technology to win his first two Wimbledon victories. I think he was right to a certain extent.

But I would agree with those who claim that today's tennis is almost strictly a question of power and quickness and no longer "finesse".

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 09:33 PM
So what? Federer was out of form and had a bad day. Samprass would would be lucky to get 4 Games in top form.Sampras would have been lucky to get anywhere near the Final

Pixie
08-25-2009, 11:21 PM
One day in the future Federer or Nadal will be appear like funny old-schoolers but people who began watching tennis in this decade will be missing them, etc. etc...

Very true. And a new mug era will rise...And so on. For every era you've got a turd or two fanboying
another era, generally the only other one they have ever seen - and for which they lack shades. Thankfully a lot of people like tennis for its variety throughout the decades - the simple fact they follow closely tennis that long means a lot and that gives them a more accurate overall picture.

Arkulari
08-25-2009, 11:33 PM
Voo and Pixie: :worship: :bigclap:

totally agree with you! :yeah:

Pixie
08-25-2009, 11:45 PM
BTW it always makes me laugh when someone build an argument around losses a player has known. All of them are due a shoking loss here and there, it's part of a player's development from the time he begins to his retirement. It's even more absurd when the goal is to compare two players.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 12:11 AM
Yes, I miss when guys like Thomas Johansson were Slam winners and Magnus Norman and Jiri Novak were Top 5 players. Truly a great era for tennis.

So you think Del Potro, Simon, Davydenko, Ferrer and Boredo, all players to have made the top 5 in the past three years or so, are better than those three?

N-O W-A-Y J-O-S-E.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 12:18 AM
Very true. And a new mug era will rise...And so on. For every era you've got a turd or two fanboying
another era, generally the only other one they have ever seen - and for which they lack shades. Thankfully a lot of people like tennis for its variety throughout the decades - the simple fact they follow closely tennis that long means a lot and that gives them a more accurate overall picture.

Speak whatever shite you want, this is a crappy era RIGHT NOW. No one's talking about the future.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 12:21 AM
my standards should be S&V Gu? I respect your tastes but you have the tendency to disregard other people's opinions, not everyone has to like the same exact thing and you can't be right all the time :shrug:

you are free to like what you like and that doesn't make what you like better than what other people like, after all, this is a common passion amongst us and like everything that involves feelings, it is very different on each person :shrug:

I haven't specified any standard, have I?

So what? Federer was out of form and had a bad day. Samprass would would be lucky to get 4 Games in top form.

:haha:

Keep deluding yourself.

GlennMirnyi, you ever gave any thought to what kind of personality you'd come across as if you were by any chance a top ten tennis pro? Just wondering....

WTF?

Sampras would have been lucky to get anywhere near the Final

These days, when Soderlings are making RG finals, Sampras would win at least 2.

cocrcici
08-26-2009, 12:45 AM
Federer>>>>>>>>>Sampras:zzz:

Quadruple Tree
08-26-2009, 12:46 AM
So you think Del Potro, Simon, Davydenko, Ferrer and Boredo, all players to have made the top 5 in the past three years or so, are better than those three?

N-O W-A-Y J-O-S-E.

I never made a claim that today is any better. The point is that the early 00's were no different as far as "mugs" go. Although, the term mug kind of loses any meaning when applied to top 10 professional players. I would have agreed with the OP if he was comparing today with the 80's and early 90's, but I don't see how the early 00's were any better from a talent level than what we have today.

out_here_grindin
08-26-2009, 01:00 AM
These days, when Soderlings are making RG finals, Sampras would win at least 2.

I thought that was an example of a strong era. When players ranked above 10 can beat the top guns to make a slam final. Or does that only hold true if it happened in the 90's?

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 01:09 AM
I thought that was an example of a strong era. When players ranked above 10 can beat the top guns to make a slam final. Or does that only hold true if it happened in the 90's?

Above or below?

Soderling is hardly a claycourter, that's my point. Also he's hardly ranked far from the top 10.

dabeast
08-26-2009, 01:37 AM
Baiter..

But I'll bite just lest you have forgotten..

Uh... I don't recall Guga audibly blubbering, uncontrollably like a child for 15 to 20 minutes on international television, no less, after losing a title---to the point where one his opponent had to comfort him! Now... let's see.. where did I see that lately? Could that have been Roger, the GOAT? Could have been just as recent as January, upon losing the AO? Boy, Rod Laver really looked impressed by his behavior! Gotta love the GOAT. No.. he never makes mistakes, does he?

No.. Guga isn't a saint. Guga is as diva as they come. But how would you describe Roger? I wonder whose dick he sucks if not his own?

Oh but we have gone off-topic.

Carry on

STFU, man this f***** is annoying. Give it a rest. If all you can do is take cheap shots at Fed just for that one loss of control, then that just proves you don't have much material to work with.

Have you ever met Fed personally, like face-to-face? No? Then SHUT UP about "oh, he's crying like a baby" since you don't play pro tennis at an inhuman level for 6 years on now and wouldn't know what Fed felt like. If the guy has been voted by players for the Edberg Sportsmanship award for 5 years straight, I'm sure that these guys who play against him and hang out with him personally know a lot more about Fed than YOU will ever hope to know, since all you do in MTF is judge ONE moment at the AO this year AGAIN AND AGAIN.

You are a whining POS if I ever saw one. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 01:47 AM
Fanbooooy alert.

Don't cry, honey.

Sunset of Age
08-26-2009, 01:49 AM
Voo and Pixie: :worship: :bigclap:

totally agree with you! :yeah:

And here's another one.

I'm not exactly a youngster around over here - I've seen Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Edberg, Kuerten, etc. etc. play (on the tv, of course). Even seen glimpses of Arthur Ashe and Tom Okker in my younger days. :bounce: :p
Legends? I'd say so! :worship:

And know what? EVERY era has its sources of excitement, players to root for, players to admire. No era is 'better' then any other, all players have to do with the opponents who are there at that time, and guess what? All of them are pretty good!

Those of you who dismiss the current era, in which we might well be witnessing TWO fantastic top-of-history players at the same time, should ask themselves if they're true tennis fans...

Don't like it nowadays? Just go back and hide in your cave and watch your old vids of those 'better' days of old, in stead of continuously expressing what a 'mug era' the current era is... nostalgiatards, indeed. :rolleyes:

http://a3.vox.com/6a00c10e0f6746d3b400c22529f4338fdb-320pi

MrChopin
08-26-2009, 02:12 AM
yep... volley at 0:37 FTW...

6xkV_BxNBv0&

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 02:15 AM
Nobody cares about this Fedal crap.

It's a mug era and we're entitled to our opinion, bunch of fascists.

Arkulari
08-26-2009, 02:17 AM
Sampras was pretty much useless on clay, and it wasn't for the "strong competition", the guy simply couldn't move well on clay :shrug:

in that regard, Roger is a much better claycourter than he ever was, and that also is because Roger being from continental europe grew up playing on that surface ;)

on grass and hard, the jury is still out and will be until Roger retires ;)

you're perfectly entitled to your opinion Gu and I respect that, like I said before it's a matter of opinion, so we all must respect the opinion of others, if someone pretends to impose an opinion, then yes, it's a fascist, no one is completely right all the time :shrug:

and for the record: Sampras was a great player, but he was not good on clay, that doesn't depend on his era but on his playing style, he would have been a menace on grass and hard on every era, but wouldn't have done anything on clay :shrug:

Sunset of Age
08-26-2009, 02:18 AM
Nobody cares about this Fedal crap.

It's a mug era and we're entitled to our opinion, bunch of fascists.

So anyone who thinks Federer and/or Nadal - AND their contemporaries - are pretty good players, are fascists??? :eek:
Boy, you're losing it. Really. :o

Chiseller
08-26-2009, 02:21 AM
Fight.
Round I

Lillith
08-26-2009, 02:35 AM
LOL, silly me, I thought you'd actually post about olden days and real characters. Safin has nothing on Nasty and Connors. I don't remember Pancho, but I do remember all the stories about him as well.


I've watched tennis a long time, and there are periods in which I've been bored to tears. The mid 90s was one, the early 2000s was another. Everyone will have their own favorite times and different opinions on the quality of those players. I think hitchiker had a thread about this very subject at one point- is it still a sticky?


And Glenn, I hardly knew ye. You used to be funny. :(

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 02:38 AM
And here's another one.

I'm not exactly a youngster around over here - I've seen Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Edberg, Kuerten, etc. etc. play (on the tv, of course). Even seen glimpses of Arthur Ashe and Tom Okker in my younger days. :bounce: :p
Legends? I'd say so! :worship:

And know what? EVERY era has its sources of excitement, players to root for, players to admire. No era is 'better' then any other, all players have to do with the opponents who are there at that time, and guess what? All of them are pretty good!

Those of you who dismiss the current era, in which we might well be witnessing TWO fantastic top-of-history players at the same time, should ask themselves if they're true tennis fans...

Don't like it nowadays? Just go back and hide in your cave and watch your old vids of those 'better' days of old, in stead of continuously expressing what a 'mug era' the current era is... nostalgiatards, indeed. :rolleyes:

http://a3.vox.com/6a00c10e0f6746d3b400c22529f4338fdb-320pi

They're the ONLY players at the top who would compete for GSs (Nadal only being clay) in any other era.

Basically everyone behind Fedal is weak weak weak.

serveandvolley80
08-26-2009, 02:38 AM
my standards should be S&V Gu? I respect your tastes but you have the tendency to disregard other people's opinions, not everyone has to like the same exact thing and you can't be right all the time

you are free to like what you like and that doesn't make what you like better than what other people like, after all, this is a common passion amongst us and like everything that involves feelings, it is very different on each person

Please, don't try logic, it will only infuriate and confuse him further.

Calidreth
08-26-2009, 02:40 AM
GlennMirnyi is a troll and a damn good one -- he baits you guys so easily. Anyway on the topic at hand, yes I do miss the old days, but they were no different than today. There were 4 or 5 good players then and there are 4 or 5 players now that continue to dominate. Nostalgia can throw off perception quite a bit.

Chiseller
08-26-2009, 02:40 AM
William Renshaw, John Hartley, Richard Sears and Paul Aymé.
Those were the days, the good ol' days.

Lillith
08-26-2009, 02:45 AM
William Renshaw, John Hartley, Richard Sears and Paul Aymé.
Those were the days, the good ol' days.

You lucky duck- you got to see Renshaw! Those were the days, tennis died the day Big Bill Tilden retired. Mugs ever since.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 02:46 AM
GlennMirnyi is a troll and a damn good one -- he baits you guys so easily. Anyway on the topic at hand, yes I do miss the old days, but they were no different than today. There were 4 or 5 good players then and there are 4 or 5 players now that continue to dominate. Nostalgia can throw off perception quite a bit.

4 or 5 continue to dominate? Cause 4 or 5 players are winning slams? The only one other than the top 2 to win one in the past four years won one because the top 2 he played had a debilitating illness.

W E A K.

Chiseller
08-26-2009, 02:50 AM
Yes, still have the polaroid of us 2 (not too) somewhere.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 03:00 AM
So anyone who thinks Federer and/or Nadal - AND their contemporaries - are pretty good players, are fascists??? :eek:
Boy, you're losing it. Really. :o

Trying to shut up people who disagree with you gloryhunters is basically fascism. This "nostalgiatards should shut up" thing is bullshit.

Please, don't try logic, it will only infuriate and confuse him further.

:retard:

Arkulari
08-26-2009, 03:06 AM
was it gloryhunting to support Sampras on his prime? to support Becker on his prime? to support Laver on his prime? :scratch:

it's the exact same situation nowadays, people support the style(s) they like better, the players that they like better and for a lot of us, we will find players we like on each era and will support them, even if some players of previous eras were our favorites and probably we won't be so fanatical as we were on the ones we followed for a long time ;)

there's nothing wrong with liking different eras, but we can't change the era we are in and tennis is like marriage: for better or worse we will follow it :lol:

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 03:10 AM
was it gloryhunting to support Sampras on his prime? to support Becker on his prime? to support Laver on his prime? :scratch:

it's the exact same situation nowadays, people support the style(s) they like better, the players that they like better and for a lot of us, we will find players we like on each era and will support them, even if some players of previous eras were our favorites and probably we won't be so fanatical as we were on the ones we followed for a long time ;)

there's nothing wrong with liking different eras, but we can't change the era we are in and tennis is like marriage: for better or worse we will follow it :lol:

It's one thing to support just top players, "hun". It's another to support a guy because of his game, independent of his ranking.

leng jai
08-26-2009, 03:13 AM
DOn't worry boys and girls. The voice of reason has arrived.

Chiseller
08-26-2009, 03:18 AM
What do you want from me again.

Arkulari
08-26-2009, 03:18 AM
It's one thing to support just top players, "hun". It's another to support a guy because of his game, independent of his ranking.

and in that I agree with you Gu ;)

there are players that I could never like not even when they were on the top like Hewitt, their games never appealed to me and never turned into their fan :p

also, there are players that most people would call mugs but whom I like :lol:

for example a lot of people on challengers, you go and watch them play and enjoy it even if they aren't top players, in fact, it's even better, because you're not suffering like a fan (with most of them, though if Daniel is playing, the fangirl in me comes out in full force :lol: ) and can focus on enjoying the tennis :yeah:

tennis works in mysterious ways :D

dabeast
08-26-2009, 04:27 AM
GM: full of trolls now

GM: is a troll

ShotmaKer
08-26-2009, 07:38 AM
If you like anyone ranked above 50th nowadays, you're a gloryhunter :shrug: That's how it works.

Goldenoldie
08-26-2009, 07:56 AM
This could have been an interesting thread. What a pity so many posts ignore the OP's question.

safinou
08-26-2009, 08:56 AM
This could have been an interesting thread. What a pity so many posts ignore the OP's question.

I kinda agree with you.. My initial point was not to say this is a mug era cos I don't believe it is one.. It's just that now it's not what it used to be.. There are tons of young little snivellers (and I do NOT necessarily refer to Federer on this :)) who are just not that talented.. There used to be some little genious out there and now it feels like the tour is just full of young hardworkers who thanks to their effort manage to shine from tiiiime to time but that is all..
However, I chose not to put Federer and Nadal in the same basket.. No matter what some of you guys say, these two are pretty special compared to their contemporary peers.. Still I'm getting sick of this sole rivalry.. The only time these two are not in the final is when one of them is sick or injured.. It used to be exciting in the very beginning cos it was a brand new opposition, with 2 very different styles.. but now I think it has just lasted too long already.. All the excitement's gone

duong
08-26-2009, 09:19 AM
There are, heavens forbid, a few posters on here over the age of 35!

yes, and they are fed-up with so many speaking of the 90s like a "golden era" totally forgetting the 80s (and even the 70s and the 60s - Laver/Rosewall must have been great :cool: )

... and speaking about slice and volley in the 90s whereas it was also a period of serve, serve, serve (and some specialised crocodiles on clay).

duong
08-26-2009, 09:26 AM
But I would agree with those who claim that today's tennis is almost strictly a question of power and quickness and no longer "finesse".

That's not the main change I've seen comparing to the 90s :
imo the main change is that the legs are far more important today, as players can take back unbelievable shots.

But in my memories, there was a lot of power (especially serve) in the 90s, and less time building points as today.

Serve and volley in the 90s was not so much a matter of "finesse" : it was also a lot a matter of power.

I can see more "finesse" in Murray's game than in Ivanisevic's or Rusedski's or Forget's :rolleyes:

That's my opinion, and I've seen these both periods, even if I lost a little bit interest in the second part of the 90s.

Echoes
08-26-2009, 09:43 AM
I agree with you, Duong. But as I said in my preceding message, the guy who is generally considered to be the creator of the so-called "power tennis" is Becker and it was already in the 80's. It all began with Becker and the new graphite rackets from the 80's to me. Ivanisevic and Rusedski are his heirs.

Pure S&V, in my opinion, is a matter of finesse. Guys like Rusedski or Goran did it but their volley was average. Actually their serve was so powerful that if the returner was able to get the ball back in they never could volley in good conditions because it comes very fast as well. That's why the great volleyers are also players with a nice touch.;)

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 10:04 AM
That's not the main change I've seen comparing to the 90s :
imo the main change is that the legs are far more important today, as players can take back unbelievable shots.

But in my memories, there was a lot of power (especially serve) in the 90s, and less time building points as today.

Serve and volley in the 90s was not so much a matter of "finesse" : it was also a lot a matter of power.

I can see more "finesse" in Murray's game than in Ivanisevic's or Rusedski's or Forget's :rolleyes:

That's my opinion, and I've seen these both periods, even if I lost a little bit interest in the second part of the 90s.

Yup.

duong
08-26-2009, 10:07 AM
I agree with you, Duong. But as I said in my preceding message, the guy who is generally considered to be the creator of the so-called "power tennis" is Becker and it was already in the 80's. It all began with Becker and the new graphite rackets from the 80's to me. Ivanisevic and Rusedski are his heirs.

Pure S&V, in my opinion, is a matter of finesse. Guys like Rusedski or Goran did it but their volley was average. Actually their serve was so powerful that if the returner was able to get the ball back in they never could volley in good conditions because it comes very fast as well. That's why the great volleyers are also players with a nice touch.;)

yes I agree with everything (and Forget also had a very poor volley :o )

Becker was a forerunner (but he was also able of finesse, especially on clay - I'm always nostalgic of Monte-Carlo 89 especially)

I mean, if you want to speak about "finesse", speak about McEnroe, Nastase, Mecir ... Mayotte, Cash, Masur if you want to speak about S&V.

but I saw more power than finesse in the 90s.

Serve and volley is often a matter of finesse, but the 90s managed to make it a mainly power game, especially some players as I mentioned.

But serve and volley is not the epitome of "finesse".

I spoke about Mecir or Nastase, even I remember Noah when he played on clay :

they built their points,

which I appreciate a lot, and which is also for me a kind of "finesse".

And I have to say that in the new era, I find players buidling their points, which reminds me of the 80s.

Of course there's not as much finesse as in the 80s ... but I appreciate a lot this renewal of "points preparation".

Even Davydenko, who is considered as the epitome of a "right-left play", he uses the wrongfoot shots and sometimes he goes to the net !

Really I've found back some of that in the recent years.

Finesse and beautiful game are not just about "serve and volley" as some say : serve and volley can be ugly actually (see Rusedski, Forget).

And fortunately there's more in tennis to appreciate than just S&V.

Echoes
08-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Sampras was pretty much useless on clay, and it wasn't for the "strong competition", the guy simply couldn't move well on clay :shrug:
[...]

and for the record: Sampras was a great player, but he was not good on clay, that doesn't depend on his era but on his playing style, he would have been a menace on grass and hard on every era, but wouldn't have done anything on clay :shrug:

I guess you only remember the last years of his career but we should remember that Sampras won two tournaments on European clay (he was one of the 7 players of his time who won tournaments on every surface) - Rome and Kitzbuhel - and made it three times in a row to the quarterfinals at RG before making it to the semis. In 1997 I saw him literally destroying Santoro and Clavet in the first two rounds of RG before suffering from stomach-ache against Norman. That was his best chance I think.

As I say this, it was of course clearly his weakest surface. :)

Echoes
08-26-2009, 10:25 AM
Well I wish I could talk more 'bout Cash, McEnroe, Mayotte, etc. But well I'm 26 and discovered tennis in the early 90's. I was just lucky enough to see the end of Connors' and McEnroe's careers. For the rest it's all via Youtube videos. :)

But I keep thinking that Goran and Rusedki can't be considered as pure S&V players. Their volley was average at that level. Henman and Sampras had a lot more finesse in their game to me. Even Krajicek.

Of course I agree with you on the fact that the nineties were rather a question of power compared to the eighties and it's even clearer when compared to the seventies. But I'm pretty convinced it's even more so today than in the nineties.

For example, as has already been said, the slice has almost vanished today. Only Federer uses it quite often. Maybe Murray or Gasquet also (of course it's easier if you have a one-handed backhand) but there's no great variety when "building" points, I'm afraid.

Dougie
08-26-2009, 10:33 AM
It's one thing to support just top players, "hun". It's another to support a guy because of his game, independent of his ranking.

So if you support "a guy" who´s ranked something like 250 because of "his game", and "the guy" actually starts to improve, makes it to the top 10 and wins a GS, would that make you a gloryhunter because he´s at the top now? Or would you try to convince everyone you supported him even when he was a loser? Or is the point to support only "guys" who you know will never be at the top so you won´t be called a gloryhunter? And if so, what makes "a guys" game so great and worth supporting, if you know it will never win him enough matches to get to the top? Wouldn´t that kind of "guy" be what you call....what´s the word...oh, mug...?

Anyway, I hate the word gloryhunter. It´s like bragging your friends how hot chick your distant cousin f----ed last night. It´s no glory for me, if Jarkko Nieminen wins a GS.

andylovesaustin
08-26-2009, 11:47 AM
I don't mind players believing in their chances, but statesments such as "I would be up there with that guy" when you're long retired is a bolt statement to say the least....... would be like some old golf player (not Nicklaus) saying he would own Tiger... would only make him look like a fool...

You do realize Guga DID beat Roger at the French when Roger was nearing his prime and Guga was past his, hobbling around the court with a hip injury right before he retired. So right there is another reason for Guga to be "arrogant" if YOU choose to call it that.

Besides a REPORTER asked him the question about them playing in their PRIMES; Guga didn't just blurt it out for no apparent reason. How do you expect Guga to respond, by saying "Oh yes, Roger is my hero, and he would have beaten me for sure even though I've won the French 3 times and beaten him when he was a rising star as the AO and Wimby champ." In fact, it was Guga who spoiled Roger's chances of winning the Grand Slam that year because I think Roger went on to win the U.S. Open, didn't he?

I call it confidence, but you go on right ahead, believing it is unjustified arrogance. As I said, to me misplaced confidence even arrogance would be if a "retired" Guga had the audacity to say he'd be the favorite at Wimby or the U.S. Open, when he never had much success at even one of those tournaments.

But regarding THE TOPIC, I think some of the top players respect Roger to the point they lose some confidence on court. I just think it's a fine line to respect a person's game so much to where, one doesn't believe he/she can win. If a player says things like, "I was born in the wrong era," well it's like they sort of relinquish control. That's not good to go into a match or any situation, believing fate is not going your way, in my opinion. It's a defeatist attitude.

stebs
08-26-2009, 01:56 PM
I think some of the top players respect Roger to the point they lose some confidence on court...It's a defeatist attitude.

Some players have it and it costs them dear. Davydenko had a lot of chances to win matches against Federer and he still never did it. Blake also choked vs him many times.

Thing is though, that's not at all specific to this era. A lot of people choked vs Sampras as well. Agassi did it now and then. Goran often. Henman often. A lot of the talented but less succesful guys as well.

ad-out
08-26-2009, 02:06 PM
I kinda agree with you.. My initial point was not to say this is a mug era cos I don't believe it is one.. It's just that now it's not what it used to be.. There are tons of young little snivellers (and I do NOT necessarily refer to Federer on this :)) who are just not that talented.. There used to be some little genious out there and now it feels like the tour is just full of young hardworkers who thanks to their effort manage to shine from tiiiime to time but that is all..
However, I chose not to put Federer and Nadal in the same basket.. No matter what some of you guys say, these two are pretty special compared to their contemporary peers.. Still I'm getting sick of this sole rivalry.. The only time these two are not in the final is when one of them is sick or injured.. It used to be exciting in the very beginning cos it was a brand new opposition, with 2 very different styles.. but now I think it has just lasted too long already.. All the excitement's gone

Well said.. and I totally agree. :)

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 04:32 PM
and in that I agree with you Gu ;)

there are players that I could never like not even when they were on the top like Hewitt, their games never appealed to me and never turned into their fan :p

also, there are players that most people would call mugs but whom I like :lol:

for example a lot of people on challengers, you go and watch them play and enjoy it even if they aren't top players, in fact, it's even better, because you're not suffering like a fan (with most of them, though if Daniel is playing, the fangirl in me comes out in full force :lol: ) and can focus on enjoying the tennis :yeah:

tennis works in mysterious ways :D

Don't try to fool us.

GM: full of trolls now

GM: is a troll

GM: full of morons

You: a huge moron

That's not the main change I've seen comparing to the 90s :
imo the main change is that the legs are far more important today, as players can take back unbelievable shots.

But in my memories, there was a lot of power (especially serve) in the 90s, and less time building points as today.

Serve and volley in the 90s was not so much a matter of "finesse" : it was also a lot a matter of power.

I can see more "finesse" in Murray's game than in Ivanisevic's or Rusedski's or Forget's :rolleyes:

That's my opinion, and I've seen these both periods, even if I lost a little bit interest in the second part of the 90s.

That is pathetic and you know it. Ok, the late 90s were biased towards big servers, ok. That's not something debatable. Now to say that Murray has more finesse than even the worst S&Vers? That's a huge stretch, and you know it. Even if he were more adroit than those other guys, he doesn't use it. You can't judge on something a player doesn't do. By the way, if he doesn't do it so often, chances are he isn't exactly good at it.

To finish, moonballing and grinding isn't building points. Don't tell me Nadull, Faker, Pony and Simon-like players know how to build points.

So if you support "a guy" who´s ranked something like 250 because of "his game", and "the guy" actually starts to improve, makes it to the top 10 and wins a GS, would that make you a gloryhunter because he´s at the top now? Or would you try to convince everyone you supported him even when he was a loser? Or is the point to support only "guys" who you know will never be at the top so you won´t be called a gloryhunter? And if so, what makes "a guys" game so great and worth supporting, if you know it will never win him enough matches to get to the top? Wouldn´t that kind of "guy" be what you call....what´s the word...oh, mug...?

Anyway, I hate the word gloryhunter. It´s like bragging your friends how hot chick your distant cousin f----ed last night. It´s no glory for me, if Jarkko Nieminen wins a GS.

No Fraudtards or Nadulltards started supporting them when they were lower-ranked, mate. They're gloryhunters by definition.

Exactly my point. Those are people who only cheer for players who are consistently winning titles so to take a moral high ground towards other tennis fans based on their idols achievements, not theirs. How many times have you seen someone going on and on that you should shut your mouth when talking about their favorite player because he's a GS winner, or this or that?

andylovesaustin
08-26-2009, 04:49 PM
Some players have it and it costs them dear. Davydenko had a lot of chances to win matches against Federer and he still never did it. Blake also choked vs him many times.

Thing is though, that's not at all specific to this era. A lot of people choked vs Sampras as well. Agassi did it now and then. Goran often. Henman often. A lot of the talented but less succesful guys as well.

But--as I said way back in this thread, I don't recall Agassi saying he was born in the wrong era! Did Henman say he was born in the wrong era? I don't recall any player saying he was born in the wrong era during Pete's domination.

Since this thread is about comparing different eras, I just think it's weird a few players from this era are so quick to concede to Roger--even in the press! LOL

I only brought up Guga as a matter of comparison because even in retirement, Guga isn't willing to concede, particularly when he believes he would have more than a chance at the French at least. It's just a different type of mentality in players of different eras. :shrug:

Commander Data
08-26-2009, 04:50 PM
No Fraudtards or Nadulltards started supporting them when they were lower-ranked, mate.

Amazing that you researched the history of every single one of them :worship:

The more I read from you the more I think you are one simple minded fellow, then again it is GM, so what do I expect :confused:

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 04:51 PM
Amazing that you researched the history of every single one of them :worship:

The more I read from you the more I think you are one simple minded fellow, then again it is GM, so what do I expect :confused:

No need to.

How many Fraudtards were here when he was gettin' his ass whooped by all kinds of clowns?

That shows they only care about Frauderer and that they only care about Frauderer when he's winning.

Harmless
08-26-2009, 04:57 PM
Love this thread. :spit:


Since this thread is about comparing different eras, I just think it's weird a few players from this era are so quick to concede to Roger--even in the press! LOL


I think, judging solely by the thread title and the OP, it's not about comparing different eras logically, it's about emotional resonance with certain times/phases of tennis.
If I can understand the intention correctly, it's intended to be a subjective base thread, no?

fabolous
08-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Those of you who dismiss the current era, in which we might well be witnessing TWO fantastic top-of-history players at the same time, should ask themselves if they're true tennis fans...

Don't like it nowadays? Just go back and hide in your cave and watch your old vids of those 'better' days of old, in stead of continuously expressing what a 'mug era' the current era is... nostalgiatards, indeed. :rolleyes:
i don't get this point of view. yes, i miss the "old days" for numerous reasons, especially because of the diversity in playing styles (and maybe the characters of certain players, but this is my personal taste). i still like watching tennis today of course, it's my favourite sport. so i am not a tennis fan because i express my opinion that the current era is not as interesting as older eras?

the main "problem" today is we have two guys dominating the sport. so basically if you are a fan of one of them (or even both, like you;)) of course you will love it. personally i have no interest in fed or nadal, i don't cheer for one of them because i don't find them likeable at all (i know you do, that's no problem, everyone is different). i appreciate their tennis very much though, but after the millionth fedal final i just wanna see something else. it has become too predictable for me, when two guys (i don't care for) share like 25 of the last 26 slam titles.

being a fan of fed/nadal you will like this era, otherwise probably not (though it is not the only reason).

last thing: you have to agree with Glenn on certain points. the evolution of the whole game has led to less diversity among players. i miss different playing styles. and i even agree that the average tennis player of today has a worse technique than in the 90's, because he doesn't require it.

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 05:15 PM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

The Nadal & Federer rivalry is way too good for me to miss the old days where mediocre players, dominated the sport.

andylovesaustin
08-26-2009, 05:16 PM
Love this thread. :spit:



I think, judging solely by the thread title and the OP, it's not about comparing different eras logically, it's about emotional resonance with certain times/phases of tennis.
If I can understand the intention correctly, it's intended to be a subjective base thread, no?

Didn't the creator of this thread agree with me?

I am responding why I miss different eras-- the last era,in particular. I already said early-on it wasn't necessarily about the lack of personalities or the lack of talent in this era. I don't think it's a "mug" era in the sense this current crop doesn't have talent.

But I reiterate, I don't recall players from past eras saying they were born in the wrong era when one player becomes dominant. I don't even recall it on the women's side. :lol:

So I think this particular era is strange and a little disappointing for that reason. Certain players--not all of them but just a few including but not limited to Andy Roddick seem to believe beating Roger is beyond their control because they were just unlucky or something? It's a little disappointing to hear him talk like that. And now Novak is saying it! That just shouldn't be happening.

Now, if a person is ONLY a fan of Roger's, I guess this sort of attitude isn't a problem. I would imagine a lot of Roger's fans agree with this deference. But not everyone is a fan of Roger's even though we might respect he's the GOAT. He's a great tennis player, probably the greatest. That doesn't mean some of these players should have the attitude they just aren't good enough to compete. And it's a bummer for their fans to hear them just give up essentially--at least mentally.

jdenelle
08-26-2009, 05:18 PM
......when Marat used to win matches/tournaments :sad:

Commander Data
08-26-2009, 05:19 PM
No need to.

How many Fraudtards were here when he was gettin' his ass whooped by all kinds of clowns?

That shows they only care about Frauderer and that they only care about Frauderer when he's winning.

I was here.. then again I'm no Fraudtard...

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 05:20 PM
i don't get this point of view. yes, i miss the "old days" for numerous reasons, especially because of the diversity in playing styles (and maybe the characters of certain players, but this is my personal taste). i still like watching tennis today of course, it's my favourite sport. so i am not a tennis fan because i express my opinion that the current era is not as interesting as older eras?

the main "problem" today is we have two guys dominating the sport. so basically if you are a fan of one of them (or even both, like you;)) of course you will love it. personally i have no interest in fed or nadal, i don't cheer for one of them because i don't find them likeable at all (i know you do, that's no problem, everyone is different). i appreciate their tennis very much though, but after the millionth fedal final i just wanna see something else. it has become too predictable for me, when two guys (i don't care for) share like 25 of the last 26 slam titles.

being a fan of fed/nadal you will like this era, otherwise probably not (though it is not the only reason).

last thing: you have to agree with Glenn on certain points. the evolution of the whole game has led to less diversity among players. i miss different playing styles. and i even agree that the average tennis player of today has a worse technique than in the 90's, because he doesn't require it.

;)

Exactly.

On another point, how can someone be both Nadull and Frauderer's fan? Definitely not because of their games.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 05:21 PM
The Nadal & Federer rivalry is way too good for me to miss the old days where mediocre players, dominated the sport.

Nadull was the #1 just a while ago. There's no player as mediocre as him.

I was here.. then again I'm no Fraudtard...

Yeah you are. And a gloryhunter too.

Commander Data
08-26-2009, 05:29 PM
Yeah you are. And a gloryhunter too.

I rather be a Federer Fan then a bitter Nostalgiatard :wavey:

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 05:29 PM
Nadull was the #1 just a while ago. There's no player as mediocre as him.


Lol. Nadal is one of the best players of all time. Just because you hate him, doesn't mean he's mediocre.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 05:34 PM
I rather be a Federer Fan then a bitter Nostalgiatard :wavey:

So you admit to be a gloryhunter.

I pity people like you.

Nostalgiatard = people who watched tennis before 2006, unlike you.

Lol. Nadal is one of the best players of all time. Just because you hate him, doesn't mean he's mediocre.

No he's not.

He is mediocre. At best.

Harmless
08-26-2009, 05:38 PM
Didn't the creator of this thread agree with me?

I am responding why I miss different eras-- the last era,in particular. I already said early-on it wasn't necessarily about the lack of personalities or the lack of talent in this era. I don't think it's a "mug" era in the sense this current crop doesn't have talent.

But I reiterate, I don't recall players from past eras saying they were born in the wrong era when one player becomes dominant. I don't even recall it on the women's side. :lol:

So I think this particular era is strange and a little disappointing for that reason. Certain players--not all of them but just a few including but not limited to Andy Roddick seem to believe beating Roger is beyond their control because they were just unlucky or something? It's a little disappointing to hear him talk like that. And now Novak is saying it! That just shouldn't be happening.

Now, if a person is ONLY a fan of Roger's, I guess this sort of attitude isn't a problem. I would imagine a lot of Roger's fans agree with this deference. But not everyone is a fan of Roger's even though we might respect he's the GOAT. He's a great tennis player, probably the greatest. That doesn't mean some of these players should have the attitude they just aren't good enough to compete. And it's a bummer for their fans to hear them just give up essentially--at least mentally.

Well if you want to talk about the evolution of tennis, then you should only compare it to the evolution of sports in general. :shrug:
It's grown from the (well, relative) fun of the mid-century leagues(in all sports) to a huge business that individuals devote their entire lives to. The perceived isolation of the top players in quality when compared with lower ranked ones is the direct effect of the business/sponsorship side of the sport.
Of course, many aspects come along with that, both physical and mental, but the business machine side of the sport is what drives this difference.

Of course the homogenization of surfaces(and players) is a negative thing, but, until promoters figure out that diversity is marketable(and how), it's not going to change. :shrug:



On another point, how can someone be both Nadull and Frauderer's fan? Definitely not because of their games.

Had your perception been sharper you would have noticed by now that most "Fedal" fans are female. That's a clue for you right there. ;)


So you admit to be a gloryhunter.

I pity people like you.


*being
:hug:

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:39 PM
Lol. Nadal is one of the best players of all time. Just because you hate him, doesn't mean he's mediocre.

Aye, he's definitely among this list: Sampras, Federer, Laver, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg and Becker. :haha:

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 05:40 PM
No he's not.

He is mediocre. At best.

How can you be a mediocre player if you own six majors. Have been ranked number 1 in the world for a year and have the longest consecutive clay court winning streak of all time? Not to mention owning the GOAT.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:41 PM
How can you be a mediocre player if you own six majors. Have been ranked number 1 in the world for a year and have the longest consecutive clay court winning streak of all time? Not to mention owning the GOAT.

Sergi Bruguera would probably be achieving similar results with a similar game if he played right now in this useless era.

duong
08-26-2009, 05:42 PM
and i even agree that the average tennis player of today has a worse technique than in the 90's, because he doesn't require it.

for that I disagree.

In the 90s, considering the quickness of the surfaces and balls, Karlovic would have been regular top-20 and sometimes top-10.

And Del Potro has a better volley than Agassi.

Today most of the players know how to make a volley and generally speaking they have a good technique.

In the past, I remember several players who were unable of making a volley.

I agree with the fact there's less diversity among players today than in the 90s.

But not about technique.

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 05:42 PM
How can you be a mediocre player if you own six majors. Have been ranked number 1 in the world for a year and have the longest consecutive clay court winning streak of all time? Not to mention owning the GOAT.

Mug era.

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
Aye, he's definitely among this list: Sampras, Federer, Laver, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg and Becker. :haha:

Why shouldn't he be up there with Edberg and Becker? Both guys had 6 majors and it took them their entire careers to get them. Nadal probably still has half of his career left to win some more.

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
Mug era.

Compared to which era?:confused:

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Why shouldn't he be up there with Edberg and Becker? Both guys had 6 majors and it took them their entire careers to get them. Nadal probably still has half of his career left to win some more.

Because they played FAR, FAR better players to win their majors. Nadal has beaten Federer and only Federer when we're talking about world class players.

Nadal should be kissing Edberg's feet, he's not anywhere near his league.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:45 PM
Mug era.

As I said, the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Berasategui etc would all be competing for hard and grass slams if they played right now due to the mug competition. They had similar games to Nadal and were rock solid from the back with defence, topspin and passing shots, so why not?

fabolous
08-26-2009, 05:51 PM
for that I disagree.

In the 90s, considering the quickness of the surfaces and balls, Karlovic would have been regular top-20 and sometimes top-10.

And Del Potro has a better volley than Agassi.

Today most of the players know how to make a volley and generally speaking they have a good technique.

In the past, I remember several players who were unable of making a volley.

I agree with the fact there's less diversity among players today than in the 90s.

But not about technique.
so we disagree on that point. i say, players of today play mostly off the baseline and don't come much to the net (on average of course). therefore they don't need very elaborated volley skills, because they use it about 5 times a match.

it makes no sense to name certain players, you have to see the whole. of course there were players in the 90s who couldn't play a volley to save their live. but they were baseline specialists, often clay courters. today everyone is a baseline specialist.

and people often forget the racket aspect. i'll give you a very easy example: today every average player is able to hit serves over 200 km/h on a constant basis. in the early 90's, this was an absolute exception and only the best servers were able to do so. why is this? because players of today have a better serving technique? surely not.

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 05:51 PM
Because they played FAR, FAR better players to win their majors. Nadal has beaten Federer and only Federer when we're talking about world class players.

Nadal should be kissing Edberg's feet, he's not anywhere near his league.

Lol, Edberg should be thankful that Nadal was 3 years old when he made the finals at Roland Garros. Otherwise he would have had the most humiliating beat down of his life.

Commander Data
08-26-2009, 05:52 PM
So you admit to be a gloryhunter.

I pity people like you.

Nostalgiatard = people who watched tennis before 2006, unlike you.




Your simple-mindness is obvious yet again. I admitted being a Fed Fan, why would that imply being a gloryhunter? Is it a crime to like the best of all time? Maybe for Samprasstards and Nostalgiatards like you.. BTW: I don't need your pity, I'm doing extremly well as of late ;)

How old are you? 23 :lol: I watched tennis already in 1986 you clown..

duong
08-26-2009, 05:53 PM
That is pathetic and you know it. Ok, the late 90s were biased towards big servers, ok. That's not something debatable. Now to say that Murray has more finesse than even the worst S&Vers? That's a huge stretch, and you know it. Even if he were more adroit than those other guys, he doesn't use it. You can't judge on something a player doesn't do. By the way, if he doesn't do it so often, chances are he isn't exactly good at it.

To finish, moonballing and grinding isn't building points. Don't tell me Nadull, Faker, Pony and Simon-like players know how to build points.

What's building points in your opinion ?

A big serve and then I finish with a volley is building points ?

It may be finesse for some players, but it's not what I call building points, it's not the pleasure of a built point imo.

Nadal and Djokovic (is he Faker ?) know how to build a point, yes. And Simon has a great tactical sense even if he's usually passive.

As for Murray, how can you say that he doesn't use his finesse ?

Because he volleys very seldom ?

Volley would be the onlmy epitome of finesse ?

Murray has a lot of finesse and tactical sense, even if once again like Simon, he's too often passive.

As for big servers, there were already too many in my opinion in the beginning of the 90s.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:56 PM
Lol, Edberg should be thankful that Nadal was 3 years old when he made the finals at Roland Garros. Otherwise he would have had the most humiliating beat down of his life.

Well DOH, Nadal is better than Edberg on clay, but he will never be a greater player when he's beating mugs galore whereas Edberg beat champions and legends.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:57 PM
And Del Potro has a better volley than Agassi.


Seen some hilarious shit but that takes the biscuit. :haha:

andylovesaustin
08-26-2009, 05:58 PM
Well if you want to talk about the evolution of tennis, then you should only compare it to the evolution of sports in general. :shrug:
It's grown from the (well, relative) fun of the mid-century leagues(in all sports) to a huge business that individuals devote their entire lives to. The perceived isolation of the top players in quality when compared with lower ranked ones is the direct effect of the business/sponsorship side of the sport.
Of course, many aspects come along with that, both physical and mental, but the business machine side of the sport is what drives this difference.

Of course the homogenization of surfaces(and players) is a negative thing, but, until promoters figure out that diversity is marketable(and how), it's not going to change. :shrug:




Had your perception been sharper you would have noticed by now that most "Fedal" fans are female. That's a clue for you right there. ;)




*being
:hug:

Uh.. Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm not so sure I follow you.

From my observation, the top player in tennis is not necessarily the most marketable. Pete Sampras wasn't as marketable as Andre, for example. But their rivalry was very marketable. Even the Williams' sisters are more marketable when playing against each other than when playing individually against another opponent. Now, it's funny you "fedal" fans because that rivalry brought more fans to the sport--both male and female. Even Sampras' domination got a bit old. Even HE said playing Andre challenged him. At least, Sampras always struggled on clay, so other players stepped-up.

So whether Roger's fans want to admit it or not, the GOAT needs a rival because people just take for granted he's going to win now... again. :lol: People just take it for granted, and don't watch--even some fans of the sport itself. It gets old to see other top players lose all the time in a final or on their way to the finals, particularly when they believe they are playing in the wrong era! What era would they have been more successful in, then? What era would Andy Roddick have dominated, for example? What era would Novak dominate?

duong
08-26-2009, 06:01 PM
so we disagree on that point. i say, players of today play mostly off the baseline and don't come much to the net (on average of course). therefore they don't need very elaborated volley skills, because they use it about 5 times a match.

it makes no sense to name certain players, you have to see the whole. of course there were players in the 90s who couldn't play a volley to save their live. but they were baseline specialists, often clay courters. today everyone is a baseline specialist.

Today, everyone is a baseline specialist : for that I agree.

But as you said, in the old time, some claycourt players didn't know how to make a volley.

Now it's very seldom : they don't use volley often but usually, they know how to do it.

Even Agassi was such a poor volley player ...

and people often forget the racket aspect. i'll give you a very easy example: today every average player is able to hit serves over 200 km/h on a constant basis. in the early 90's, this was an absolute exception and only the best servers were able to do so. why is this? because players of today have a better serving technique? surely not.

I agree that the raquette factor is extremely important, and that thanks to that, you can succeed some shots with poor technique.

Even if I don't like your example : serve speed has very little relationship about technique :shrug:

swann
08-26-2009, 06:06 PM
I think the "racquet factor" is more important in terms of return improvement. It doesn't matter that many players are able to hit serves above 200km/h, it matters that these big serves are regularly returned. As Andy Roddick said:"nowadays, given the strings improvement, it's pretty easy for a guy like Davidenko to return a +200km/h serve".

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 06:07 PM
Well if you want to talk about the evolution of tennis, then you should only compare it to the evolution of sports in general. :shrug:
It's grown from the (well, relative) fun of the mid-century leagues(in all sports) to a huge business that individuals devote their entire lives to. The perceived isolation of the top players in quality when compared with lower ranked ones is the direct effect of the business/sponsorship side of the sport.
Of course, many aspects come along with that, both physical and mental, but the business machine side of the sport is what drives this difference.

Of course the homogenization of surfaces(and players) is a negative thing, but, until promoters figure out that diversity is marketable(and how), it's not going to change. :shrug:




Had your perception been sharper you would have noticed by now that most "Fedal" fans are female. That's a clue for you right there. ;)




*being
:hug:

Of course, fangirls, what's your point? :rolleyes:

Lest you want to be corrected too (and presently), drop it.

How can you be a mediocre player if you own six majors. Have been ranked number 1 in the world for a year and have the longest consecutive clay court winning streak of all time? Not to mention owning the GOAT.

I cannot say this, but let's say Gasquet might be able to answer that to you.

Mediocre. A pro who uses a junior's racket... :lol:

for that I disagree.

In the 90s, considering the quickness of the surfaces and balls, Karlovic would have been regular top-20 and sometimes top-10.

And Del Potro has a better volley than Agassi.

Today most of the players know how to make a volley and generally speaking they have a good technique.

In the past, I remember several players who were unable of making a volley.

I agree with the fact there's less diversity among players today than in the 90s.

But not about technique.

How come not about technique? You're taking a couple of players and making a huge generalization. Karlovic's only technical fault is his topspin backhand? How is he an example that the 90s displayed a worst technical level or rewarded worst technique?

Players today know how to make a volley? :haha: :haha: :haha: C'mon, you could make many points about the players of this era, but not that they can volley. They're all unable to volley. There's something that many people here can't understand - players today only venture to the net if they're obliged to, if they must go. It's easy too look like an ok volleyer if you only go for them a couple times per match in very very easy conditions. In the 90s, you were obliged to go to the net much more, mainly because the surfaces didn't allow the same gamestyle to be played all the time. Bad volleyers are easily exposed if they're at the net every other point.

fabolous
08-26-2009, 06:09 PM
Today, everyone is a baseline specialist : for that I agree.

But as you said, in the old time, some claycourt players didn't know how to make a volley.

Now it's very seldom : they don't use volley often but usually, they know how to do it.

Even Agassi was such a poor volley player ...
different views here. i can't see players of today having better average volley skills than players from the 90s. we won't agree here ;)

stop picking agassi. no need to name single players. agassi probably came to your mind because he was the only one back then with a poor volley.

I agree that the raquette factor is extremely important, and that thanks to that, you can succeed some shots with poor technique.

Even if I don't like your example : serve speed has very little relationship about technique :shrug:
serve speed has to do with what then?

I think the "racquet factor" is more important in terms of return improvement. It doesn't matter that many players are able to hit serves above 200km/h, it matters that these big serves are regularly returned. As Andy Roddick said:"nowadays, given the strings improvement, it's pretty easy for a guy like Davidenko to return a +200km/h serve".
you are absolutely right, it facilitates both serve and even more return. i just used this as an example of racket evolution.

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 06:11 PM
Well DOH, Nadal is better than Edberg on clay, but he will never be a greater player when he's beating mugs galore whereas Edberg beat champions and legends.

And he was dominated by them. Becker, completely owned him 25-10. Andre owned him 6-3, Pete had him 8-6. McEnroe, was able to beat Edberg into the late 80s. Courier beat him most of the time. Even one slam wonders like Chang and Ivanisevic were able to play well against him.

If Edberg was so great, then why was he dominated by Becker? And why were so many other players better than him?

No, player truly owns Nadal.

denisgiann
08-26-2009, 06:11 PM
There are no mug eras.....only mug fanboys....usually people with no knowledge regarding sports whatsoever who act like they are holding the secrets of the universe in the palm of their hands.And yes....they are many....this forum for example is packed with people like them.
But anyway..whatever the scenario the fanboys will never be satisfied........If nadal and fed werent playing and various players would racking up the slams the fanboys would say that its a mug era cause there isnt a dominant player present so the slams they are winning arent that hard.When players like nadal and fed are around its still a mug era cause all the others are pussies and afraid to win or they have the tennis talent of an mtf poster:rolleyes:.
Regardless of all that everyone is nostalgic of the era that he grew up with.For some reason that time is always the best.Best players..best songs....best movies...etc etc...thats understandable...but very subjective at the same time.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 06:19 PM
And he was dominated by them. Becker, completely owned him 25-10. Andre owned him 6-3, Pete had him 8-6. McEnroe, was able to beat Edberg into the late 80s. Courier beat him most of the time. Even one slam wonders like Chang and Ivanisevic were able to play well against him.

If Edberg was so great, then why was he dominated by Becker? And why were so many other players better than him?

No, player truly owns Nadal.

All those players except Chang and maybe Ivanisevic would dominate Nadal h2h. You seriously think the current bunch of mugs can be compared to those greats you have mentioned? Stop being an overrating fanboy.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 06:20 PM
so we disagree on that point. i say, players of today play mostly off the baseline and don't come much to the net (on average of course). therefore they don't need very elaborated volley skills, because they use it about 5 times a match.

it makes no sense to name certain players, you have to see the whole. of course there were players in the 90s who couldn't play a volley to save their live. but they were baseline specialists, often clay courters. today everyone is a baseline specialist.

and people often forget the racket aspect. i'll give you a very easy example: today every average player is able to hit serves over 200 km/h on a constant basis. in the early 90's, this was an absolute exception and only the best servers were able to do so. why is this? because players of today have a better serving technique? surely not.

Exactly. Great post.

Your simple-mindness is obvious yet again. I admitted being a Fed Fan, why would that imply being a gloryhunter? Is it a crime to like the best of all time? Maybe for Samprasstards and Nostalgiatards like you.. BTW: I don't need your pity, I'm doing extremly well as of late ;)

How old are you? 23 :lol: I watched tennis already in 1986 you clown..

I'm the one implying that you're a gloryhunter. Not implying, actually. Stating.

What's building points in your opinion ?

A big serve and then I finish with a volley is building points ?

It may be finesse for some players, but it's not what I call building points, it's not the pleasure of a built point imo.

Nadal and Djokovic (is he Faker ?) know how to build a point, yes. And Simon has a great tactical sense even if he's usually passive.

As for Murray, how can you say that he doesn't use his finesse ?

Because he volleys very seldom ?

Volley would be the onlmy epitome of finesse ?

Murray has a lot of finesse and tactical sense, even if once again like Simon, he's too often passive.

As for big servers, there were already too many in my opinion in the beginning of the 90s.

Building points means taking an active stance in them. If you're just there waiting for your opponent to make a mistake, you're not building points. You're just relying on errors. There's not a single way to build a point. You can do it opening angles and rushing the net, you can do it with a big forehand or backhand. It's not the point. Nadull and Faker can't construct points, je suis désolé - je ne suis pas d'accord. They're reactive, not active players. They just wait for a chance to counter-attack or a mistake.

Murray spends 90% of his matches 2-3 meters behind the baseline retrieving. Even if he were such an adroit player, he doesn't use it.

duong
08-26-2009, 06:23 PM
i can't see players of today having better average volley skills than players from the 90s. we won't agree here ;)

I never said that : I said that in the past, there were more players who didn't even do how to make a volley (including in the 90s of course)

Eden
08-26-2009, 06:28 PM
I'd be curious to see if anyone's with me on this.. but I really do miss the old times when Guga Safin, Ferrero (not to mention Sampras, Agassi.. were on top). I feel like it was a whole lot more exciting back then.. and the players used to be so charismatic with unique personalities. Now it feels like there's just a whole bunch of players. Everyone shines once and then disappears.. Pretty disturbing.. As much as I like Nadal, as I enjoy Federer's game, I'm just feeling a bit (lot) nostalgic
I know Ferrero's still out there doing his very best but I guess it won't be long before he retires too.. So it's really much the end of an era and it saddens me

It's the natural development in any sports that you only have a certain time with your favourite team or athlete. It's also natural that you will always have players you will cheer for or others who you won't support and don't find charismatic at all.

I'm following tennis for over 25 years now and of course I like to look back at the past and the achievements of my favourite players. I enjoy it to watch the matches from that time and remember the good and bad times they had on the court.

I never ask myself how players like Becker, Edberg, Stich or Rafter would perform in todays generation, whilst I also don't feel the need to think about how Federer or Nadal would have performed in the 80ies or 90ies.

duong
08-26-2009, 06:35 PM
Building points means taking an active stance in them. If you're just there waiting for your opponent to make a mistake, you're not building points. You're just relying on errors.

yes "take an active stance" I totally agree.

But building points is not only about preparing winners (even if it's by far the way I prefer). It's also about putting your opponent in a difficult situation so that he can make an error.

Making a big serve and then bashing a big high volley is the opposite of building a point imo.

There's not a single way to build a point. You can do it opening angles and rushing the net, you can do it with a big forehand or backhand.

Actually I can see more angles in today's tennis than in the past ... thanks to the raquettes actually.

I like players who generate angles, and I can see many of them now ... including Nadal, Djokovic, even Davydenko.

They just wait for a chance to counter-attack or a mistake.

I agree that there are too many counter-attacks in modern tennis ... too many circumstances in which an attack which is quite good, even if it's not perfect, can be counter-attacked.

I don't like it because it discourages attacks.

But I can see that a typical counter-attacker like Simon or Murray also has a great eye.

That's not something I like, but it's something whch can be admired : that's also what tennis has always been made of, having to make a GOOD attack and using a good eye (for instance I think of Wilander who had such qualities).
Even if Nadal is quite like that in big matches.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 06:45 PM
I agree that there are too many counter-attacks in modern tennis ... too many circumstances in which an attack which is quite good, even if it's not perfect, can be counter-attacked.

So true.

The question is: is that going to change? Will players be able to hit better attacking shots, or volley better, so that this trend reverts itself? Is there another way to make this happen, or have we been witnesses of the death of attacking tennis?

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 07:08 PM
yes "take an active stance" I totally agree.

But building points is not only about preparing winners (even if it's by far the way I prefer). It's also about putting your opponent in a difficult situation so that he can make an error.

Making a big serve and then bashing a big high volley is the opposite of building a point imo.



Actually I can see more angles in today's tennis than in the past ... thanks to the raquettes actually.

I like players who generate angles, and I can see many of them now ... including Nadal, Djokovic, even Davydenko.



I agree that there are too many counter-attacks in modern tennis ... too many circumstances in which an attack which is quite good, even if it's not perfect, can be counter-attacked.

I don't like it because it discourages attacks.

But I can see that a typical counter-attacker like Simon or Murray also has a great eye.

That's not something I like, but it's something whch can be admired : that's also what tennis has always been made of, having to make a GOOD attack and using a good eye (for instance I think of Wilander who had such qualities).
Even if Nadal is quite like that in big matches.

About your first point, if your strengths are a big serve and a good volley, you're building a point with them, doesn't matter what. I quite dislike this perception that only baseline exchanges are worthy of being deemed as "pointbuilding'.

Enfin, I'm not defending a termination of counter-attackers. I just want the attackers to have a chance too, not only the counter-attackers. In tennis today, attackers have a slim chance of beating counters.

Commander Data
08-26-2009, 07:53 PM
In tennis today, attackers have a slim chance of beating counters.

Why is that?

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 07:54 PM
All those players except Chang and maybe Ivanisevic would dominate Nadal h2h. You seriously think the current bunch of mugs can be compared to those greats you have mentioned? Stop being an overrating fanboy.

Yes, I do. I've seen tremendous athleticism and performances from all of the top five players today. And it wouldn't matter if they weren't. Nadal is good enough to beat Pete, Andre, Chang, Lendl, and others on anything but the fastest surfaces.

None of those guys would be able to dominate Nadal because the conditions of today's game aren't as favorable for S&V. The average speed of the courts are continuing to slow down especially at Wimbledon. If they were playing on a slow to medium speed court I would favor Nadal against any of those players.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 07:54 PM
Why is that?

Slow courts, huge rackets, d***?

Harmless
08-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Uh.. Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm not so sure I follow you.

From my observation, the top player in tennis is not necessarily the most marketable. Pete Sampras wasn't as marketable as Andre, for example. But their rivalry was very marketable. Even the Williams' sisters are more marketable when playing against each other than when playing individually against another opponent. Now, it's funny you "fedal" fans because that rivalry brought more fans to the sport--both male and female. Even Sampras' domination got a bit old. Even HE said playing Andre challenged him. At least, Sampras always struggled on clay, so other players stepped-up.

So whether Roger's fans want to admit it or not, the GOAT needs a rival because people just take for granted he's going to win now... again. :lol: People just take it for granted, and don't watch--even some fans of the sport itself. It gets old to see other top players lose all the time in a final or on their way to the finals, particularly when they believe they are playing in the wrong era! What era would they have been more successful in, then? What era would Andy Roddick have dominated, for example? What era would Novak dominate?

Of course the top players are the most marketable. Sports promoters don't market personality, they market success.
Whatever comes along with that, personality and history included, is just the backdrop.
I mean, if Murray can be voted a gay icon... Sky's the limit really. :p

I agree about any "GOAT" contender needing a worthy rival to boost the drama, but I don't know how to answer the questions about Roddick and Djokovic because I don't think in those terms so much. This whole "domination" debate and question is something imposed by advertising, to my mind, at least, to make the sport more exciting to the casual viewer. People with their hands on the remote and whose interest could go either way are gripped by the drama of historic implications.
I find tennis to be very exciting even without that.


Of course, fangirls, what's your point? :rolleyes:

My point is that tennis fandom, and consequently, this forum, also contain a female and a gay audience(the horror!), who employ a different view of the sport and enjoy it's aesthetic side in a way quite disparate to that of the average heterosexual male. Hence, not everyone follows your group's logic and approach.


Lest you want to be corrected too (and presently), drop it.
Okey dokey then. I'll just go back to the kitchen and make you a sammich, shall I? :dance:

I enjoy being corrected when I'm wrong. It's so exotic.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 08:15 PM
I'm not supposed to judge people by any other standards than my own.

HKz
08-26-2009, 08:18 PM
What era was Safin/Ferrero/Guga? Wasn't that "era" of like 3-4 years virtually dominated by Hewitt?

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 08:19 PM
Yes, I do. I've seen tremendous athleticism and performances from all of the top five players today. And it wouldn't matter if they weren't. Nadal is good enough to beat Pete, Andre, Chang, Lendl, and others on anything but the fastest surfaces.

None of those guys would be able to dominate Nadal because the conditions of today's game aren't as favorable for S&V. The average speed of the courts are continuing to slow down especially at Wimbledon. If they were playing on a slow to medium speed court I would favor Nadal against any of those players.

Bruguera and Muster have everything Nadal has except passing shots not as good.

Agassi would hit Nadal off the court, while his return isn't good enough to dominate players like Pete and Edberg.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 08:21 PM
What era was Safin/Ferrero/Guga? Wasn't that "era" of like 3-4 years virtually dominated by Hewitt?

2000-04. A stronger era than this. Hewitt didn't virtually dominate, he only got 2 slams because the competition was tough. Safin played great tennis while there were quality clay courters unique to that surface such as Costa, Corretja, whilst Agassi was brilliant on slow hardcourts.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 08:30 PM
With regards to the era definitions, in the open era it's

The Laver and early Open era
The Borg/McEnroe/Connors era
The Lendl backed up by Becker/Edberg era
The Sampras era
The variation era of Hewitt/Guga/Safin/Agassi/Federer
The Federer era (2004-07)
This mug era

It's hard to rank them in terms of greatness, but the current one is definitely the worst by a mile. Federer to be fair, his domination era featured a good Safin, a good Hewitt and a forehand-armed Roddick, that was a decent era. After 07 though, it's been absolute steaming crap.

Commander Data
08-26-2009, 08:37 PM
Slow courts, huge rackets, d***?

So why are you bashing the players and call them talentless mugs, when you yourself say, that the reason are slower courts and bigger rackets? (if you would be objective you would also admit that a big reason is because todays players are better defenders)

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 08:45 PM
So why are you bashing the players and call them talentless mugs, when you yourself say, that the reason are slower courts and bigger rackets? (if you would be objective you would also admit that a big reason is because todays players are better defenders)

No they're not better defenders. They're helped by external factors.

JoshDragon
08-26-2009, 09:00 PM
Bruguera and Muster have everything Nadal has except passing shots not as good.

Agassi would hit Nadal off the court, while his return isn't good enough to dominate players like Pete and Edberg.

Nadal was 2-0 against Andre when he played on the tour. Ok Andre was 35 but still, their first match was before his final run to the US Open finals. Even in his prime Andre wouldn't able to beat Nadal on any surface except for indoor or fast hard courts. Andre wasn't good enough to beat Rafa on grass and certainly not clay.

As for Pete and Edberg, Nadal would be able to stay with them on the medium courts. He'd dominate them on the slower courts and they'd dominate him on the faster ones.

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-26-2009, 09:05 PM
These days, when Soderlings are making RG finals, Sampras would win at least 2.

True

Samprass was a clay clown but if pansies like Federer can win a RG and a mental idiot like Soderclown can make a final, Samprass can easily win one. Especially if Nadal is injured.

Agassi the last healthy real mens tennis player.

This era is full of pansies who let a creature like Fed get 15 GS. What a joke.

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-26-2009, 09:07 PM
STFU, man this f***** is annoying. Give it a rest. If all you can do is take cheap shots at Fed just for that one loss of control, then that just proves you don't have much material to work with.

Have you ever met Fed personally, like face-to-face? No? Then SHUT UP about "oh, he's crying like a baby" since you don't play pro tennis at an inhuman level for 6 years on now and wouldn't know what Fed felt like. If the guy has been voted by players for the Edberg Sportsmanship award for 5 years straight, I'm sure that these guys who play against him and hang out with him personally know a lot more about Fed than YOU will ever hope to know, since all you do in MTF is judge ONE moment at the AO this year AGAIN AND AGAIN.

You are a whining POS if I ever saw one. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Fedtard alert.

Do you need a diaper change. Pretty sure papa Fed can change yours as well.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 09:08 PM
Nadal was 2-0 against Andre when he played on the tour. Ok Andre was 35 but still, their first match was before his final run to the US Open finals. Even in his prime Andre wouldn't able to beat Nadal on any surface except for indoor or fast hard courts. Andre wasn't good enough to beat Rafa on grass and certainly not clay.

As for Pete and Edberg, Nadal would be able to stay with them on the medium courts. He'd dominate them on the slower courts and they'd dominate him on the faster ones.

Agassi >> Nadal on grass.

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 09:09 PM
True

This era is full of pansies who let a creature like Fed get 15 GS. What a joke.

You forgot to mention the 6GS won by Nadull. Truly a mug era.

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-26-2009, 09:12 PM
So anyone who thinks Federer and/or Nadal - AND their contemporaries - are pretty good players, are fascists??? :eek:
Boy, you're losing it. Really. :o

Come on StupidDream.

After Fed and Rafa the rest of the clowns can barely play tennis.

It is a weak era because 99.9% of players are mentally/physically too weak to get a GS.

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-26-2009, 09:15 PM
DOn't worry boys and girls. The voice of reason has arrived.

True, the light is here.

Ask and I shall teach.

Sunset of Age
08-26-2009, 09:19 PM
Come on StupidDream.

After Fed and Rafa the rest of the clowns can barely play tennis.

It is a weak era because 99.9% of players are mentally/physically too weak to get a GS.

Okay then. :p
I'd rather believe they are just that much better than the rest of the field, without those necessarily being 'mugs'. Or at least, they were for some five years now.

Can't go on forever. Those who don't like their duopoly should just hang on in there for a little longer and await the greatness of Muzza, Djoko & DelPot. ;)
And plenty of players thereafter to follow.

PS I am joking.

Sapeod
08-26-2009, 09:19 PM
True, the light is here.

Ask and I shall teach.
Okay. Teach me how to get you to leave MTF.

scarecrows
08-26-2009, 09:25 PM
Okay. Teach me how to get you to leave MTF.

you just need to make Federer keep winning

have you noticed how little have we seen RFK around this summer. It's been a bliss

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-26-2009, 09:27 PM
Okay. Teach me how to get you to leave MTF.

Simple get Federer to retire so I can watch real MENS tennis in peace.

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-26-2009, 09:28 PM
You forgot to mention the 6GS won by Nadull. Truly a mug era.

Nadal beat Fed in most of his GS wins.

Fed beat mugs in the finals of his GS wins.

Nadal is the best of this weak and joke era.

Prime Agassi would probably beat both Federer and Nadal at the same time. That era was superior by quite a bit.

Sapeod
08-26-2009, 09:29 PM
you just need to make Federer keep winning

have you noticed how little have we seen RFK around this summer. It's been a bliss
Gotcha. Keep winning Federer. Keep losing Nadal :yeah: