Mcenroe vs Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Mcenroe vs Federer

green25814
02-14-2012, 03:48 AM
Who was the more naturally gifted tennis player? I think its close, but Mac edges it. I don't think anyone else has been quite at their level.

Action Jackson
02-14-2012, 03:49 AM
Mecir.

green25814
02-14-2012, 03:50 AM
Mecir.

The Cat was an alien so doesn't count. We can only compare humans, otherwise it gets complicated :p

Action Jackson
02-14-2012, 03:52 AM
The Cat was an alien so doesn't count. We can only compare humans, otherwise it gets complicated :p

You didn't make this poll public. You know Fed said was Rios was the most talented guy he seen.

green25814
02-14-2012, 04:03 AM
You didn't make this poll public. You know Fed said was Rios was the most talented guy he seen.

Gotta admit I don't remember Rios all that well. I saw him play when I was much younger but things are foggy. Should probably youtube him.

Gabe32
02-14-2012, 04:35 AM
Federer far and away.

Asadinator
02-14-2012, 04:42 AM
Of course Fed.

BroTree123
02-14-2012, 04:53 AM
Everyone is better than Federer.

Roddickominator
02-14-2012, 04:57 AM
It comes down to another boring "What is talent?" conversation.

McEnroe did things on the court that you would never train someone to do....just look at his forehand and backhand technique, and obviously the serve. The fact that he was able to become one of the all-time greats of the sport with technically awkward shots like that makes him supremely talented in my opinion. If nothing else he definitely was unique and had among the best hands of any player ever.

Federer does a bunch of things that McEnroe never could have done, partially aided by string technology. That forehand is really something special. His ability to take the ball so early so often is also very impressive. In peak form, his footwork was perhaps the best i've ever seen. The rest of his game isn't very unique really, but he still executes at an extremely high level. He's definitely supremely talented, and his results show that.

I would choose McEnroe simply because I like him more. His uniqueness is something that won't be duplicated.

finishingmove
02-14-2012, 05:04 AM
Gasquet.

Pirata.
02-14-2012, 05:13 AM
Tomic.

leng jai
02-14-2012, 05:15 AM
Hass

jcempire
02-14-2012, 05:27 AM
Does it mean a lot ????

BigJohn
02-14-2012, 05:39 AM
Nole.

tripwires
02-14-2012, 05:47 AM
Gasquet.

Tomic.

Hass

Nole.

:bowdown:

Federer. :inlove:

Deathless Mortal
02-14-2012, 06:51 AM
Donald Young

Nole Rules
02-14-2012, 07:20 AM
The Fog. Can J-Mac or Federer win matches on one leg making 23343 foot faults? No of course so the answer is the Fog.

Hewitt =Legend
02-14-2012, 07:22 AM
Tomic.

Obviously the answer is Nole but this response also deserves a capslock double ajde.

AJDE AJDE.

paseo
02-14-2012, 10:07 AM
You know Fed said was Rios was the most talented guy he seen.

Until he watched himself on tv, that is.

Sophocles
02-14-2012, 11:10 AM
I voted Mac to even things up and it is very close, but in fact Mac's inability to adapt to the power game should decide things in Federer's favour. Roger would have done better with wooden racquets in the 1970s than Mac did with graphite in the late '80s.

ossie
02-14-2012, 11:10 AM
troll thread?

ssin
02-14-2012, 11:12 AM
Both incredibly talented, but Federer is probably the most talented player in history of tennis.

Orka_n
02-14-2012, 11:40 AM
Gotta be Ajde.

reery
02-14-2012, 11:58 AM
Federer is the most naturally gifted player ever.

Sophocles
02-14-2012, 12:07 PM
If you break it down & consider both at their peaks:

1st Serve - Edge to McEnroe;
2nd Serve - Edge to Federer;
Return of Serve - Edge to Federer;
Forehand - Federer by far;
Backhand - Even;
Volleys - McEnroe by far;
Defence - Federer by far;
Mental - Hard to say, I think edge to Federer because although Mac was more of a warrior, he had an extraordinary ability to self-destruct.

ssin
02-14-2012, 12:14 PM
If he played tennis in the 80s-90's Federer would have been a monster S&V player, even better than McEnroe I am sure about that.

Shinoj
02-14-2012, 12:19 PM
Patrick

Nole Rules
02-14-2012, 12:21 PM
If you break it down & consider both at their peaks:

1st Serve - Edge to McEnroe;
2nd Serve - Edge to Federer;
Return of Serve - Edge to Federer;
Forehand - Federer by far;
Backhand - Even;
Volleys - McEnroe by far;
Defence - Federer by far;
Mental - Hard to say, I think edge to Federer because although Mac was more of a warrior, he had an extraordinary ability to self-destruct.

Well let me just do what you did but for a Nole/McEnrone comparetion.:p

1st Serve - McEnroe By far
2nd Serve - McEnroe By far
Return of Serve - Nole by far
Forehand - Nole by far
Backhand - Nole by far
Volleys - McEnroe by far
Defence - Nole by far
Mental - Nole by far.

Does that mean that Nole is the more talented player, no?
What's the definition of talent anyway? It seems that every poster on this board has his own definition of talent!

Sophocles
02-14-2012, 12:42 PM
Well let me just do what you did but for a Nole/McEnrone comparetion.:p

1st Serve - McEnroe By far
2nd Serve - McEnroe By far
Return of Serve - Nole by far
Forehand - Nole by far
Backhand - Nole by far
Volleys - McEnroe by far
Defence - Nole by far
Mental - Nole by far.

Does that mean that Nole is the more talented player, no?
What's the definition of talent anyway? It seems that every poster on this board has his own definition of talent!

Well it's a tough one this: McEnroe was the most gifted serve-&-volley player at the close of the wooden-racquet era while Nole is the ultimate generic baseliner of the current era, so you would expect Mac's serve & volleys to be far better than Nole's & Nole's groundstrokes to be far better than Mac's. Nonetheless a big reason for the superiority of Djoker's groundstrokes is the current string technology. Mac had brilliant placement on his groundstrokes, excellent passing shots, wondrously subtle variations of length, pace, spin, & trajectory, & as you would expect, extraordinary touch. He just wasn't able to generate Djokovic's kind of power.

samanosuke
02-14-2012, 12:45 PM
where is nadal ?

Nole Rules
02-14-2012, 01:07 PM
Well it's a tough one this: McEnroe was the most gifted serve-&-volley player at the close of the wooden-racquet era while Nole is the ultimate generic baseliner of the current era, so you would expect Mac's serve & volleys to be far better than Nole's & Nole's groundstrokes to be far better than Mac's. Nonetheless a big reason for the superiority of Djoker's groundstrokes is the current string technology. Mac had brilliant placement on his groundstrokes, excellent passing shots, wondrously subtle variations of length, pace, spin, & trajectory, & as you would expect, extraordinary touch. He just wasn't able to generate Djokovic's kind of power.

I agree with you. I think that the natural talent of players was a big factor in previous Eras. In the modren Era, natural talent isn't really a big factor like before as many believe. That's why you would say McEnroe is more naturaly talented than Nole/Nalbandian/Safin for example. My point is that we shouldn't/can't compare players from totally different Eras in terms of talent. All these guys are very talented but the natural talent of players was showing more in the previous Eras. That's it.

Gagsquet
02-14-2012, 01:09 PM
Julien Jeanpierre. :sad:

abraxas21
02-14-2012, 01:12 PM
that would be me

it was just a shame i never cared enough to turn pro. i just had better things to do with my life

thrust
02-14-2012, 01:17 PM
It comes down to another boring "What is talent?" conversation.

McEnroe did things on the court that you would never train someone to do....just look at his forehand and backhand technique, and obviously the serve. The fact that he was able to become one of the all-time greats of the sport with technically awkward shots like that makes him supremely talented in my opinion. If nothing else he definitely was unique and had among the best hands of any player ever.

Federer does a bunch of things that McEnroe never could have done, partially aided by string technology. That forehand is really something special. His ability to take the ball so early so often is also very impressive. In peak form, his footwork was perhaps the best i've ever seen. The rest of his game isn't very unique really, but he still executes at an extremely high level. He's definitely supremely talented, and his results show that.

I would choose McEnroe simply because I like him more. His uniqueness is something that won't be duplicated.
Watching a recent match Sunday between John and Sampras was fascinating. Using modern racquets both were hitting shots as good or better than in their prime. Jon, with a hamstring problem, still was able to rip aces, hard ground strokes and great volleys. Sampras still has a great serve, but he was ripping forehands and backhands throughout the match. Sampras won, but it was close. Serve and net play, John was superior to Federer, back court play Roger is better.

r3d_d3v1l_
02-14-2012, 08:25 PM
Too close to decide. They´re both geniuses.

buzz
02-14-2012, 10:27 PM
I think McEnroe might have better hands than Federer. Especially at the net, although I think it is almost impossible to compare volley play in the '80 to volley play these days.

Federer is extremely talented in coordination. He hits the best backhandsmashes, tweeners and stretched backhand flick halfvolleys.

As for regular baseline play. Even if McEnroe could play every shot on the line with his awkward technique his shots would lose it to Federers attacking forehand. And lets not even talk about defense (and don't want to think about Mac VS Rafa on todays courts...).

BigJohn
02-14-2012, 10:29 PM
Another possible answer is almighty clay warrior Nadal*

















*when healthy

green25814
02-15-2012, 01:02 AM
Imo J-mac was the greatest pure S/V of all time, Federer would also be pretty handy in that era but he wouldn't compare really.

In addition I think people these days underestimate Mcenroe's ground game, it wasn't the best but he was no rally mug, was great at taking the ball early and had incredible approach shots (this skill has almost disappeared from tennis). I prefer his backhand to Federer's honestly.

Slice Winner
02-15-2012, 01:16 AM
Unless the comparison is 'who is more self-centred', it's a no contest really. Feds.

BigJohn
02-15-2012, 01:39 AM
Unless the comparison is 'who is more self-centred', it's a no contest really. Feds.

You cannot be serious.

SheepleBuster
02-15-2012, 01:45 AM
Who was the more naturally gifted tennis player? I think its close, but Mac edges it. I don't think anyone else has been quite at their level.

McEnroe and his brother are not talented enough to clean Roger's house. Are you joking here or what? This is the same choker who lost a French final 2 sets to love up. Even Federer with all the chokes against Djokovic has not lost to mugs like that.

green25814
02-15-2012, 01:54 AM
McEnroe and his brother are not talented enough to clean Roger's house. Are you joking here or what? This is the same choker who lost a French final 2 sets to love up. Even Federer with all the chokes against Djokovic has not lost to mugs like that.

I don't think he really choked against Lendl, it was more a matter of him tiring, his first serve disappearing and Lendl playing better.

Sophocles
02-15-2012, 10:43 AM
Imo J-mac was the greatest pure S/V of all time, Federer would also be pretty handy in that era but he wouldn't compare really.

In addition I think people these days underestimate Mcenroe's ground game, it wasn't the best but he was no rally mug, was great at taking the ball early and had incredible approach shots (this skill has almost disappeared from tennis). I prefer his backhand to Federer's honestly.

How refreshing to find somebody else who has actually seen McEnroe play!

thrust
02-15-2012, 01:39 PM
McEnroe and his brother are not talented enough to clean Roger's house. Are you joking here or what? This is the same choker who lost a French final 2 sets to love up. Even Federer with all the chokes against Djokovic has not lost to mugs like that.

Tsonga at Wimbldon? Lendl was always an outstanding clay court player. John played out of his mind the first two sets of that FO final, in his best year. Lendl became an 8 slam winner and had a winning H-H, with just about all his main competition.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-15-2012, 02:10 PM
Federer and its not even close

yes, John had a natural God given talent that was a one off, but he sucked from the back of the court (sampras was good at the baseline) and he basically vanished around 1985 (which is when his ex wife says he stopped taking roids)
even if he isn't juice-enroe you still have to factor in his performances in the late 80s- and the way lendl (and the power baseliners) dominated him from then on

federer was the only player i can think of- who had the potential to be as good at the net as he was at the back of the court- his net game early 2000s was as good as anyones there has ever been

around 2003 he neglected it big time because of the court conditions but he showed enough that we can say he was excellent at the net

federer is the only guy strong in every area of his game (at his peak)

laver was short- is a short guy going to serve 135mph bombs consistently?

borg sucked at the net- in an era that was dominated by net play- he just didn't know the net- maybe part of the reason he never won the us open- maybe

sampras hated clay

lendl grass

nadal's serve and RoS (plus his net play) in any other faster era would destroy his game

nole's a good all rounder but he doesn't excel in any area (except maybe running down balls)- in this era he doesn't have net skills (pls nole tards dont pretend he does because he has put away easy volleys)

edberg's volleys were much (MUCH) better than mac's- only americans think otherwise because americans have a tendency to overate their own

MatchFederer
02-15-2012, 02:12 PM
Not Mecir, just not nearly enough results to back it up... he's not in McEnroe's, Federer's or Laver's league.

John's ground game was actually strong, varied, aggressive and attacking and his ability to come up with crazy good shots in difficult situations was legendary. In other words, he isn't just some legendary S & V'er, but he's just an awesome tennis player.

MatchFederer
02-15-2012, 02:17 PM
Federer and its not even close

yes, John had a natural God given talent that was a one off, but he sucked from the back of the court (sampras was good at the baseline) and he basically vanished around 1985 (which is when his ex wife says he stopped taking roids)
even if he isn't juice-enroe you still have to factor in his performances in the late 80s- and the way lendl (and the power baseliners) dominated him from then on

federer was the only player i can think of- who had the potential to be as good at the net as he was at the back of the court- his net game early 2000s was as good as anyones there has ever been

around 2003 he neglected it big time because of the court conditions but he showed enough that we can say he was excellent at the net

federer is the only guy strong in every area of his game (at his peak)

laver was short- is a short guy going to serve 135mph bombs consistently?

borg sucked at the net- in an era that was dominated by net play- he just didn't know the net- maybe part of the reason he never won the us open- maybe

sampras hated clay

lendl grass

nadal's serve and RoS (plus his net play) in any other faster era would destroy his game

nole's a good all rounder but he doesn't excel in any area (except maybe running down balls)- in this era he doesn't have net skills (pls nole tards dont pretend he does because he has put away easy volleys)

edberg's volleys were much (MUCH) better than mac's- only americans think otherwise because americans have a tendency to overate their own

What???? Borg came to the net probably more at Wimbledon than Federer has done. In fact, he probably came in considerably more often.

green25814
02-15-2012, 02:26 PM
No way did Mac 'suck' from the back. Sure it wasn't his strength, but he was no mug. I would say he was better than Sampras in that regard.

Sophocles
02-15-2012, 02:32 PM
Federer and its not even close

yes, John had a natural God given talent that was a one off, but he sucked from the back of the court (sampras was good at the baseline) and he basically vanished around 1985 (which is when his ex wife says he stopped taking roids)
even if he isn't juice-enroe you still have to factor in his performances in the late 80s- and the way lendl (and the power baseliners) dominated him from then on

federer was the only player i can think of- who had the potential to be as good at the net as he was at the back of the court- his net game early 2000s was as good as anyones there has ever been

around 2003 he neglected it big time because of the court conditions but he showed enough that we can say he was excellent at the net

federer is the only guy strong in every area of his game (at his peak)

laver was short- is a short guy going to serve 135mph bombs consistently?

borg sucked at the net- in an era that was dominated by net play- he just didn't know the net- maybe part of the reason he never won the us open- maybe

sampras hated clay

lendl grass

nadal's serve and RoS (plus his net play) in any other faster era would destroy his game

nole's a good all rounder but he doesn't excel in any area (except maybe running down balls)- in this era he doesn't have net skills (pls nole tards dont pretend he does because he has put away easy volleys)

edberg's volleys were much (MUCH) better than mac's- only americans think otherwise because americans have a tendency to overate their own

Nearly all of this is wrong. Mac didn't suck from the back of the court; his wife alleged roids when he was trying to come back after 1985; Fed's net game in the early 2000s was slightly below old Sampras's & below Rafter's & Henman's; Laver's serve was highly effective even in the days when the server had to keep both feet on the ground - Fed doesn't serve 135mph bombs either, you know; Borg was far better at the net than most players today, indeed he won Wimbledon 5 years in a row serving-&-volleying much of the time - he was bad only compared to the other top players of the era; Lendl has a grass record most players who like grass would be very proud of; Edberg's volleys were no better than Mac's.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-15-2012, 02:32 PM
What???? Borg came to the net probably more at Wimbledon than Federer has done. In fact, he probably came in considerably more often.

well he may have done but he still sucked at the net

i know nostlagia has a way of glossing over faults but borg's net play was suck- and (although he had the ability to hit a one off ace now and again) his serve was average at best

roger beat sampras with S&V, well before his game matured- i have no doubt his potential at the net was second only to ebderg's had he concentrated on that facet of his game

green25814
02-15-2012, 02:39 PM
well he may have done but he still sucked at the net

i know nostlagia has a way of glossing over faults but borg's net play was suck- and (although he had the ability to hit a one off ace now and again) his serve was average at best

roger beat sampras with S&V, well before his game matured- i have no doubt his potential at the net was second only to ebderg's had he concentrated on that facet of his game

This is typical MTF stupidity. Its like calling Murray a pusher etc etc. Yes, Borg's net play was clearly below the top grass-courters of his era, but that does not mean it 'sucked'. This is just dumb MTF hyperbole. No-one is winning wimbledon during Borg's period with shitty net play if they are coming to the net. It doesn't make sense.

With regards to Federer's net game, what you say might be true, but the problem is we don't know. Federer turned into a baseliner, so we don't know his true potential as a S/V player. You are just guessing really, and thats not good enough in a debate.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-15-2012, 02:41 PM
Nearly all of this is wrong. Mac didn't suck from the back of the court; his wife alleged roids when he was trying to come back after 1985; Fed's net game in the early 2000s was slightly below old Sampras's & below Rafter's & Henman's; Laver's serve was highly effective even in the days when the server had to keep both feet on the ground - Fed doesn't serve 135mph bombs either, you know; Borg was far better at the net than most players today, indeed he won Wimbledon 5 years in a row serving-&-volleying much of the time - he was bad only compared to the other top players of the era; Lendl has a grass record most players who like grass would be very proud of; Edberg's volleys were no better than Mac's.

wrong on all counts

mac admitted he took them (unknowingly of course)
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708055

in laver's day the serve his height didn't impede his serve anywhere near as much as it would today

i think it was sampras who said if chang was a few inches taller he would have dominated the 90s - chang is taller than laver-

fed's early 2000s net game wasn't as good as rafter or henman, but fed was 19 at the time- and the courts were being slowed from 2002 onwards- fed changed his game and we didnt even see how good his net game could have developed- but his potential was as good as anyone

edberg's volleys were (at least on a technical level) infinitely better than mac's - i dont know how anyone could rate mac's volley's better- maybe (...maybe) his touch was better- but lets agree to disagree on that one

say what you want about lendl- he didnt get it done at wimby- rosewall has an excuse (they didnt let him play during his prime) lendl doesnt

Action Jackson
02-15-2012, 02:42 PM
Not Mecir, just not nearly enough results to back it up... he's not in McEnroe's, Federer's or Laver's league.

John's ground game was actually strong, varied, aggressive and attacking and his ability to come up with crazy good shots in difficult situations was legendary. In other words, he isn't just some legendary S & V'er, but he's just an awesome tennis player.

You do know the comment was about natural ability, if it was just results then Fed has the greatest backhand of all time.

green25814
02-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Even if Mac did take roids, its irrelevant to the debate. Steroids don't help your volleying ability or whatever. They aid physical recovery and stamina etc. Its not important when discussing pure natural ability.

Sophocles
02-15-2012, 03:44 PM
wrong on all counts

mac admitted he took them (unknowingly of course)
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708055

in laver's day the serve his height didn't impede his serve anywhere near as much as it would today

i think it was sampras who said if chang was a few inches taller he would have dominated the 90s - chang is taller than laver-

fed's early 2000s net game wasn't as good as rafter or henman, but fed was 19 at the time- and the courts were being slowed from 2002 onwards- fed changed his game and we didnt even see how good his net game could have developed- but his potential was as good as anyone

edberg's volleys were (at least on a technical level) infinitely better than mac's - i dont know how anyone could rate mac's volley's better- maybe (...maybe) his touch was better- but lets agree to disagree on that one

say what you want about lendl- he didnt get it done at wimby- rosewall has an excuse (they didnt let him play during his prime) lendl doesnt

The article you reference doesn't say when he took them, just that he took them for 6 years (1986-1992 perchance?), & it also says they were legal at the time.

I expect Laver's serve would have been less effective today than it was then, because it is much easier to return - but I don't believe it would have been a weakness.

Fed's "potential" as a volleyer is a matter of pure speculation, but I agree he might have developed into a great volleyer.

We shall have to disagree about Mac & Edberg. For me, Mac is the finest volleyer in the history of tennis.

Lendl would have got it done at today's Wimbledon, but I agree he doesn't have Rosewall's (or Gonzales's) excuse.

Johnny Groove
02-15-2012, 05:55 PM
Mac in terms of pure genius from the forecourt into the net, perhaps nobody can match. Mac's swinging serve was also quality, especially due to his incredible disguise on the shot. Being lefty helped as well. Didn't matter his serve wasn't the fastest, even in his own day. His approach and volleys were awesome. Sure his baseline game, he was vulnerable, but he was no mug from the baseline.

Sampras the same, he had a big serve, but it was more of a high velocity kick serve than anything. Guys like Ivanisevic may have had bigger serves in terms of mph, but Sampras' placement and the threat of his 2nd serve trumped anyone else in history save for maybe Tilden and Gonzales. Pete's volleys were slightly above average, sure, but not to the level of a Mac or an Edberg. Sampras' serve helped to get him easier volleys to put away.

Laver was like the Bruce Lee of tennis. Capable to hit any shot, even in his day, his serve was formidable. Very tricky to return, lefty, slice when needed, flat when needed, kick when needed. Especially since Laver had no fear coming into the net and had great volleys. Laver also was a beast from the baseline and could rally when necessary. Maybe his forehand was a bit of a weakness, but Laver's 1 hand backhand was deadly, especially his passing shots, my god.

As for Federer, early Roger was a beast at the net and had sick volleys. But he was inconsistent from the baseline. Funny enough, in his early days, his backhand was the more solid shot, and the forehand more prone to error. As time went on and he reverted to a baseline game, his forehand became the big weapon it is, became more consistent, and his backhand began to go "Shankerer" on us. As he played less at the net, his volley skills began to decline, but his serve improved. So it was a trade-off for Roger from his early days until 2003ish and from 2004 to present.

Laver and Fed are the all time best 2, due to their full arsenal of shots, being able to play from any spot in the court.

Matt01
02-15-2012, 06:06 PM
Everyone is better than Federer.


Everyone but McEnroe.

Vida
02-15-2012, 06:06 PM
watched quite a bit of mcenroe recently, voting for him.

feds very talented too :hug:

green25814
02-15-2012, 07:46 PM
Mac in terms of pure genius from the forecourt into the net, perhaps nobody can match. Mac's swinging serve was also quality, especially due to his incredible disguise on the shot. Being lefty helped as well. Didn't matter his serve wasn't the fastest, even in his own day. His approach and volleys were awesome. Sure his baseline game, he was vulnerable, but he was no mug from the baseline.

Sampras the same, he had a big serve, but it was more of a high velocity kick serve than anything. Guys like Ivanisevic may have had bigger serves in terms of mph, but Sampras' placement and the threat of his 2nd serve trumped anyone else in history save for maybe Tilden and Gonzales. Pete's volleys were slightly above average, sure, but not to the level of a Mac or an Edberg. Sampras' serve helped to get him easier volleys to put away.

Laver was like the Bruce Lee of tennis. Capable to hit any shot, even in his day, his serve was formidable. Very tricky to return, lefty, slice when needed, flat when needed, kick when needed. Especially since Laver had no fear coming into the net and had great volleys. Laver also was a beast from the baseline and could rally when necessary. Maybe his forehand was a bit of a weakness, but Laver's 1 hand backhand was deadly, especially his passing shots, my god.

As for Federer, early Roger was a beast at the net and had sick volleys. But he was inconsistent from the baseline. Funny enough, in his early days, his backhand was the more solid shot, and the forehand more prone to error. As time went on and he reverted to a baseline game, his forehand became the big weapon it is, became more consistent, and his backhand began to go "Shankerer" on us. As he played less at the net, his volley skills began to decline, but his serve improved. So it was a trade-off for Roger from his early days until 2003ish and from 2004 to present.

Laver and Fed are the all time best 2, due to their full arsenal of shots, being able to play from any spot in the court.

I think there's a legit reason for this. The single-hander takes a lot of physical strength, and the truth is Federer isn't as strong as he used to be, particularly after the mono business.

r2473
02-15-2012, 08:38 PM
Brad Gilbert

thrust
02-16-2012, 02:04 AM
No way did Mac 'suck' from the back. Sure it wasn't his strength, but he was no mug. I would say he was better than Sampras in that regard.

Sampras was the better back court player, John was the more talented volleyer.

thrust
02-16-2012, 02:26 AM
wrong on all counts

mac admitted he took them (unknowingly of course)
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708055

in laver's day the serve his height didn't impede his serve anywhere near as much as it would today

i think it was sampras who said if chang was a few inches taller he would have dominated the 90s - chang is taller than laver-

fed's early 2000s net game wasn't as good as rafter or henman, but fed was 19 at the time- and the courts were being slowed from 2002 onwards- fed changed his game and we didnt even see how good his net game could have developed- but his potential was as good as anyone

edberg's volleys were (at least on a technical level) infinitely better than mac's - i dont know how anyone could rate mac's volley's better- maybe (...maybe) his touch was better- but lets agree to disagree on that one

say what you want about lendl- he didnt get it done at wimby- rosewall has an excuse (they didnt let him play during his prime) lendl doesnt

Laver was 5-9, at least, which is about the same as Chang. Rosewall was 5-7. Chang was an overachiever, as was Rosewall and Laver. Though power was important in the Laver era, it was not as necessary as it is today. I agree that Edberg's volleys were more technically correct than John's, but not more effective. Federer is a great volleyer, but he just doesn't seem to want to come to the net unless he feels the need to change strategy.

Slice Winner
02-16-2012, 02:32 AM
Federer is a great volleyer, but he just doesn't seem to want to come to the net unless he feels the need to change strategy.

He comes to net fairly often if the court is at least quite quick.
This was today:
VbUTfgBm7Sc

Depends on his opponent though.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-16-2012, 04:15 AM
He comes to net fairly often if the court is at least quite quick.
This was today:
VbUTfgBm7Sc

Depends on his opponent though.

5 secs
1st approach shot/winner- terrible positioning left court wide open, was not in positon at the net at all

54 secs
mahut aproach shot beter- fed still too good on the his shot, forces mahut to attempt weak drop volley- fed cleans up- mahuts positioning around the net was good

1.26
fed tentitively comes in, because of weak return- fed doesn't seem to want to come in- mahut hit decent enough pass when fed is in position, but roger hits a glorious peach of dropper

2,25
you see an actual constructed volley point- mahut hits a peach of an approach slice, and quickly gets in while fed scruccies to get to the ball- weak ball sent back is dropped like a lead float- federer has no chance

2.43
mahut serves and volleys- rare sight these days- beautiful, a lost art- a treasure

2,51
federer just doesnt want to come in, unless he has to- 3 times gets a chance to sneak in but seems like a magnet drags his ass back to the baseline- eventually federer shrugs the magnet off and runs in to hit a clean volley

3.18
federer decided to be a genius and fuck with mahut for fun- beautiful point, simple but elegant- great serve, in perfect position to hit a >winner/deep approach/dropper
fed chooses the dropper and its like a lead weight- gorgeous, i love this man sometimes

3.28
exact same situation as above- fed elects to hit an approach, comes in beautfully from behind, and passes a volley like a samurai sword passing through the purest waters of japan- just poetry in motion

3.39
same sitation again, fed elects to try the winner but comes in anyway- needs to hit a perfect volley to finish mahut off but does so anyway

4.00
the standard once a match backhand that looks better than every other shot in tennis combined- worth watching for hours just to see roger do this once- artist

4,17
another rare glimpse of S&V- like the tiger in the wild, almost gone but indescribeably beautiful

4,26
fed in complete defense mode hits a peach of an agressive approach, mac would be proud- but mahut- up to the task hits a perfect pass- a sad effect of todays string tech

5.10
fed launches a great serve only to be countered by an equal return landing dead on the baseline- not one to be discouraged in a shot making contest federer elects to smash another forehand blasting off the line- only for mahut to hit an inspired (macenroe-esque) backhand pass up the line- beautiful point all around

5.43
mahut launches a serve offensive only to be met by a tame slice from fed- rushing to the net he hits a perfect volley for a winner- except from noweher roger hits an absolute beauty of a pass

5.51
mahut rushes into another serve only for federer to wave some magic off his wand and slice a beauty far from mahuts hands- elegance and skill - roger spoiling us as always

6.30
mahut with another great serve, federer another terribly weak slice, mahut hits a lovely little slice out wide sending federer on his way- federer barely reaching it hits a delicious backhand landing on mahuts shoe strings- mahut - somehoe manages to fashion a dropper out of seemingly nowhere- only for federer in full fed ex mode, to charge in- feint a pass- and hit a perfect lob- more artistry in a single point than the whole nadal nole final- epic in every sense of the word

7.11
genius at work.
federer hits a perfect serve out wide that mahut can barely claw the edge of his nails on- only for federer to wave that magic wand and hit a seemingly impossible winner, making one of the toughest shots to hit look elementary- everyone with smiles all around- even mahut must surely tiip his hat to the artistry

8.02
perfect way to finish off a lovely day at the office
federer serves and volleys
and no less than the stab volley something thought long lost- perfect technique and gentlemanly finish from the goat

pleasure to watch

rather watch federer as olderer
than nole as superman anyday of the week

allpro
02-16-2012, 04:20 AM
mac.

leng jai
02-16-2012, 04:24 AM
Coming in against Mahut is not that hard really. He does come in a bit against "lesser" players but puts it back in the closet for big matches.

I fail to see whats so special about that backhand at 4:00. I mean seriously, Rogie's flat one handed backhand down the line isn't close to "looking better than every other shot in tennis combined".

Ajde.

MatchFederer
02-16-2012, 04:33 AM
You do know the comment was about natural ability, if it was just results then Fed has the greatest backhand of all time.

Quite sensationally, I saw it was about natural ability, and I doubt Mecir's was as great as a bunch of other much greater players. The discrepancy in results is too much to ignore. But sure, you're entitled to your opinion.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-16-2012, 04:42 AM
Coming in against Mahut is not that hard really. He does come in a bit against "lesser" players but puts in back in the closet for big matches.

I fail to see whats so special about that backhand at 4:00.

Ajde.

reminds me of that 2008 4th set wimbledon tie break

adje

nalbyfan
02-16-2012, 03:39 PM
Mc by far. he was as good in singles as in double with Fleming and he was able to win a tourney both in single and double.
He had much more personality than Rolex poseur but it's another story