why do u like your favourite player??? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

why do u like your favourite player???

oxy
03-10-2004, 05:43 PM
why do u like your favourite player???

donna1985
03-10-2004, 09:04 PM
Well, I'd be lying if I insisted it was due to their talent and clever skills.

With most if not all my fav players, they all have a common thread, in that they have some degree of intensity to their character and game. They're not the golden boys of Men Tennis, (god no), and their inclined to be very hot headed.

Of course, they are very fine looking, we can't forget that! And they have to have hair! Lots of it.

Kristen
03-11-2004, 06:48 AM
Jonas-Funny, funny man. He's kind to his fans. He gets them seats at the tournaments. He's accessible and is happy to have a chat with anyone. Physically, he has the most awesome quads I have ever seen. You can show me 'better' ones, but they'll never compare, because they're not my #1's! Jonas is responsible for getting me interested in tennis, as a result of his personality above all else! Hence, I tend to support relatively easy-going Swedish guys. Even the slightly uptight ones :)

Jarkko- He's int raining to take over from Jonas once he retires. Jarkko is sweet, a lefty and the Scandinavian factor REALLY helped me to notice him. I found him training with Enqvist last year, that's when I realised he existed. Jarkko has that never-say-die attitude. (in the matches I've seen. He always gives it a good shot).

Alexander Popp- The other guys are polite, but Alexander Skyrocketed from being in my top 20-30, to my #3 overall, when he was really sweet to me in Sydney. It just regards his qualifying matches in Sydney,seeing him train, and then after the typical german training session (7 hours, it seemed like) he was happy to have a pic and a bit of a chat. He's sooo sweet guys! If you see him at a tournament, track him down and wish him well or something. He really appears to appreciate it :) Noone has ever said "scheizer" (spelling?) so well!

Max Mirnyi - It's Max? Gentle/giant. His dad is nice also, he offered to pass on a message to Vlad for me :worship: but I had nothing to say :rolleyes: ahh well! Max is terribly friendly and he's a total sweetheart! Check out the yahoo group for him ;)

Niclas Larsson Ok, he's a wheelchair guy so most of you prob wont know about him, but it started because he's Swedish. I found him and said he was automatically my favourite because of his nationality. But, he's a really fun & funny guy. And he's incredibly attractive. That's why Sydney is so good. The players have to train without their shirts ;)

People I have noticed purely for their looks: Filippo Volandri/Jan Michael. Luckily for them, they're both lovely as well. Well, I havent met JM yet, but he's a fan of animals so of COURSE he's a good sort :)

Jan Frode Andersen is a smart ass, in an endearing way. "JF:Alex Kim beat me... but he's playing really well right now" 'K:well he must be!' "JF:exactly ;)" Go the Norwegian!

Others: Igor Kunitsyn, Simon Aspelin: For being nice, and not expecting support from people cause noone knows who they are really.

Frooty_Bazooty
03-11-2004, 07:16 AM
David is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, hot.

also, i love his backhand, its sweet.

Kristen
03-11-2004, 07:22 AM
Cmon now Frooty, you can be honest here ;) hehe, he is one fine specimen. Which reminds me... I just bought the 2004 AFL calendar! I've only ever watched one match, not enough!

Billabong
03-11-2004, 10:46 AM
Guga's the one that made me love tennis, he's really a great guy who has a great game:)!!!

maratski
03-11-2004, 11:30 AM
His game, personality, looks.

Tennis is boring without him :angel:

CmonAussie
03-11-2004, 11:39 AM
*Hewitt definitely changed my opinion of tennis:
he looks short & skinny yet he's got a higher threshold for pain than any other player I've seen. # I'm quite certain he's misunderstood because of a few stupid things he's said when he was a teenager they labelled him a"bad boy" & the Aussie media were always hungry to blow things out of proportion.
***Hewitt is loyal to his family & friends and obviously patriotic(in a friendly way)~ as demonstrated by his passion to Davis Cup.
-->> He's made several millions from his amazing accomplishments & yet he's not interested in material possessions; until recently he didn't even own a car.
*Lleyton is always frank and never pretends to be 'politically correct', which can become so boring when you hear top sportsman come up with cliches.
(@_@)^ Hewitt never looks afraid of a challenge & never loses easily~ he's definitely a rare breed of fighter(like Connors & Borg) who just asks the most of himself-->> when he's angry 99% of it is directed towards himself & the racket strings which he constantly picks at nervously.

Hewitt is always polite & respectful of his opponents & never takes any victories for granted.

Some day Rocky Llegs will be appreciated for his many good qualities; at the moment many of his critics are still blinded by their jealousy~"how could this little kid shouting C'mon & with no obvious weapons beat my favourite player...etc..">>. #Atleast that's the only reason I can figure that so many have chosen to look unfavourably upon Hewitt.
PS; In a recent interview Pat Rafter mirrored my words & said "Lleyton is almost too humble to be a top sportsman... but he's a fighter & he'll always figure a way to beat the best.."(Quoted during the Aussie Open by The Age(Melbourne Newspaper)).

CooCooCachoo
03-11-2004, 12:03 PM
Tommy Robredo is just a great player and a great guy. He is really polite. I am sure he would have to time to chat too, only I never tried ;) I also love his game. He is not just a baseliner and he isn't just a claycourt specialist. He plays well on all courts, which is something I really appreciate. Also, he is a good doubles player. He just has everything I like in a player.

Karol Kucera - How can I possibly like this guy, some of you might wonder. Well, he is a polite player too, though shy. But I was a fan of him before I noticed this. I just really like him for the fact that he can win matches without having a good serve. His serve is, in fact, rubbish, but he is a great player on the baseline and his tactics are probably the best out there. Mentally, he is extremely strong. He also has this great pokerface: he doesn't show what he's feeling or thinking and that has helped him to clinch a lot of crucial points, for sure.

sigmagirl91
03-11-2004, 12:08 PM
David is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, hot.

also, i love his backhand, its sweet.


That wedding, frooty, I have not received my invitation. LOL!!!!

Anyway, I do agree with you....

Shadow
03-11-2004, 12:11 PM
Marat Safin - he got me interested in Tennis because of his game, his style of play, his amazing natural talent (he makes it look effortless) and his emotions on the court. With Federer he has the best all-round game, there is nothing he cant do... he cant do in a perfect and beautiful way. Sometimes he plays shots you wouldnt even think of. He is never boring to watch and makes Tennis exciting and entertaining in a great way. When he gets angry on the court its always directly to himself so it doesnt hurt anybody.
I also love that he is the most unpredictable Tennisplayer and has GREAT sportmanship.
He has an amazing personality. I admire the way he is with other people, he is always nice, warm, kind and down to earth, also to his fans (he takes a lot of time and cares very much), and has the nicest words for his opponents and fellow players, he is so classy. I like that he doesnt act like a star, that he doesnt look for it. He has a big heart and of course i love his great sense of humour (in three languages). His interviews are the best... i cant think of anyone who is so funny and talkative yet so smart and thoughtfull. He can make fun of himself, he speaks his mind and doesnt care what others think about him. I like that he loves life so much and enjoys the things he does, yet he cares so much for the people near him, his family, his friends. He is not easy to check up cause he is a very interesting charakter with many qualities which is never boring and i guess thats why he is sometimes missunderstood. I think he has a special Radiant emittance, especially in his eyes and his smile is a killer! So warm and big.

Kristen
03-11-2004, 12:18 PM
***Hewitt is loyal to his family & friends and obviously patriotic(in a friendly way)~ as demonstrated by his passion to Davis Cup.

when he's angry 99% of it is directed towards himself & the racket strings which he constantly picks at nervously.

Hewitt is always polite & respectful of his opponents & never takes any victories for granted.

:angel: I am doing such a good job, refraining from making any comments that could potentially create nemeses on the MTF! LOL!! :angel:

You know what pisses me off though? That you're right. The last point I quoted here, I agree with in the sense that at the end of the match, he seems generally ok if he loses. Not that I try to watch any of his matches, in fact I do avoid them like the plague (except DC :D KOM IGEN!!! -|--) lol, but the ones i've seen, he seems to have the same serious expression on his face. During the matches though, I cant tolerate him. He's that passionate that it rubs me up the wrong way. Thank god he's growing up, and also, for Kim. Can someone please abduct me, to some European country far, far away? I'll trade places with a Euro Hewitt fan for sure!!

Disclaimer: Nothing's intended to be an insult here ;)
Thank goodness Jaslyn isn't 100% patriotic. You GO girl!
Kristen. :wavey:

Angelito
03-11-2004, 12:19 PM
David Nalbandian

I llike him cause he's humble, kind with his fans, maybe a bit shy but really cool. Maybe his tennis isn't much colorful but when he actually wants he can show tons of talent.

Gabriela Sabatini

I know she'e a woman and retired but she was the one that actually inpired me to follow the tournaments on TV and everywhere. It was a pleasure to watch her playing. She is simply great!! :worship:

Kristen
03-11-2004, 12:23 PM
:worship: Knuddel. Stop it, you're making me fall under that Safin charm! lol that was really well said, you and CmonAussie have put forward strong cases here ;) Safin has grown on me a great deal since the Aus Open. He beat a number of my favourites, but he did it so nicely.

Oh yeah, and Karol Kucera... good guy. He had his birthday on Thursday. Same as me :D That's what got me interested in him!

Shadow
03-11-2004, 01:35 PM
:worship: Knuddel. Stop it, you're making me fall under that Safin charm! lol that was really well said, you and CmonAussie have put forward strong cases here ;) Safin has grown on me a great deal since the Aus Open. He beat a number of my favourites, but he did it so nicely.

hey Bjorkman_Girl :D thats really nice to hear :) I heard from a lot of people that Marat has grown on him since the Aussie Open this year which makes me glade of course.

Experimentee
03-11-2004, 01:54 PM
Karol Kucera - ...Mentally, he is extremely strong.

Kucera is mentally strong? :confused:
Maybe he used to be, but lately in almost every match I've seen he's been a bundle of nerves, choking away every little lead he has.

Experimentee
03-11-2004, 02:02 PM
Dominik Hrbaty - I first started to like him because of his game, very exciting and aggressive. Most of all I liked his on court attitude, he always worked hard on every point and never gave up when he lost opportunities and got down on the scoreboard. Later I found out he also had a great personality, and is very funny, wears dorky hats etc. He also goes to a lot of effort to let his fans know they are appreciated, which is great. :)

Andre Agassi - mainly because of his game, it is just a joy to watch him manoevre his opponents around and play a very aggressive game, but not really relying on a huge amount of power or a big serve. His interviews are always very entertaining and funny, and he makes a lot of intelligent points that i agree with. And he is always classy after a loss, and has nice things to say about fellow players all the time.

*Ljubica*
03-11-2004, 05:46 PM
Why David? Well, - like Frooty says he's really, really, really hot :) and his smile and those blue eyes are just amazing! And apart from that - well from my own experience, he is a kind and humble person, who is always patient with his fans, does a lot of charity work back home, and also remains true to his roots and hasn't forgotten his old friends and family. He has respect both for himself and other people. Oh - and his backhand is the best in the game in my opinion!

pixiedreamer
03-11-2004, 09:16 PM
well I like tim henman as he has been dissapointed not winning wimbledon but still keeps trying.

joske
03-12-2004, 02:21 PM
He's the King of the Clay courts - altho he's had a LOT of injuries/illnesses lately :(



oh yeah.. and he's SOOOOO hot ;)

Domino
03-12-2004, 03:29 PM
I like Fish because I have known him for a while personally, and have come to respect his game after experiencing it first hand before I retired to go to college.

Deboogle!.
03-12-2004, 03:43 PM
I like Andy's personality - his sarcastic sense of humor is the same as mine and he's just hilarious. But yet when asked a serious question, he is thoughtful and gives a carefully considered answer.

I love that he is a fair sportsman despite what many people here think, and I love that he respects his opponents and always praises them, win or lose, no matter what happened.

I love the way he commands a crowd, how he's so popular that the attendance in the stadium doubles or triples, even just to see him finish off the last 2 points of a rain-delayed match, and he feeds off of this and really appreciate it - yet none of it seems to get to his head and he walks around and chats and jokes just like a normal guy. I also love how he signs autographs win or lose to as many people as he possibly can, even those annoying dummies who ask right before a match.

I love that he can be up 6-1 6-2 5-3 serving for the match and still live and die with each point and yell at himself for making an error.

I love that he knows he's not perfect and is willing to try his hardest to improve - mental, physical fitness, weaknesses in his game, maturity, etc.

Andy just makes watching tennis exciting for me. I know he's not the most talented and that he's a big server and that this style of play is unattractive to many. But his personality is infectous and it's hard (for me) not to have fun watching him. Even when he's losing, he still keeps it light by cracking jokes and and stuff. And after seeing him live and in person both on and off the court, all of the reasons I liked him before were reaffirmed - how relaxed he is when it's just him, Brad, and Doug practicing, how he jokes with the umpires before the match, how polite he is to everyone, etc. There are definitely things about him that I don't like, but the good outweighs the bad for me :)

sigmagirl91
03-12-2004, 03:59 PM
Why David? Well, - like Frooty says he's really, really, really hot :) and his smile and those blue eyes are just amazing! And apart from that - well from my own experience, he is a kind and humble person, who is always patient with his fans, does a lot of charity work back home, and also remains true to his roots and hasn't forgotten his old friends and family. He has respect both for himself and other people. Oh - and his backhand is the best in the game in my opinion!

Yes, yes, and YES.
How can he go from totally "not" to totally "hot" in one year-ONE YEAR?

FanOfHewitt
03-12-2004, 04:36 PM
I like Hewitt because:

- He has incredible will power and determination which allows him to go beyond his natural limits and mix it with opponents who are more naturally gifted than he is.

- He is the ultimate competitor and he claws, scratches and scraps for every point irrespective of the scoreline. I love his work ethic and the way he pushes himself to extract everything he's got out of himself.

- When you watch Lleyton you know you're in for a dog-fight. It doesn't matter if he's playing Roger Federer or the 400th ranked player in the world, you just know it's going to be a battle.

- Despite his dimunitive stature and weak serve he has been able to compete with the giants of the game. Unlike some other top players, Hewitt would have been successful in any era.

- He's so energetic and passionate that I can't help getting excited watching him play.

- I love the way he proves doubters wrong and excedes all expectations others have for him.

kim-fan
03-12-2004, 07:19 PM
FanOfHewitt:

you are so right. that are exactly the reasons why I am a fan of lleyton. He's simply the best. :)

oh, and don't forget: he is so hot :hearts:
but that is not the importantst thing of course :angel:

flip_fan
03-13-2004, 02:52 AM
why do u like your favourite player???

hmmm.... it's a question ive been asking myself alot lately!!

I like mark philippoussis because he's not afraid to be himself. Right or wrong he does things his way and for his reasons, and i admire that. There's never a dull moment when supporting mark. It's a rollercoster ride that you dont want to end. There's the very highs, and then the very lows but its both entertaining at the same time.

Mark is interesting. He has lots of interests and hobbies other then tennis and has a lot of people interested in him. (esp famous celebs)

Mark is also very good to his fans and will usually sign just about every autograph if he has the time.

Mark is also the sexiest male ive every seen! The height and striking looks sets him apart from everyone else. He just seems to have a presence about him, and oozes sex appeal!


GO MARK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Billabong
03-13-2004, 04:13 AM
Guga has a great personality and a great game! He's really entertaining to watch:D!

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:53 AM
Unlike some other top players, Hewitt would have been successful in any era.


umm how so?
especially considering at the moment Hewitt hasn't proven he wasn't a transitional champ

CooCooCachoo
03-13-2004, 05:50 AM
Kucera is mentally strong?
Maybe he used to be, but lately in almost every match I've seen he's been a bundle of nerves, choking away every little lead he has.

He's aging.. He looked really old to me when I saw him in Rotterdam this year. He is certainly by no means the Kucera he used to be and I expect him to retire this season or next. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem capable of maintaining his position :( But I will remain his fan :)

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 06:00 AM
umm how so?
especially considering at the moment Hewitt hasn't proven he wasn't a transitional champ

Transitional or not makes no difference. He has already established himself as a champion. If he never wins another match he has still proven that he's a champion. He's already been successful in his era, even if you do define being number one for 2 years straight (one of the longest periods in the modern era) a "transition".

With a wooden racquet, taking away the serving advantage and the power advantage, Hewitt would most definitely been a champ.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 09:51 AM
What other top players would not be succesful in other eras?

And if he never wins another match then he certainly wasn't succesful in the Federer, Roddick, Ferrero era which officially began in 2003

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 11:02 AM
What other top players would not be succesful in other eras?

Well I don't think Roddick would have been making much noise in the 1950's. Safin wouldn't be as good as he is now either. Both rely heavily on power and big serving.

And if he never wins another match then he certainly wasn't succesful in the Federer, Roddick, Ferrero era which officially began in 2003

And if he doesn't win another match? He's already had a mini-dynasty and has beaten all those players you have mentioned more than they have beaten him.

2 Davis Cups, 2 Grand Slams, 2 TMC's, 20 odd titles, 2 years number one. He could retire tomorrow and still be regarded a successful champion.

But anyway, I think he'll have some more success before his career is out, which should hopefully put an end to this argument.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 12:01 PM
Well I don't think Roddick would have been making much noise in the 1950's. Safin wouldn't be as good as he is now either. Both rely heavily on power and big serving.


argh how predictable. Ever hear of Pancho Gonzalez?
A guy born in 1928 who is unheraled because his career was before the magical 1968.
Pancho served faster then a lot of the pros today.



And if he doesn't win another match? He's already had a mini-dynasty and has beaten all those players you have mentioned more than they have beaten him.


The point is if Hewitt doesn't win another slam, it would destroy the "succesful in any era" as his success would be attributed to a transition period whether you like it or not.
Obviously if Hewitt wins another slam now, after 2003, it will kill off the transitional theory.

Domino
03-13-2004, 12:22 PM
Heh, Poncho is arguably one of the best ever if not the best. He had a powerful serve despite those heavy wooden racquets.

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 12:24 PM
I liked Ferrero at first because I'm shallow and thought he was good looking. Then as he started to ugly up a bit, I had gotten so used to enjoying his game, blah, that I kept rooting for him. He's a bit of a whiner, but that's okay. At least you're never left wondering whether or not he really cares.

I like Coria because he's tricky and a fighter. Some people don't like how he fusses over linecalls, but it doesn't bother me. He's just a perfectionist.

I like Nadal because he's as "never say die" as Hewitt is, without being offensive to his opponents (I have a fun little quote on that one that I'll dig up later). Despite the ridiculous amount of success he's had for a kid his age, he doesn't come across as arrogant at all. His game is very agressive... it has a couple of holes in it, but not any that he hasn't acknowledged himself.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 12:45 PM
Heh, Poncho is arguably one of the best ever if not the best. He had a powerful serve despite those heavy wooden racquets.

Exactly, a power player far before the era of modern rackets.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 12:48 PM
I got some low ranked favourites but I liked Federer ever since I saw him play for the first time in DC against Australia. His talent amazed me.

Fedex
03-13-2004, 01:02 PM
I've been a big fan of Federer ever since i saw him beat (my other favorite) Pete Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. I was astonished, that such a talent could exist.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 01:06 PM
argh how predictable. Ever hear of Pancho Gonzalez?
A guy born in 1928 who is unheraled because his career was before the magical 1968.
Pancho served faster then a lot of the pros today.

If Pancho was serving as hard as some of the players today with a wooden racquet then he'd be serving 280kph with the racquets they use today. I find that hard to believe.

Anyway, Roddick would not be serving as fast as he is now with a wooden racquet therefore he'd have less of an advantage. He also wouldnt have as powerful groundstrokes. Another reason for why he wouldn't be successful.



The point is if Hewitt doesn't win another slam, it would destroy the "succesful in any era" as his success would be attributed to a transition period whether you like it or not.
Obviously if Hewitt wins another slam now, after 2003, it will kill off the transitional theory.

Well time will tell. Sicne the new era of 2003 he has beaten Ferrero twice and beaten Federer as well so I'm confident that he can achieve some post 2003 success. But we shall see.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 01:22 PM
Let me clarify (belabour) a bit on the Roddick point. I am not contending that Roddick's power game would be totally neutralised with wooden racquets. He'd still be more powerful than his opponents for sure and this would be of great advantage to him.

But I think dealing with a serve that reaches 200-210 kph (which is for example what he'd be serving with a wooden racquet) is much more returnable (even with a wooden racquet) than a serve that is 240-50 kph.

The above goes (by analogy) for his groundstrokes as well.

I therefore contend that he wouldn't have that big of an advantage as he enjoys today with the advent of modern racquets. Seeing that power is his biggest asset, obviously his game would suffer if he was using wooden racquets.

Domino
03-13-2004, 01:30 PM
FanOfHewitt, Poncho would have clocked serves at 280 kph with racquets today, that was how good his motion was. His pace was way ahead of his time. With propor technique, even with a wooden racquet you can hit bombs, with some more muscle of course. Metal racquest just make it easier, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done with wooden ones.

Fedex
03-13-2004, 01:32 PM
Might i add, that Hewitt's game would also suffer with wooden racquets.

Sjengster
03-13-2004, 01:58 PM
I thought the whole point about wooden rackets was that players could still serve almost as hard with them, but that the opponent couldn't return nearly as well with them? In which case they definitely wouldn't favour Hewitt's game.

Anyhow, my favourite player... got a nice backhand, he has. Seriously, he's maximised his potential and got the most possible out of his game (I can think of several more talented players who have achieved far less), he is a tough and consistent baseliner who doesn't give away many points and always has to work hard for his victories. And I like the robotic guardsman's serve! It's jerky, but he always gets a high percentage in and so it's difficult to attack. Plus all the personal tragedies he's had in his life and the bad losses he's had in his career (especially at Wimbledon) make me root for him all the more.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 02:33 PM
Well, with a smaller sweet spot on the wooden racquet it would be pretty hard to extract the kind of advantage that modern players do from serving big (and hitting big groundstrokes) unless they were extremely skilfull. There would be more margin for error with a wooden racquet, not to mention the (ok, marginally) lower speed that could be generated with wooden racquets in comparison to graphite ones.

Domino, Pancho could clock 280kph serves? I never saw him play at all, but I find that very hard to believe.

Sjengster, are you suggesting that the metal racquet revolution helped return-oriented players more than serve-oriented players?

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 02:50 PM
Sjengster, are you suggesting that the metal racquet revolution helped return-oriented players more than serve-oriented players?

It's actually not a ridiculous suggestion, and Sjengster is hardly the first to make it - assuming that is what he meant.

Afterall, it'd be pretty hard to return a 120m serve with the accuracy that Hewitt can now with a much smaller sweet spot, no?

Domino
03-13-2004, 02:55 PM
Can you read FanOfHewitt? Before, WyvN said that he could serve as hard as players in the present era with wooden racquets, and then you remarked that he would be slamming them down at 280 kph now with a metal racquet of these days. I remarked that if such an upgrade in speed comes with a metal racquet, then yes, he WOULD HAVE served at that speed. Sjengster, however, brought up the point that the metal racquets greatly upgraded only the returner's ability, since the heavy weight from a wooden racquet makes it very hard to manuever around the ball in the return.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 02:56 PM
It's actually not a ridiculous suggestion, and Sjengster is hardly the first to make it - assuming that is what he meant.

Afterall, it'd be pretty hard to return a 120k serve with the accuracy that Hewitt can now with a much smaller sweet spot, no?

No doubt it would. But I think it would be harder to consistently bomb down 120k serves with a smaller sweet spot.

I don't think its a coincidence that more big servers have popped up on the scene since the metal racquet revolution than excellent returners have.

And I've got no stats to back me up, but I'd suggest that ther'd be more aces being served nowadays than there was int he past.

Domino
03-13-2004, 03:00 PM
The smaller sweetspot just meant that the server had to consentrate more on hitting the contact point on the serve (Which Poncho was excellent at). It actually improves the accuracy of the serve to have a smaller sweet spot. Yes it would be harder, but you have to understand that players learned with those conditions and grew accustomed to the small sweat spot. Does anybody else remember Sampras's 85 head size on his stick, not to mention it was the heaviest of the racquets on the tour, and he consistently bombed 125-135 mph serves.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 03:02 PM
Can you read FanOfHewitt? Before, WyvN said that he could serve as hard as players in the present era with wooden racquets, and then you remarked that he would be slamming them down at 280 kph now with a metal racquet of these days. I remarked that if such an upgrade in speed comes with a metal racquet, then yes, he WOULD HAVE served at that speed. Sjengster, however, brought up the point that the metal racquets greatly upgraded only the returner's ability, since the heavy weight from a wooden racquet makes it very hard to manuever around the ball in the return.

Yes I can read, but I was assuming that Pancho couldn't serve (wiht a wooden racquet) as fast as the players could nowadays with metal racquets. I suggested 280ks to make it sound absurd that he could be serving as fast as the players are now days with metal racquets.

Domino
03-13-2004, 03:06 PM
Let's put it this way, Poncho could serve, with a wooden racquet, as fast as players with metal racquets today.

Btw, I know I sound like I am harping on you, but it gets frustrating because only a few people seem to talk about Poncho, so others don't really know who he is.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:05 PM
But I think dealing with a serve that reaches 200-210 kph (which is for example what he'd be serving with a wooden racquet) is much more returnable (even with a wooden racquet) than a serve that is 240-50 kph.


You really got no clue do you?

This actually helps your argument but your post is absurd! How often does Roddick serve 240km-250km? :rolleyes:

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:07 PM
It's actually not a ridiculous suggestion, and Sjengster is hardly the first to make it - assuming that is what he meant.

Afterall, it'd be pretty hard to return a 120m serve with the accuracy that Hewitt can now with a much smaller sweet spot, no?

Exactly.......It is not a coincidence that a lot of the baseliners use bigger rackets then the power servers. For example Agassi's racket is huge.

MisterQ
03-13-2004, 04:14 PM
Tennis magazine picked Poncho Gonzales for the greatest serve in their Dec. '02/Jan. '03 issue. Here's their write-up:

Serve
Pancho Gonzalez

There had been monster serves before (Bill Tilden's and Ellsworth Vines', to name two), but Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez's was the complete package and the foundation of a ruthless attacking game that made him the dominant force in pro tennis throughout the 1950s. Jack Kramer pioneered the serve-and-volley "Big Game," but the 6-foot-2 "Lone Wolf" from East Los Angeles turned it into a brutal art; Lew Hoad, a frequent foe, said he "swatted at the ball with a fierce, almost mean air." Gonzalez's delivery was compact, explosive, and seemingly effortless; his serves, both first and second, combined power, versatility, and consistency under pressure and kept him in the game's upper echelon well beyond his prime. In 1969, at age 41, he finished No. 6 in the world. Take that, Jimmy Connors.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:16 PM
The thing with powerful servers is that most of the points server wins are not 130mph aces, they are service winners, failed returns or easy returns which
are killed at the net.

It is a complete myth that "Aceless Golden Age of Tennis" was because of wooden racquets. It was DESPITE wooden racquets. There were many extremely boring matches (moonball-moonball-moonball or ace-ace-ace) during wooden racquet
era, but nobody remembers them because they were so dull.

Tennis is a game of percentages. It's much more important to win larger % of the points with you bread-and-butter shots rather than hit few more
unreturnable aces.

Modern racquets help returners more because in quick situations (like service returns) they allow
1) same power with shorter backswing, meaning that on average your returns are harder, or alternatively they are more accurate
2) larger sweet spot -> important in shots which are too fast to get a clean hit 100% of the time (like service return). Note that these advantages also help passing shots from difficult situations.

Serve, OTOH, is a shot which is completely under player's control and these factors are less of an issue. Modern racquets help server, but they help
returner more. Surfaces, of course, also matter considerably.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 04:19 PM
You really got no clue do you?

This actually helps your argument but your post is absurd! How often does Roddick serve 240km-250km? :rolleyes:

I was talking maximums. And yes I know Roddick's fastest serve is 241 approx. But he'll probably get to 250 eventually.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:19 PM
Also Mark P, a few years ago, did a promotional/experiment thing by serving with a wooden racket. Does anyone recall this?

He did not lose much speed/accuracy despite having virtually no previous practice with wooden rackets.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 04:28 PM
The thing with powerful servers is that most of the points server wins are not 130mph aces, they are service winners, failed returns or easy returns which
are killed at the net.

It is a complete myth that "Aceless Golden Age of Tennis" was because of wooden racquets. It was DESPITE wooden racquets. There were many extremely boring matches (moonball-moonball-moonball or ace-ace-ace) during wooden racquet
era, but nobody remembers them because they were so dull.

Tennis is a game of percentages. It's much more important to win larger % of the points with you bread-and-butter shots rather than hit few more
unreturnable aces.

Modern racquets help returners more because in quick situations (like service returns) they allow
1) same power with shorter backswing, meaning that on average your returns are harder, or alternatively they are more accurate
2) larger sweet spot -> important in shots which are too fast to get a clean hit 100% of the time (like service return). Note that these advantages also help passing shots from difficult situations.

Serve, OTOH, is a shot which is completely under player's control and these factors are less of an issue. Modern racquets help server, but they help
returner more. Surfaces, of course, also matter considerably.

Modern racquets help lower skilled power players. I find it hard to see players like Roddick and Safin being as dominant as they are now in the pre-metal racquet age where more finesse was required.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 04:31 PM
Also Mark P, a few years ago, did a promotional/experiment thing by serving with a wooden racket. Does anyone recall this?

He did not lose much speed/accuracy despite having virtually no previous practice with wooden rackets.

He did have less accuracy though (with the wooden racquet) I think. I don't think he would have had the balls to go for his serve as much if he had to serve with a wooden racquet through his career.

joeb_uk
03-13-2004, 04:33 PM
concerning the RACKET topic. i remember mark phillipousis done a test a few years back in australia, using a wooden racket and one of the modern day ones. the difference was only 5mph which isnt a huge difference.
although you would think it be huge there isnt that much of a difference. although control there will be a huge difference

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:34 PM
Modern racquets help lower skilled power players. I find it hard to see players like Roddick and Safin being as dominant as they are now in the pre-metal racquet age where more finesse was required.

I don't know why I am discussing rackets with someone who thinks the players currently use metal.

And I gave plenty of evidence to suggest "lowly skilled power players like Roddick and Safin" would be more succesful then lowly skilled baseline players like Hewitt.

joeb_uk
03-13-2004, 04:36 PM
hehe yeah metal is a thing of the past. :D

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:37 PM
concerning the RACKET topic. i remember mark phillipousis done a test a few years back in australia, using a wooden racket and one of the modern day ones. the difference was only 5mph which isnt a huge difference.
although you would think it be huge there isnt that much of a difference. although control there will be a huge difference

Initially control would be a problem, but what about if Mark P practiced with it for 15 years like he did with modern rackets. Control would become a far smaller issue.

joeb_uk
03-13-2004, 04:39 PM
yes true, is carbon fibre what the majority of the top players are using?

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 04:45 PM
I don't know why I am discussing rackets with someone who thinks the players currently use metal.

And I gave plenty of evidence to suggest "lowly skilled power players like Roddick and Safin" would be more succesful then lowly skilled baseline players like Hewitt.

Ok, graphite.

I know you'll disagree, but I think that Hewitt is more co-ordinated than Roddick or Safin and has more finesse, so I think he would go quite well against them with wooden racquets. They would have their best chance of beating him using the current technology.

They couldn't whack the ball or serve it like they do now with such abandon and expect to consistently get it in.

TennisLurker
03-13-2004, 04:46 PM
I remember that, he was serving great, but he lost speed and accuracy.

When McEnroe and Navratilova and some old players proposed to return to smaller rackets last year, Philippoussis and Roddick said they were agaisnt the change.

Philippoussis even said something like, Ive not developed a big serve to lose this advantage now by returning to wood rackets.

It is in tennisweek, I will try to find the article later.

Modern rackets allow players to serve faster with more accuracy, MmcEnroe himself said nowadays with this new rackets I serve faster than in the late 70's early 80's.

And we shouldnt forget that this debate started in the early 90's, not three years ago with baseliners dominating, it started when "Big serve" serve and volleyers dominated (Sampras, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic), You had, Agassi, Chang (whom I didnt like BTW), and the rest was big serve here, big serve there.

And old serve and volleyers like McEnroe would say that the players should return to old rackets because the game had been reduced to target practice.

FanOfHewitt
03-13-2004, 04:49 PM
Initially control would be a problem, but what about if Mark P practiced with it for 15 years like he did with modern rackets. Control would become a far smaller issue.

Well how many big servers were on the scene dominating the sport before the modern racquets came into use? If its so easy to do and all you need is a bit of practice then how come there wasn't a plethora of big servers around?

Domino
03-13-2004, 05:43 PM
Because people weren't as conditioned as much as they are now, and besides, players have different styles.

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 05:45 PM
Because people weren't as conditioned as much as they are now, and besides, players have different styles.
Ding ding ding.

That was a painful two pages of posts to read.

WyveN
03-14-2004, 01:51 AM
Well how many big servers were on the scene dominating the sport before the modern racquets came into use? If its so easy to do and all you need is a bit of practice then how come there wasn't a plethora of big servers around?

As I have already mentioned there were not many big servers but there was still a lot of aces and unreturnable serves, the serve was not as powerful but it was still just as effective as the players could not return nearly as effectively as today.

sigmagirl91
03-14-2004, 01:54 AM
Ding ding ding.

That was a painful two pages of posts to read.

My thoughts exactly.
Can we get back to the topic at hand, or has this thread turned into "racquets: an in-depth compendium"?

Kristen
08-30-2004, 08:41 AM
*Bump*
I couldn't be bothered re-hashing why I adore my guys, so my post is on page 1 here.
Funny though, it took me ten minutes to find this thread. It would have taken 5 to rewrite it.. :)

Some other threads:

Players you've met (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=7232&highlight=favourite+player)
Best Personality (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=5023&highlight=favourite+player)
Most entertaining (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=10237&highlight=favourite+player)

Fee
08-30-2004, 06:59 PM
My favorite player, based solely on his game, is Federer because he has just about every shot in the book, and also because he reminds me a little bit of my two favorite all time players, Sampras and Borg.

Iheartandy&roger
08-30-2004, 07:37 PM
My favs are Roddick and Federer. Roddick because he's so entertaining to watch and the serves are off the hook not to mention the moves he's got. Federer because he's just so damn talented and its so exciting to watch him because you never know what move he'll pull next!

Ferrero Forever
08-31-2004, 10:08 AM
I liked Ferrero at first because I'm shallow and thought he was good looking. Then as he started to ugly up a bit, I had gotten so used to enjoying his game, blah, that I kept rooting for him. He's a bit of a whiner, but that's okay. At least you're never left wondering whether or not he really cares.

:confused: when did he start to ugly up, the only time he even came close to ugly was when he had the peroxide bleach blonde hair, but other then that he's never been ugly and never will be.

Ferrero Forever
08-31-2004, 10:13 AM
-he's perfect
-he's a legend
-he's a champion
-he's a fair man
-he's nice
--------------------
-he's drop dead gorgeous
-he plays a really great game
-he has a great sounding name
-he plays really interesting matches
-he has the best hair and eyes and body
-he is god

SomL.
08-31-2004, 10:29 AM
He's perfect man .

SomL.
08-31-2004, 10:30 AM
I love Lleyton so much !!!!!!!!!