PDA

View Full Version : McEnroe in his prime would have Federer for lunch


Pages : [1] 2

djsiva
06-08-2007, 04:53 PM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this.

No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.

iamke55
06-08-2007, 05:00 PM
Yes, and those ancient players from the 1200's would easily hold their own against McEnroe. Because you know, technique, physical ability, and racquet technology never change over time. The ancient Japanese with their Eastern FH-grip backhand would hit passing shots all day long against the modern greats effortlessly.

Andres
06-08-2007, 05:29 PM
"Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though."

If John McEnroe can't even beat Marcelo Rios, what makes you think he could beat Roger Federer?

Too Poor for Grass
06-08-2007, 08:22 PM
No one comes close to his mastery at the net.

Doubtless, McEnroe was a great volleyer, but serve-and-volley tennis isn't nearly as effective now as in years past because of the advances in racquet technology and weight training. Sampras, who was not as pronounced a serve-and-volley player as McEnroe, was able to use the technique because he had an overwhelming serve that produced fewer quality returns than almost any other player of his time. In contrast, McEnroe had a less-inspired service game, which would have been flayed by passing shots from stronger players wielding high-powered racquets.


He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever.
I thought you said he looked cool.

He didn't try to overpower you.

He couldn't.

Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime.

He toyed with a 16-year-old kid? Doesn't sound very impressive.

helloworld
06-08-2007, 08:32 PM
lol !! He may be able to beat the women easily even now, but he's gonna be bageled by Federer dude. Even in his prime, I doubt he can even win one set.

Mick
06-08-2007, 08:37 PM
McEnroe did not fare too well against Lendl and Federer is a much better striker of the ball than Lendl in my humble opinion.

Jet Rink
06-08-2007, 08:38 PM
...In contrast, McEnroe had a less-inspired service game, which would have been flayed by passing shots from stronger players wielding high-powered racquets.



You are sadly mistaken. Mac's service game was one of the best and most effective ever.

Jet

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
06-08-2007, 09:34 PM
umm no, federer is wayyy better and he has class.

zapvor
06-08-2007, 09:53 PM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this.

No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.

what????! thats teh WTA....did yuo lose your train of thought

rommil
06-08-2007, 10:20 PM
Maybe if the implication that Johnny Mac might be a cannibal, your post title might have bearing and you might have slight chance of argument.

dima
06-08-2007, 10:46 PM
Yes, and those ancient players from the 1200's would easily hold their own against McEnroe. Because you know, technique, physical ability, and racquet technology never change over time. The ancient Japanese with their Eastern FH-grip backhand would hit passing shots all day long against the modern greats effortlessly.

I LOLed. Good job.

tkauffm
06-08-2007, 10:54 PM
You're joking right?

jukka1970
06-08-2007, 11:16 PM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this.

No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.

This is an easy one to answer. I've bold printed and underlined the answer which is provided within your original post.

As for your thoughts, what you're basically saying is that you know more about John McEnroe, then John McEnroe knows about himself.

Jukka

armand
06-08-2007, 11:25 PM
McEnroe hasn't got a wrist! How he competed(and won) with no wrist is a miracle in itself. But to compete with GOATs without a wrist would be tougher than climbing Mt Everest with no oxygen, no socks and no Sherpas.

Dolphina
06-09-2007, 12:41 AM
If you´re not a power player, you have to create a body like Nadal to beat him or count on Roger making a lot of errors. Otherwise you will be smoked relentlessly.

TENNIS_99
06-09-2007, 02:28 AM
Federer will win almost all his service games easily because whenever Mac is in the backcourt, the rally would not last more than 3-5 exchanges. Mac in his prime has one of the nastiest serve,will still have quite effective SV. But the return comes back faster and dropping faster so he would have more errors here and there and, you have the results.

forzainter
06-09-2007, 02:33 AM
You are sadly mistaken. Mac's service game was one of the best and most effective ever.

Jet

i wouldnt take anything this guy says seriously, just look at his avatar


just joking, but bad choice in my opinion

Rabbit
06-09-2007, 04:14 AM
Federer wins 7/10.

But...

Give 'em both wood and McEnroe wins 7/10.

So, I agree the equipment makes a bigger difference.

McEnroe's technique translates just fine to a larger headed frame. I'm not so sure that Federer's angle of attack on the ball would translate as well to a wooden frame.

McEnroe in his 1984 incarnation was about as good as a tennis player gets. In any of his others years, FedEx would probably run over him like a pickup truck over a rooster.

tintin
06-09-2007, 04:18 AM
pardon me while I :lol: :lol: my arse off at that post
thanks for the :lol: :lol: mate

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 04:38 AM
DOnt worrt too much about McEnroe and Federer. They are not in same league. Federer has a well rounded game than McEnroe and Federer doesnt fall for McEnroe's tantrums.

McEnroe got far more credit than what due for him (eg: IvanLendl is no less player with far more better results but often considered inferior to McEnroe).

In short, McEnroe is no match for Federer. Even thought sampras isnt in his prime exactly, Federer beat sampras in their only match... Well you get the idea!

Remember another great player Andre Kirk Agassi?. He holds a 2-2 record against Mcenroe. We all know what Agassi had against Federer.

I am going to throw this. Nadal would eat McEnroe for Lunch !!!!

CyBorg
06-09-2007, 05:07 AM
Here come the stupid trolls with a handful of posts with their ******** agenda.

McEnroe at his peak (probably '84) may have been the greatest tennis player ever. All you have to do is watch some tennis. No one could match his touch. Ever.

As for the whole Lendl thing, Mac owned Lendl until he married and burned out. Mac had his 5 years of superstardom. Lendl followed up with his own.

omniexist
06-09-2007, 05:36 AM
McEnroe hasn't got a wrist! How he competed(and won) with no wrist is a miracle in itself. But to compete with GOATs without a wrist would be tougher than climbing Mt Everest with no oxygen, no socks and no Sherpas.

I'm not getting what you're saying here. If anything, McEnroe was nothing but wrist...

Too Poor for Grass
06-09-2007, 06:12 AM
You are sadly mistaken. Mac's service game was one of the best and most effective ever.

Jet

What I said is that it wasn't as good as Sampras's, and in today's game, if you're not serving 125+, you're not going to be able to win major tournaments with a serve-and-volley game.

diggler
06-09-2007, 06:19 AM
Federer wins 7/10.

But...

Give 'em both wood and McEnroe wins 7/10.

So, I agree the equipment makes a bigger difference.

McEnroe's technique translates just fine to a larger headed frame. I'm not so sure that Federer's angle of attack on the ball would translate as well to a wooden frame.

McEnroe in his 1984 incarnation was about as good as a tennis player gets. In any of his others years, FedEx would probably run over him like a pickup truck over a rooster.

This post is the best one on this topic. It is all about specifics.

2007, modern rackets on any surface, Mac would get flogged due to inferior groundstrokes.

Transport Federer back to 1984 using the equipment of the time and I think it would be very close on any surface. Don't forget Mac was 2 sets up against Lendl in the French final.

Too Poor for Grass
06-09-2007, 06:20 AM
As for the whole Lendl thing, Mac owned Lendl until he married and burned out.

Well, wait a minute. You just said:

(1) that McEnroe was "probably" at his peak in 1984; and
(2) that McEnroe "owned" Lendl until he burned out.


But McEnroe lost to Lendl in the 1984 French final, did he not? How can you attribute Lendl's superior record solely to McEnroe's burnout if Lendl beat McEnroe at the latter's supposed peak?

Craig Sheppard
06-09-2007, 06:49 AM
Glad I'm going to watch a Pete v. Mac exhibition match in July! Pete's going to wipe the floor w/ Mac is my guess.

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 06:53 AM
Well, wait a minute. You just said:

(1) that McEnroe was "probably" at his peak in 1984; and
(2) that McEnroe "owned" Lendl until he burned out.


But McEnroe lost to Lendl in the 1984 French final, did he not? How can you attribute Lendl's superior record solely to McEnroe's burnout if Lendl beat McEnroe at the latter's supposed peak?


Some poster mentioned Burn out. Somehow it is supposed to be Lendl's problem?. McEnroe had his little bit of time and then others started beating him. May be for those posters, McEnroe is the greatest of all the time (better than Sampras, Bill tanden, Andre Agassi) . Couldnt even manage to win a FrenchOpen but poses as if he won Grandslam every year he touched the racquet.

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 06:55 AM
This post is the best one on this topic. It is all about specifics.

2007, modern rackets on any surface, Mac would get flogged due to inferior groundstrokes.

Transport Federer back to 1984 using the equipment of the time and I think it would be very close on any surface. Don't forget Mac was 2 sets up against Lendl in the French final.

So lets not forget that mac was 2 sets up. Being a great player he is, why did he loose?. If anything in such situations Great players will not let someone else dominate them.

How many times have we seen Sampras or the likes 2 sets up and then loose a Grandslam final.

diggler
06-09-2007, 07:10 AM
So lets not forget that mac was 2 sets up. Being a great player he is, why did he loose?. If anything in such situations Great players will not let someone else dominate them.

How many times have we seen Sampras or the likes 2 sets up and then loose a Grandslam final.


This is very unfair on Mac. He is a serve volleyer on his worst surface playing Lendl on his best surface. Sampras never made a French Final let alone led Lendl 2 sets to love.

In 1984, Mac had the highest winning percentage ever (Federer would have beaten it if he didn't lose the Masters final while injured in 2005. After leading 2 sets to love by the way)

Mac lost only 3 matches that year and you're going to give him grief for losing the French Open Final. That's a bit rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McEnroe#Continued_success_.281982-85.29


1984 was arguably McEnroe's best year on the tennis tour, as he compiled an 82-3 record and won a career-high 13 singles tournaments, including Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. He also was on the U.S.' winning World Team Cup and runner-up Davis Cup teams. The only male who has come close to matching McEnroe's 1984 win-loss record since then was Roger Federer in 2005. Federer was 81-3 before losing his last match of the year to David Nalbandian.

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 07:17 AM
This is very unfair on Mac. He is a serve volleyer on his worst surface playing Lendl on his best surface. Sampras never made a French Final let alone led Lendl 2 sets to love.

In 1984, Mac had the highest winning percentage ever (Federer would have beaten it if he didn't lose the Masters final while injured in 2005.)

Mac lost only 3 matches that year and you're going to give him grief for losing the French Open Final. That's a bit rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McEnroe#Continued_success_.281982-85.29


1984 was arguably McEnroe's best year on the tennis tour, as he compiled an 82-3 record and won a career-high 13 singles tournaments, including Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. He also was on the U.S.' winning World Team Cup and runner-up Davis Cup teams. The only male who has come close to matching McEnroe's 1984 win-loss record since then was Roger Federer in 2005. Federer was 81-3 before losing his last match of the year to David Nalbandian.


I am not questioning Mac's credentials as a good player. One fabulous year (unless its a grandslam) doesnt make a great player. Great players are the players that overcome tough situations and obstacles.

So McEnroe managed one french open final. Roger Federer is in FO finals twice. Federer won 10 grandslams and counting.
Yet we somehow try to argue McEnroe is better than Federer.

snapple
06-09-2007, 07:25 AM
Have to agree with Diggler. Mac in 84 was unreal. Just as Fed's game today is inimitable, Mac's in 84 was unparralled, and experts were gushing over him just as they do Fed today. To see him utterly dismantle 3 times French Open winner, Ivan Lendl, on clay for two and a half sets was sick. Here he was effectively serve and volleying on a genuinely slow court (as opposed to today's clay) against the premier baseliner of the day. To use that match as an arguement against his greatness is ridiculous.

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 07:31 AM
Have to agree with Diggler. Mac in 84 was unreal. Just as Fed's game today is inimitable, Mac's in 84 was unparralled, and experts were gushing over him just as they do Fed today. To see him utterly dismantle 3 times French Open winner, Ivan Lendl, on clay for two and a half sets was sick. Here he was effectively serve and volleying on a genuinely slow court (as opposed to today's clay) against the premier baseliner of the day. To use that match as an arguement against his greatness is ridiculous.


Not really. Definitely not ridiculous. All said and done, what mcEnroe did in his career is more or less matched or surpassed by many players.

Please read the intent of the thread.. It compares Federer to McEnroe. I am showing enough to prove that they dont belong in same league.

diggler
06-09-2007, 07:32 AM
I am not questioning Mac's credentials as a good player. One fabulous year (unless its a grandslam) doesnt make a great player. Great players are the players that overcome tough situations and obstacles.

So McEnroe managed one french open final. Roger Federer is in FO finals twice. Federer won 10 grandslams and counting.
Yet we somehow try to argue McEnroe is better than Federer.

I think you missed my earlier post. Federer today would flog McEnroe on any surface. Not even close.

Take Federer back to 1984 with frames of the era and it would be interesting. I'm not saying Mac would definately win, but he'd have a good chance.

NamRanger
06-09-2007, 07:34 AM
Have to agree with Diggler. Mac in 84 was unreal. Just as Fed's game today is inimitable, Mac's in 84 was unparralled, and experts were gushing over him just as they do Fed today. To see him utterly dismantle 3 times French Open winner, Ivan Lendl, on clay for two and a half sets was sick. Here he was effectively serve and volleying on a genuinely slow court (as opposed to today's clay) against the premier baseliner of the day. To use that match as an arguement against his greatness is ridiculous.



Now you're just being ignorant. Mac in 84 never faced players who could hit groundstrokes at 100 mph on a consistent basis. He never faced players who could serve 140 mph. He never faced genetic freaks like Nadal. He never faced players who could hit with spins up to 4000 rpms. Pretty easy to Serve and Volley in a time where equipment ALLOWED you to do it. Now adays, it doesn't.

snapple
06-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Not really. Definitely not ridiculous. All said and done, what mcEnroe did in his career is more or less matched or surpassed by many players.


You're confusing accomplishments with greatness. As far as level of play between the lines, I believe that at Mac's best in 84, he possessed the talent and style to beat the mighty Fed, especially if the match was held in his era.

By the way, I recently saw Mac play seniors in Boston, and I truly believe that he could still more than hold his own over a two set macth with all but a handful of players. Would never have thought this before seeing him last month. He serves harder today than 20 years ago, his groundies are also more powerful, and he still has remarkable touch. He beat Korda, crushed Courrier and was competitive with Sampras losing 3 and 4.

MrSiki99
06-09-2007, 08:16 AM
I think before you guys make comments you should buy Hooked on Phonics, and then make an attempt to spell properly.

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 08:32 AM
I think before you guys make comments you should buy Hooked on Phonics, and then make an attempt to spell properly.

Why? . do you plan on buying that book to all of the forum members?

Too Poor for Grass
06-09-2007, 09:16 AM
He never faced genetic freaks like Nadal.

Well, wait a minute. Don't go overboard. Borg was Nadal X 2 and, quite possibly, the fittest tennis player to ever set foot on a court, be it in 2007, 1977, or 1927.

herosol
06-09-2007, 10:38 AM
i agree. but alot of you guys are saying that federer would destroy him because today's game is different. if mcenroe was in his prime playing the game that was played today, he would no doubt be a threat in the top 10's.

MrSiki99
06-09-2007, 12:01 PM
Why? . do you plan on buying that book to all of the forum members?

Point proven.

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2007, 01:24 PM
Point proven.

Precisely. This is the problem with people who think they are smarter than others and often fail to follow their own advise.

djsiva
06-09-2007, 02:28 PM
That's why he plays the senior's circuit.

I guarantee he would beat Venus, Serena, Henin NOW at his age, easily.

What I was saying is that McEnroe before his comeback would have beaten Federer very convincingly. He would made Federer and Nadal look stupid.

Watch the tapes. What Mcenroe did was beautiful. As for beating Chang, yeah chang was 16, but still Chang actually won the French the next year and McEnroe was far passed his best. Plus McEnroe beat him on clay.

Jet Rink
06-10-2007, 09:04 AM
i wouldnt take anything this guy says seriously, just look at his avatar


just joking, but bad choice in my opinion

And a Faiyne good-natured ribbing! Well done (Campioni del' Europa, amico!)

Jet

Fedace
06-10-2007, 09:08 AM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this.

No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.

Have you been smoking some hash ??:confused:

35ft6
06-10-2007, 09:25 AM
Stop living in the past, people.

michael_1265
06-10-2007, 09:49 AM
I think many of us can appreciate Mac's genius (and his self-destructive tendencies, especially late in his career), but any comparison is filled with way too many "ifs". Remember that his career straddled the revolution in racquet materials, and it was definitely to Mac's detriment. Also, Mac was way behind in the fitness department, even to many players of his day. On a fast court in his prime with both players in peak form AND ALL OTHER FACTORS EQUAL (an impossibility), I'll still take Mac to anyone. His shotmaking is second to none, and his competitive fire can't be denied.

Given current levels of fitness and equipment technology, Mac just wouldn't hold up against a top-10 player. Note I didn't say anything about current playing styles, which I don't believe are necessarily superior.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 01:07 PM
Well, wait a minute. You just said:

(1) that McEnroe was "probably" at his peak in 1984; and
(2) that McEnroe "owned" Lendl until he burned out.


But McEnroe lost to Lendl in the 1984 French final, did he not? How can you attribute Lendl's superior record solely to McEnroe's burnout if Lendl beat McEnroe at the latter's supposed peak?

McEnroe won the next two grand slams, including a win over Lendl at the US Open. I didn't say that McEnroe didn't lose to Lendl at all when at his peak, but he was a much better player and almost defeated Ivan on clay - Mac's worst surface.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 01:08 PM
Some poster mentioned Burn out. Somehow it is supposed to be Lendl's problem?. McEnroe had his little bit of time and then others started beating him. May be for those posters, McEnroe is the greatest of all the time (better than Sampras, Bill tanden, Andre Agassi) . Couldnt even manage to win a FrenchOpen but poses as if he won Grandslam every year he touched the racquet.

Troll post.

Many great players have not won a French Open. And few claim that Mac was the greatest ever, even though his peak was incredible. But there is more to being the greatest than that.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 01:10 PM
1984 was arguably McEnroe's best year on the tennis tour, as he compiled an 82-3 record and won a career-high 13 singles tournaments, including Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. He also was on the U.S.' winning World Team Cup and runner-up Davis Cup teams. The only male who has come close to matching McEnroe's 1984 win-loss record since then was Roger Federer in 2005. Federer was 81-3 before losing his last match of the year to David Nalbandian.

Mac was insane in '84. His play at Wimbledon that year and the one before was the best grass court tennis I've ever seen.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 01:11 PM
I am not questioning Mac's credentials as a good player. One fabulous year (unless its a grandslam) doesnt make a great player. Great players are the players that overcome tough situations and obstacles.

So McEnroe managed one french open final. Roger Federer is in FO finals twice. Federer won 10 grandslams and counting.
Yet we somehow try to argue McEnroe is better than Federer.

Of course, McEnroe is a great player. Seven grand slam titles is enough to earn him that distinction.

I don't think he'll go down as better than Federer. Few people do.

diggler
06-10-2007, 09:52 PM
More defence of Mac.

He has won a shiitload of doubles titles and a shiitload of Davis Cups.

DNShade
06-12-2007, 12:23 AM
Look...It's really hard to try to compare guys from different times etc...and really kinda pointless. But what the hell - I'll throw my two cents in here.

I'm a new poster her etc.- but as someone who has been in and around the tennis world at a high level since the early eighties I have some intersting perspective on this - and speaking as someone who has hit with everyone form Mac to Fed and all kinds in between I can tell you all this...John (Jr.) Mac was and is the most naturally gifted player that ever picked up a racket. End of story. Ask anyone whose really played him etc. and they'll agree. His talent actually kinda worked agaisn't him in the fact that he really didn't have to work hard to be great. He could just relax, not really train, played doubles - etc. and still be amazing and win. I've seen John make other top players look like they were duffers out there by comparison - even years after he had retired - top guys on the tour at the time. He did burn out a bit - got married and never was the same. He just didn't care as much. It happens. The drive was gone. And by the way - John's serve - even though not the fastest - was the most wicked out there. Nasty. And he played at a time - I think - where tennis had the most talented and deepest field in it's history.

Who knows what Mac - or Borg - or Laver - would be like in their prime with the new rackets and strings etc...But I can tell you this for sure- they would've been amazing.

And by the way - someone is going to "re-invent the game" here soon with serve and volley in the new tech age and we will all be talking about it. I can't wait. Just a matter of time.

Oh and whoever said Mac doesn't have a wrist - you really need to actually play tennis my friend. He is all wrist. Just because he doesn't take a HUGE swipe at the ball - doesn't mean he didn't hit topspin etc. exceeding well...Quite the opposite. His strokes were bauhaus-esque - taken down to the base and most natural movement needed. Quite beautiful actually. And only with a special writst can you hit drop volleys like he does.

Here endith the lesson....

Rabbit
06-12-2007, 05:04 AM
Now you're just being ignorant. Mac in 84 never faced players who could hit groundstrokes at 100 mph on a consistent basis. He never faced players who could serve 140 mph. He never faced genetic freaks like Nadal. He never faced players who could hit with spins up to 4000 rpms. Pretty easy to Serve and Volley in a time where equipment ALLOWED you to do it. Now adays, it doesn't.


Well, don't give yourself a diploma just yet.

None of the guys today played guys who understood and played the transition game like they did back then. Yeah, they can hit from the baseline at 100 MPH when the ball is in their strike zone. Take a guy from back then who approaches with slice down the line and moves the ball around and give a guy today a wood racket. Let's see Nads try to whip one of those forehands with a 13 - 14 ounce Jack Kramer when the ball is around his ankles on a consistent basis on a 1970s-softer grass court with balls that hadn't been opened a week before the tournament.

Serve speeds? Maybe you should compare technology from then and now first. Does anyone really believe that Roddick hit a serve 155 MPH? Or, could it be that the gun was juiced? How did Agassi return better when he was older if serve speeds got so much faster? It just doesn't hold water.

McEnroe's serve today is faster than it was then, in the 120s (if we are to believe that radar guns are consistent over 30 years). Venus Williams hit a serve 128 MPH, but it didn't have the work or direction that one of McEnroe's does or did. Don't kid yourself, guys back then could and did serve just as hard as they do today. Wood and second serves was the big difference. It was harder to hit a second serve with a wood racket, so keeping your first serve percentages up was very important.

McEnroe didn't have too much trouble with the serves of today when he played doubles against the current crop, now did he? In San Jose, McEnroe lost his serve once the entire tournament. That whole line of arguing is pretty much ridiculous. McEnroe did face guys as late as last year who serve in the 140s.

McEnroe spent his whole career taking other people's pace and turning it into angles.

rasajadad
06-12-2007, 06:17 AM
Glad I'm going to watch a Pete v. Mac exhibition match in July! Pete's going to wipe the floor w/ Mac is my guess.

In fact, it just happened in Boston at the Outback tournament there. That being said, is it a surprise to anyone that a 35 year old can beat a 47 year old?

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 06:19 AM
Threads like this are unbelievable. McEnroe and Federer are both great players. One wouldnt have the other for "lunch" if both were in their primes.

McEnroe in 1984 was unbelievable. If I had to guess I think he would have the slight edge on Fed that year, but Fed would still have given him a good battle. The 1980-1983 version of McEnroe, maybe Fed the slight edge, but McEnroe would have been real competition.

That is all hypothetical though. I dont see either having the other for lunch. Maybe the less mature Federer of 2001-early 2003 McEnroe would have had for lunch; or the less motivated McEnroe of 1986-onwards, Fed would own. However not when both were in their primes and feeling well.

forzainter
06-14-2007, 02:39 PM
And a Faiyne good-natured ribbing! Well done (Campioni del' Europa, amico!)

Jet

you may be, but there is only 1 champion of italy, and they only lost 1 match, that first derby match of the season, what a game

fastdunn
06-14-2007, 03:48 PM
Still totally amazed by the way McEnroe played whenever I see old matches of his.
I can not think of any other player who played like him.
Truely unique and what kind of hand does he possess.

See but I have to agree with most of us here. Sampras and Federer would
beat McEnroe 7-8 out 10 times.

BUT!,.. I think it's the exact type of game McEnroe has is the key to beat
Federer I think. Left handed S&Ving attcking game.

See? Slightly bigger version of Laver(lefty) would beat the hell out of both
Federer and Sampras (righties).

Remember what Federer said after his loss at French Open 2007 ? something
like "His being lefty screws up the whole thing. It does not matter whether
I play good or bad". . I understand he was frustrated. But I think he
is a straight talker and proly that's what's happening at that high level of game....

Andres
06-14-2007, 04:15 PM
Serve speeds? Maybe you should compare technology from then and now first. Does anyone really believe that Roddick hit a serve 155 MPH? Or, could it be that the gun was juiced?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhKNtLSUnBI

It does look impressively fast to me :p

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-19-2007, 09:14 AM
I think McEnroe would have annoyed the hell out of Federer and won the majority of the matches, say slightly more than 60% if they had played against each other, prime to prime. Still now, as evidenced by his winning in doubles in a regular men's tournament (what was it 2 or 3 years ago?) Mac still has the wicked lefty serve that gets the opponent out of position so he can follow with a solid volley.

Watching Mac back in the day, I didn't like him much for his on court behavior, but so often, he was sheer brilliance when not self-destructing. Truly one of the greatest tennis players of all time IMO, in the top 5 greatest shotmaker of all time also.

Zets147
06-19-2007, 09:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhKNtLSUnBI

It does look impressively fast to me :p

I saw him hit a 154 once, but it hit the netcord.. the sound of the strike still echoes in my ears

Wuornos
08-08-2007, 04:10 AM
For Federer to have achieved what he has achieved and for McEnroe to be the greater player, the overall standards of the pro circuit must have declined signigficantly in the intervening years.

Wuornos
09-06-2007, 04:03 AM
On the Marsh Rating system I use to evaluate past players the breakdown is as follows.

JohnMcEnroe won 7 majors, appeared in a further 4 finals and lost in the semi finals of majors on 8 occasions. Roger Federer has won 11 majors appeared in a further 2 finals and lost in 2 semi finals. Therefore their total achievement points are 123 and 120 respectively. We must therefore consider these two players to have approximately the same levels of achievement.

Looking at the spread of their successes, Roger's major successes were spread over a far shorter period. The spread factors were calculated as 3.63 to John and 5.59 to Roger. Using this to multiply their achievement points we calculate their level of dominance against their peers. This gives John a Dominance of 447 points and Roger a dominance of 671 points. We can therefore say that Roger was the more dominant of his peers at his peak. In fact we can say that Roger is the most dominant player in the history of the men’s singles in the open era.

Looking at the opposition John had to compete against both Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors, while Roger has had Rafael Nadal. The opposition adjuster which is derived from weighted peer dominance factors gives John 2.64 compared with 1.84 for Roger. Multiplying their dominance ratings by these factors gives overall ratings of John 1180 and Roger 1235.

In conclusion you would have to rate Roger as the better player on his performance record. John achieved less dominance but against greater players. In short then I am going to disagree with you all. I don’t see either player thrashing the other. I think this would have been a good match.

John McEnroe’s score of 1180 places him 4th on the list of male singles players of the open era.

Roger Federer’s score of 1235 places him 3rd on the list of male singles players of the open era.

Andres
09-06-2007, 04:45 AM
Sampras and Borg are #1 and #2? Maybe Laver and Sampras? Laver and Borg?
What about Connors and Lendl?

What's the Top10, by the way? :D

Fearsome Forehand
09-06-2007, 01:52 PM
Fed would kill him.

Gorecki
09-07-2007, 05:54 AM
Watch the tapes. What Mcenroe did was beautiful.

you mean this (among 10000 other vidoes like this):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmJi_oc7t10

CEvertFan
09-07-2007, 10:21 PM
I think you mean that Federer in his prime would have McEnroe for lunch.

johnv_pr
09-13-2007, 06:21 AM
This is a joke. Right?

MichaelH
09-13-2007, 06:55 AM
Doubtless, McEnroe was a great volleyer, but serve-and-volley tennis isn't nearly as effective now as in years past because of the advances in racquet technology and weight training. Sampras, who was not as pronounced a serve-and-volley player as McEnroe, was able to use the technique because he had an overwhelming serve that produced fewer quality returns than almost any other player of his time. In contrast, McEnroe had a less-inspired service game, which would have been flayed by passing shots from stronger players wielding high-powered racquets. We're dealing here with the differences in equipment as if such differences dictate the quality of the player. When Rocket Rod was in his prime, his forearm was larger than that of the reigning heavyweight champion of the world. Don't you think such strength would have created as much power as "the rog", or that modern racquets would have created an even more impressive "serve and volley" game from McEnroe?

As someone recently pointed out, the greatest men's doubles team would have been John McEnroe AND ANYONE ELSE.




I thought you said he looked cool.John Travolta didn't? I always thought he did...



He couldn't.Back to "different equipment". again



He toyed with a 16-year-old kid? Doesn't sound very impressive.Boris Becker was on the verge of winning Wimbledon when he was sixteen. I think its impressive.

MichaelH
09-13-2007, 06:56 AM
I think you mean that Federer in his prime would have McEnroe for lunch....and I'm assuming you wish McEnroe to use the equipment of HIS time while "the rog" gets to use modern equipment. tsk,tsk.

hollywood9826
03-11-2008, 11:59 AM
Thats right post #50 chumps :)

McEnroe would so win in his prime with a Maxply no doubt about it

llgc8080
03-11-2008, 12:15 PM
Agree With Andres Guazelli!!!

Cup8489
03-11-2008, 12:25 PM
As someone recently pointed out, the greatest men's doubles team would have been John McEnroe AND ANYONE ELSE.


i think that this was just spot on...and absolutely hilarious. not because it's a crazy post, b/c it's not. but because its true, and so its funny.

pow
03-11-2008, 12:42 PM
They played two different types of tennis... the racquet difference and style make it unfair to compare the two.

vwfye
03-11-2008, 08:31 PM
was there ever a player that was as good as Mac @ 'serve wide, put away volley to the completely open court'?

i don't believe so... tell me Mac's serve wasn't dominant! it was, just not with a radar gun. since when did dominant mean 'more powerful'?

jasoncho92
03-11-2008, 08:43 PM
I hate ******** threads like this. Other than the fact that it is almost impossible to argue that McEnroe could even win a set against Federer even in his prime, saying that he would beat Federer is absolutely outrageous. Chang is not a very good example; he never won another GS because his playing style couldnt keep up so using him as an example doesnt say much. And why the hell do you want to see him play against WTA players? He could still beat them, but so can every single ATP player.

was there ever a player that was as good as Mac @ 'serve wide, put away volley to the completely open court'?

i don't believe so... tell me Mac's serve wasn't dominant! it was, just not with a radar gun. since when did dominant mean 'more powerful'?
First of all, basic grammar states that you cannot compare an object with a person. Secondly, every pro can put away a volley if there is a completely open court. And lastly, Sampras' serve was infinitely better

And for the oh so prevalent "equipment" argument, McEnroe would have played worse in his prime with a "modern" racket because he was so used to the one he used

vwfye
03-11-2008, 08:57 PM
well you missed my point... mac was the best at hooking a player wide with his serve so that all he had to do was volley to the wide open court.

Petra Martinnen
03-12-2008, 03:42 AM
Ken Rosewall would today be playing Challengers! Tennis may not be popular now in the US but the depth dwarfs what once was! Chrissie, "all time great" would not win a match against a healthy Serena.

Big deal, same in all sports! If Federer has stopped serve and volleying at AELTC, how would Mac do it? Answer: he wouldn't and couldn't nor bash from baseline like a dozen guys today. But aren't you glad tennis is better today than in yesteryear???

Azzurri
03-12-2008, 06:44 AM
Doubtless, McEnroe was a great volleyer, but serve-and-volley tennis isn't nearly as effective now as in years past because of the advances in racquet technology and weight training. Sampras, who was not as pronounced a serve-and-volley player as McEnroe, was able to use the technique because he had an overwhelming serve that produced fewer quality returns than almost any other player of his time. In contrast, McEnroe had a less-inspired service game, which would have been flayed by passing shots from stronger players wielding high-powered racquets.



I thought you said he looked cool.



He couldn't.



He toyed with a 16-year-old kid? Doesn't sound very impressive.


Has very little to do with either. Slower courts, Lux strings and lighter ball contributed to the fall of the S&V style. Nothing to do w/the racquet and certainly not training.

Azzurri
03-12-2008, 07:09 AM
I hate ******** threads like this. Other than the fact that it is almost impossible to argue that McEnroe could even win a set against Federer even in his prime, saying that he would beat Federer is absolutely outrageous. Chang is not a very good example; he never won another GS because his playing style couldnt keep up so using him as an example doesnt say much. And why the hell do you want to see him play against WTA players? He could still beat them, but so can every single ATP player.


First of all, basic grammar states that you cannot compare an object with a person. Secondly, every pro can put away a volley if there is a completely open court. And lastly, Sampras' serve was infinitely better

And for the oh so prevalent "equipment" argument, McEnroe would have played worse in his prime with a "modern" racket because he was so used to the one he used

Stopped reading your post at this point. If you think Mac could not take a set from Fed it just shows you are clueless about Mac and the player he was. Since you are clueless, why not ignore the thread and not post. makes you look really dim-witted.

lambielspins
03-12-2008, 07:19 AM
These kind of over-the-top threads with extreme statements involving two of the all time greatest players are just ridiculous. I dont know if there is a group of you that just go out of your way to look for attention, or some of you are truly this stuipd.

lambielspins
03-12-2008, 07:24 AM
As for the whole Lendl thing, Mac owned Lendl until he married and burned out.

You have to be joking. OK it is true that McEnroe owned Lendl was 83-84 when he won 10 of their 12 matches, but Lendl also beat McEnroe 7 times in a row in 1981-1982.

strike
03-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Their both great, but look at the competition each faced.

McEnroe: Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, etc.

Federer: Roddick, Blake, Nadal, Nalbandian, very depleted Agassi

Come on....there is no comparison.

It was recently paralleled in another Sampras vs. Federer post, that Fed has had the luck of not having any great competition other than at the French. McEnroe had much more competition. In those days the Finals, Semifinals, and sometimes Quarters were matches worthy of finals.

Throw Federer into any time period and he is one of the greats. Likewise, take a great from another time period and place them in Federers time (up until now), I wager you get similar results.

Azzurri
03-12-2008, 09:30 AM
Their both great, but look at the competition each faced.

McEnroe: Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, etc.

Federer: Roddick, Blake, Nadal, Nalbandian, very depleted Agassi

Come on....there is no comparison.

It was recently paralleled in another Sampras vs. Federer post, that Fed has had the luck of not having any great competition other than at the French. McEnroe had much more competition. In those days the Finals, Semifinals, and sometimes Quarters were matches worthy of finals.

Throw Federer into any time period and he is one of the greats. Likewise, take a great from another time period and place them in Federers time (up until now), I wager you get similar results.

There is no doubt Mac had the better competition..NO DOUBT, but Federer may also be so good that players like Roddick look pale in comparison to him. Since Agassi left, there are only 2 great champions, Fed and Nadal (only FO for now), so with those two winning and or playing each other for many titles over the previosu 3-4 years, kinda makes it seem like today's competition is paltry to Mac's. There are two sides to this arguement.

My side? I go with Mac having better competition. The fact that Fed has dominated this field for 4 plus years shows (to me) how the game has suffered when they slowed the courts and the balls, advent of the Lux string and the demolition of the S&V. Federer just plays clones all day, every day. A guy like Edberg or Sampras would give Fed lots of problems, but todays condition don't warrant that type of play. If you take the Fed of the past 4 years and drop him to play in the years 1986-1990 or 1992-1996, he would have 3-4 majors (no Wimby and FO).

lambielspins
03-12-2008, 09:39 AM
Their both great, but look at the competition each faced.

McEnroe: Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, etc.

Federer: Roddick, Blake, Nadal, Nalbandian, very depleted Agassi

Come on....there is no comparison.

It was recently paralleled in another Sampras vs. Federer post, that Fed has had the luck of not having any great competition other than at the French. McEnroe had much more competition. In those days the Finals, Semifinals, and sometimes Quarters were matches worthy of finals.

Throw Federer into any time period and he is one of the greats. Likewise, take a great from another time period and place them in Federers time (up until now), I wager you get similar results.

While I agree McEnroe had the tougher competition the way you list it out like that is very much slanting the truth. Edberg and Becker were not even close to their primes at anytime from 1979-1984 when McEnroe won all his slam titles. They were no closer to their best then Agassi was from 2003-2005 in fact, in fact probably even alot further.

Also if you are going to include Borg or Wilander as McEnroe competition, when they were only in their primes together for 2 or 3 years, then you must also include Hewitt (2003-2005), Safin (2004-2005), and Djokovic (2006-2007) as competition for Federer. To include Blake on the list and not include them is ridiculous.

Azzurri
03-12-2008, 10:24 AM
While I agree McEnroe had the tougher competition the way you list it out like that is very much slanting the truth. Edberg and Becker were not even close to their primes at anytime from 1979-1984 when McEnroe won all his slam titles. They were no closer to their best then Agassi was from 2003-2005 in fact, in fact probably even alot further.

Also if you are going to include Borg or Wilander as McEnroe competition, when they were only in their primes together for 2 or 3 years, then you must also include Hewitt (2003-2005), Safin (2004-2005), and Djokovic (2006-2007) as competition for Federer. To include Blake on the list and not include them is ridiculous.

Becker won Wimby when Mac was 25 years old. While Mac was not as good after 1984, he certainly was no clouch. Becker was part of Mac's playing days from 25-30 (when Mac could compete for a GS title).

Wilander won 4 majors between 1982-1985. So how can you discount Wilander?? Mac hit his peak in 1984, so you cannot dismiss Wilander if you want to mention 2 time winner Safin (who is a joke), Hewitt and a Novak. You cannot compare those three to Wilander and Becker who were great players while Mac was still in his mid 20's. Not over the hill by any means.

Edberg was a little later..yes. But same as Novak he won 1 major prior to Mac turning 28 (just like Fed and Novak).

strike
03-12-2008, 10:27 AM
When you limit McEnroe's career to just '79 - 84, that is bound to happen since your only giving him 5 years, and thus there were only so many grand slam champions in those 5 years.

His career however lasted up until '92, in which he made the semis of Wimbledon, losing to Agassi. Like I said, Fed is great, but let's see where he is at year 13 of his career.

btw - Wilander definitely warrants inclusion. He won grand slams during Macs prime years, as well as up until the end of his career. Wilander was also one of the few champions to win consistently both on clay and grass; and hardcourt (later in Australia & US).
'82 French champion
'83 French runner up to Noah
'83 Australian champion (grass)
'84 Australian champion (grass)
'85 French champion
'85 French runner up to Edberg

lambielspins
03-12-2008, 10:58 AM
When you limit McEnroe's career to just '79 - 84, that is bound to happen since your only giving him 5 years, and thus there were only so many grand slam champions in those 5 years.

His career however lasted up until '92, in which he made the semis of Wimbledon, losing to Agassi. Like I said, Fed is great, but let's see where he is at year 13 of his career.


:rolleyes: What a joke. If you are using that f$cked up logic then you might as well include Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, as Federer competition just because Federer made the quarters of both the French Open and Wimbledon in 2001, and beat Sampras at Wimbledon, and all those players except Sampras were still in their primes at that point.

Also if you are going to in the future include all the competition until whenever Federer retires, if he merely makes the occasional last unlikely run to a slam semifinal, then there are a ton more players who are going to be added to the list too. You say it is unfair of me to limit McEnroe to just 1979-1984, but Federer at this point is limited to only 2003-early 2008, even slightly less time.

Again I do agree McEnroe had harder competition but your so called lists of main competition for both are a true joke.

lambielspins
03-12-2008, 11:03 AM
Becker won Wimby when Mac was 25 years old. While Mac was not as good after 1984, he certainly was no clouch. Becker was part of Mac's playing days from 25-30 (when Mac could compete for a GS title).

Becker ended 1984, the year McEnroe won his last slam, outside the top 60. He is even less of a McEnroe contemporary then Agassi is a Federer contemporary.

Wilander won 4 majors between 1982-1985. So how can you discount Wilander??

I didnt discount him. I said he was only in his prime with McEnroe together only 2 or 3 years, just like Safin and Hewitt were with Federer. So they should be on the list of Federer competition if Wilander is going to be on the list of McEnroe competition, yet they are mysteriously excluded for the likes of James Blake and David Nalbandian for some reason.

Edberg was a little later..yes. But same as Novak he won 1 major prior to Mac turning 28 (just like Fed and Novak).

Age alone means nothing, McEnroe was long past winning at 28. Novak was reaching the semis and finals of the French, Wimbledon, and U.S Open the same year Federer won 3 of the 4 slams, then started the next year beating Federer on the way to winning the Australian Open. To consider Edberg a contemporary of McEnroe, yet Djokovic not a contemporary of Federer is outrageously twisted logic.

strike
03-12-2008, 11:27 AM
Unfortunately that is what you get when you compare one athlete who is in their prime with another who has already completed their career.

Sorry, just a fact of life.

Anyhow, you win. Federer RULES ALL!!!!! :razz:

lambielspins
03-12-2008, 11:54 AM
Unfortunately that is what you get when you compare one athlete who is in their prime with another who has already completed their career.

Sorry, just a fact of life.

Anyhow, you win. Federer RULES ALL!!!!! :razz:

Hey dont go overboard here. I did admit McEnroe clearly had the tougher competition. :twisted: I just would think it would be more fair looking like this is we apply the same standards:

McEnroe- Wilander, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Vilas
Federer- Nadal, Hewitt, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin

As you can see the McEnroe group is still infinitely superior as we speak, which I never questioned. I just did not understand by what standards you could come up with Becker or Edberg as McEnroe contemparies, while Hewitt and Safin and even Djokovic supposably never were Federer contemparies; and how on earth James freaking Blake, a guy with only 3 slam quarterfinals, and hardly any time in the top 10, is on the short list of main Federer rivals. That is all.

Azzurri
03-12-2008, 06:28 PM
Becker ended 1984, the year McEnroe won his last slam, outside the top 60. He is even less of a McEnroe contemporary then Agassi is a Federer contemporary.



I didnt discount him. I said he was only in his prime with McEnroe together only 2 or 3 years, just like Safin and Hewitt were with Federer. So they should be on the list of Federer competition if Wilander is going to be on the list of McEnroe competition, yet they are mysteriously excluded for the likes of James Blake and David Nalbandian for some reason.



Age alone means nothing, McEnroe was long past winning at 28. Novak was reaching the semis and finals of the French, Wimbledon, and U.S Open the same year Federer won 3 of the 4 slams, then started the next year beating Federer on the way to winning the Australian Open. To consider Edberg a contemporary of McEnroe, yet Djokovic not a contemporary of Federer is outrageously twisted logic.

Becker played and won majors while Mac was aged 25-30..my point is a fact. What you don't get is beyond me.

The rest of your post was utterly confusing and made no sense. Sorry.

Azzurri
03-12-2008, 06:39 PM
Hey dont go overboard here. I did admit McEnroe clearly had the tougher competition. :twisted: I just would think it would be more fair looking like this is we apply the same standards:

McEnroe- Wilander, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Vilas
Federer- Nadal, Hewitt, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin

As you can see the McEnroe group is still infinitely superior as we speak, which I never questioned. I just did not understand by what standards you could come up with Becker or Edberg as McEnroe contemparies, while Hewitt and Safin and even Djokovic supposably never were Federer contemparies; and how on earth James freaking Blake, a guy with only 3 slam quarterfinals, and hardly any time in the top 10, is on the short list of main Federer rivals. That is all.

This post makes more sense...yes, Edberg was not yet a great player, but I still disagree abiout Becker. Mac was still a great player well into 1990...so Becker is one of his contemparies. They played 10 times (Becker 8-2) and Mac won in 85 and as far as 1992, so how can you say that Becker is not one of his contempries?

Fed vs Safin 8-2 (same as Beck and Mac)...if you use Safin why not Becker for Mac?

BounceHitBounceHit
03-12-2008, 06:40 PM
Federer is simply the logical progression of what has happened in the game over the past 20-30 years. He is a TRUE all court player who can play all the shots from any part of the court. His 'tennis smarts' are unparalleled, and strategically he has no peer. No one has ever thought their way through a match like Fed can. Additionally, he has power, speed, and an INCREDIBLE serve game. Notice I said 'serve game' and NOT serve. Sampras had the best SERVE, ever. Federer has the best HOLD GAME, ever. ;) CC

samster
03-12-2008, 07:31 PM
Mac in 1984 was just sick. He was unstoppable.

superman1
03-12-2008, 09:27 PM
Federer: Roddick, Blake, Nadal, Nalbandian, very depleted Agassi


Very depleted Agassi? No. Maybe in the 4th set of their US Open final, but Agassi was a freak of nature who never really faded in quality of play until he started having the back problems. He wasn't quite as quick, but the new technology and slower courts suited him perfectly, so it was kind of a balancing act. I give Federer full credit for beating Agassi so many times, and most of their matches were some of the best baseline play I've seen.

saram
03-12-2008, 09:51 PM
Federer is simply the logical progression of what has happened in the game over the past 20-30 years. He is a TRUE all court player who can play all the shots from any part of the court. His 'tennis smarts' are unparalleled, and strategically he has no peer. No one has ever thought their way through a match like Fed can. Additionally, he has power, speed, and an INCREDIBLE serve game. Notice I said 'serve game' and NOT serve. Sampras had the best SERVE, ever. Federer has the best HOLD GAME, ever. ;) CC

I couldn't agree more with any post in this thread....

superman1
03-13-2008, 01:15 AM
Best hold game ever? Ehh...he gets broken his share of times. Especially against Davydenko.

zagor
03-13-2008, 02:36 AM
Federer is simply the logical progression of what has happened in the game over the past 20-30 years. He is a TRUE all court player who can play all the shots from any part of the court. His 'tennis smarts' are unparalleled, and strategically he has no peer. No one has ever thought their way through a match like Fed can. Additionally, he has power, speed, and an INCREDIBLE serve game. Notice I said 'serve game' and NOT serve. Sampras had the best SERVE, ever. Federer has the best HOLD GAME, ever. ;) CC

The only good post in this thread.

Andres
03-13-2008, 04:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TCOOxcFn8w&feature=related

Forget about the first part of the vid. Check the video around 0:45 and watch that drop volley. I thought it was going 4 feet out when he struck the ball. Amazing. Insane touch, even at 45 years old.

my_forehand
03-13-2008, 04:36 AM
..Nice find Andres! :)

strike
03-13-2008, 07:22 AM
Federer is simply the logical progression of what has happened in the game over the past 20-30 years. He is a TRUE all court player who can play all the shots from any part of the court. His 'tennis smarts' are unparalleled, and strategically he has no peer. No one has ever thought their way through a match like Fed can. Additionally, he has power, speed, and an INCREDIBLE serve game. Notice I said 'serve game' and NOT serve. Sampras had the best SERVE, ever. Federer has the best HOLD GAME, ever. ;) CC

I think anointing Federer the best ever title is a bit premature (if that is indeed your point). For those of us that have been around long enough to see a few dominant number ones, these discussions I find very interesting. I thought McEnroe was the best during his heyday. Then he was eclipsed by Sampras, now comes Fed. I still think Mac possibly had the most touch of any player in history. Granted I would say Federer's career is and will definitely be more successful than Macs, but I am not ready to anoint him the best ever title just quite yet. He still hasn't won The Grand Slam. And most likely won't. See Rod Laver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver#Place_among_the_all-time_great_tennis_players) for the best ever title.

- btw, I'm fine with your modified list of competitors for both Fed and Mac, I think my point still stands.

the green god
03-13-2008, 09:48 AM
He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever.

I cannot get the thought of Mcenroe walking down the street with a paint can out of my head.

CAM178
03-13-2008, 10:00 AM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this. No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.
Ummm. . . yeah. . . . it miiiiiiight be time for you to get drug tested. Mac was great. One of the best ever. And on his best days ('84 Wimby), he was scary good. But Fed is another level above that, which in and of itself is scary. Mac was not a great defensive player, and Fed is an amazing defensive player. He's one of the few guys I've seen who can turn a very defensive position into offense in one shot. And to be able to do it on a whim, as Fed does, is scary.

hoodjem
03-13-2008, 10:36 AM
Mac was great. One of the best ever. And on his best days ('84 Wimby), he was scary good.

Was Mac playing with the graphite Dunlop in '84?

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 10:38 AM
The only good post in this thread.

Must feel good to the smartest person on this forum.

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 10:40 AM
Federer is simply the logical progression of what has happened in the game over the past 20-30 years. He is a TRUE all court player who can play all the shots from any part of the court. His 'tennis smarts' are unparalleled, and strategically he has no peer. No one has ever thought their way through a match like Fed can. Additionally, he has power, speed, and an INCREDIBLE serve game. Notice I said 'serve game' and NOT serve. Sampras had the best SERVE, ever. Federer has the best HOLD GAME, ever. ;) CC

I agreed with your entire post except for this, not that you are wrong, but more so in that I don't really understand it. To me, the best at holding serve the past 6 years is Roddick..correct? If you would please, provide a bit more detail as to why Federer is the best holder of serve. Thanks CC.:)

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 10:48 AM
Ummm. . . yeah. . . . it miiiiiiight be time for you to get drug tested. Mac was great. One of the best ever. And on his best days ('84 Wimby), he was scary good. But Fed is another level above that, which in and of itself is scary. Mac was not a great defensive player, and Fed is an amazing defensive player. He's one of the few guys I've seen who can turn a very defensive position into offense in one shot. And to be able to do it on a whim, as Fed does, is scary.

maaaayyybe you need some medicine yourself. Now you are taking one GS tourney (2 weeks) and using THAT as your example??? That is a lot of cold syrup you're drinking. You cannot possibly compare 2 greats based on on tourney. First off, it was 24 years ago!!!! As if you remember it or even watched it. You come off as pretty condescending to the OP and for what reason? Its his opinion...

Defensive??? Are you kidding me? The guy took on guys like Borg and Connors..and he is not able to be defensive? That is why I believe you really never watched Mac play back then. He could take the power AWAY from players back then. He made EVERYONE look silly (especially in 84).

The game is different than when Mac played. 99% of the players today are one-dimensional. I still think Fed is probably...probably the best ever. But to poo-poo Mac that way when you are talking about a clinic he served in 84 and then use that to compare him to Fed and throw it under the rug?? You may need to sober up.

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Was Mac playing with the graphite Dunlop in '84?

yes, that was his full first year using the 200g...I remember because I had a paper route at that time and was able to afford them. I remember paying $79 each for them.

zagor
03-13-2008, 12:25 PM
Must feel good to the smartest person on this forum.

Compared to some of your comments like Fed would win 3 slams (no Wimbledon) I actually feel pretty smart.Mcenroe was magical in 1984 and in that year he was the best player ever but to say that Federer would be able to go toe to toe with Mcenroe,Sampras,Becker,Edberg is ridicilous.Those guys are legends there is no doubt about that but so is Federer.I still consider Sampras the better grasscourter but not by much and he would have his hands fulll with Fed on grass.IMO Sampras would probably end up with more Wimbledons but to say Federer wouldn't take a couple of Wimbledons away from him is ignorant.

Ultra2HolyGrail
03-13-2008, 01:33 PM
To me, the best at holding serve the past 6 years is Roddick..correct? If you would please, provide a bit more detail as to why Federer is the best holder of serve

At wimbledon fed's serve is tough to break. His serve is better than what most credit him for. It's a major weapon of his. Better than roddick? Not pure power, but at critical times in a match fed has a nack of hitting great accurate serves.

Legend of Borg
03-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this.

No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.



How about a man called Stefan Edberg? He was considered to be one of the elite serve and volleyers. Edberg was more mechanical when coming to net, but deadly nonetheless.

CAM178
03-13-2008, 02:02 PM
maaaayyybe you need some medicine yourself. Now you are taking one GS tourney (2 weeks) and using THAT as your example??? That is a lot of cold syrup you're drinking. You cannot possibly compare 2 greats based on on tourney. First off, it was 24 years ago!!!! As if you remember it or even watched it. You come off as pretty condescending to the OP and for what reason? Its his opinion...

Defensive??? Are you kidding me? The guy took on guys like Borg and Connors..and he is not able to be defensive? That is why I believe you really never watched Mac play back then. He could take the power AWAY from players back then. He made EVERYONE look silly (especially in 84).

The game is different than when Mac played. 99% of the players today are one-dimensional. I still think Fed is probably...probably the best ever. But to poo-poo Mac that way when you are talking about a clinic he served in 84 and then use that to compare him to Fed and throw it under the rug?? You may need to sober up.
Dude, I'm 36. . . yeah, I was watching Mac back then. Any other foolish comments you'd like to make without knowing me at all? And hello McFly: this thread is ABOUT players from different generations. If I don't compare something from 24 years ago (Mac at his prime), what am I supposed to use for comparison? Mac's performance on the Black Rock Tour? And if you gave it some thought, you would realize that I was using Wimby because that is where Fed & Mac have had their best results. It's where they have been their most dominant. I did not mean to come off as condescending to the OP. But you obviously did mean to come off as a d**k. That's pretty uncool. I'm not drinking anything, so cut the rude comments. And look no further than Mac's repeated comments about Fed, saying that Fed is the best ever. And you are going to try and compare Fed's level of defense to Mac's? Now who's smoking something. . .

Benhur
03-13-2008, 02:18 PM
McEnroe at his peak (probably '84) may have been the greatest tennis player ever. All you have to do is watch some tennis. No one could match his touch. Ever.

As for the whole Lendl thing, Mac owned Lendl until he married and burned out. Mac had his 5 years of superstardom. Lendl followed up with his own.

I don’t mean to be picky, but your last statement is a big exaggeration. If you consider McEnroe’s marriage the breaking point, then we obtain:

Head to head up to Mac’s marrying Tatum in August 1986: Mac 14, Lendl 12
Now, 14-12 is hardly “owning” no matter how you look at it. (I accept no restrictions on this assesment.)

Head to head after Mac’s marrying Tatum: 9-1 for Lendl. Yes, that’s owning.

A more sensitive way to look at their head to head is to break it into three periods.

1.- 1980 through 1982, 3 years: Lendl owned McEnroe (7-2)
2.- 1983 through 1984, 2 years: McEnroe owned Lendl (10-2)
3.- 1985 through 1992, 7 years: Lendl owned McEnroe (12-3)

So Mac clearly dominated 2 out of these three periods. The first two were kind of split.

Even if you dismiss Mac’s career entirely after 1984 (an approach I do not accept, as he was only 25, and he did try hard to get back into it after he took 6 months off, at least during 1987-89) the score would still very close, not “owning” (12-9).

In sum, the only period when Mac owned Lendl was 1983-84. I agree with you that in that period, *especially 1984*, McEnroe may have been close to the best tennis player ever. I agree he was unbelievable, in a class all his own.

But I also think Lendl was close to that mark in his 1985-87 years, especially 1986. His play during those years reminds me a lot of Federer when he chooses to crucify opponents from the baseline.

The thing with Lendl is that his career is more like a high plateau with slight undulations, whereas Mac is is a sharp impressive 1-2 year mountain peak. Or: Mac was a burning meteor, shining briefly but with dazzling brightness, whereas Lendl was a massive planet, like Jupiter, silently going about his majestic long orbit.

Benhur
03-13-2008, 02:20 PM
1.- 1980 through 1982, 3 years: Lendl owned McEnroe (7-2)
2.- 1983 through 1984, 2 years: McEnroe owned Lendl (10-2)
3.- 1985 through 1992, 7 years: Lendl owned McEnroe (12-3)

So Mac clearly dominated 2 out of these three periods. The first two were kind of split.


Meant to say "Lendl clearly dominated..." of course.

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 04:17 PM
Compared to some of your comments like Fed would win 3 slams (no Wimbledon) I actually feel pretty smart.Mcenroe was magical in 1984 and in that year he was the best player ever but to say that Federer would be able to go toe to toe with Mcenroe,Sampras,Becker,Edberg is ridicilous.Those guys are legends there is no doubt about that but so is Federer.I still consider Sampras the better grasscourter but not by much and he would have his hands fulll with Fed on grass.IMO Sampras would probably end up with more Wimbledons but to say Federer wouldn't take a couple of Wimbledons away from him is ignorant.

You are obviously new to tennis. First off, Fed has won all his Wimby titles on a grass court slower than the US Open court. That is a FACT.

The years 85-00 had a collection of the greatest grass-court players maybe in the history of tennis (or at least in my life time). Becker, Edberg, Mac and Sampras (who was 7-0 in W finals) are better grass court players (the fast grass of original W) over the past 25 years. Fed has beaten Nadal and Roddick for 4 of his wins. Hardly grass court players...in fact, they are NOT grass court players. You stick Nadal or Roddick on grass from 85-00, they would not make it past the 4th round (Nadal maybe the 2nd). So because you are obviously clueless about the history of tennis, I won't argue with someone as ignorant as you. I am trying to learn that people that have no clue what they are talking about provides a no win arguement.

Sampras not much better???? You don't even know they played on 2 completely different speeds at Wimbledon. Do you realize that? If you don't, then I won't bother with explaining why Pete is heads above Fed at Wimbledon.

Lastly...you should re-read everything twice from now on. I said Fed is probably the greatest player (all-around) of all time.

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 04:19 PM
At wimbledon fed's serve is tough to break. His serve is better than what most credit him for. It's a major weapon of his. Better than roddick? Not pure power, but at critical times in a match fed has a nack of hitting great accurate serves.

Thanks, but was asking CC.

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 04:21 PM
How about a man called Stefan Edberg? He was considered to be one of the elite serve and volleyers. Edberg was more mechanical when coming to net, but deadly nonetheless.

I agree. Edberg was just as good as Mac. Mac was just more natural looking and Edberg was like the guy in the magazine that look perfect when volleying. If I had to pick one, it would be Mac. I think he had more feel, quicker, better hands and a better serve, but that also shows how gifted Edberg was. He had a good serve, but not Mac's ability to serve out wide. But Edberg was quicker. Too close to call really, but again if I HAD to choose it would be my idol.

Azzurri
03-13-2008, 04:24 PM
Dude, I'm 36. . . yeah, I was watching Mac back then. Any other foolish comments you'd like to make without knowing me at all? And hello McFly: this thread is ABOUT players from different generations. If I don't compare something from 24 years ago (Mac at his prime), what am I supposed to use for comparison? Mac's performance on the Black Rock Tour? And if you gave it some thought, you would realize that I was using Wimby because that is where Fed & Mac have had their best results. It's where they have been their most dominant. I did not mean to come off as condescending to the OP. But you obviously did mean to come off as a d**k. That's pretty uncool. I'm not drinking anything, so cut the rude comments. And look no further than Mac's repeated comments about Fed, saying that Fed is the best ever. And you are going to try and compare Fed's level of defense to Mac's? Now who's smoking something. . .

sorry, but I don't think you watched Mac play. Don't really care what you think.

CyBorg
03-13-2008, 04:36 PM
I don’t mean to be picky, but your last statement is a big exaggeration. If you consider McEnroe’s marriage the breaking point, then we obtain:

Head to head up to Mac’s marrying Tatum in August 1986: Mac 14, Lendl 12
Now, 14-12 is hardly “owning” no matter how you look at it. (I accept no restrictions on this assesment.)

Head to head after Mac’s marrying Tatum: 9-1 for Lendl. Yes, that’s owning.

A more sensitive way to look at their head to head is to break it into three periods.

1.- 1980 through 1982, 3 years: Lendl owned McEnroe (7-2)
2.- 1983 through 1984, 2 years: McEnroe owned Lendl (10-2)
3.- 1985 through 1992, 7 years: Lendl owned McEnroe (12-3)

So Mac clearly dominated 2 out of these three periods. The first two were kind of split.

Even if you dismiss Mac’s career entirely after 1984 (an approach I do not accept, as he was only 25, and he did try hard to get back into it after he took 6 months off, at least during 1987-89) the score would still very close, not “owning” (12-9).

In sum, the only period when Mac owned Lendl was 1983-84. I agree with you that in that period, *especially 1984*, McEnroe may have been close to the best tennis player ever. I agree he was unbelievable, in a class all his own.

But I also think Lendl was close to that mark in his 1985-87 years, especially 1986. His play during those years reminds me a lot of Federer when he chooses to crucify opponents from the baseline.

The thing with Lendl is that his career is more like a high plateau with slight undulations, whereas Mac is is a sharp impressive 1-2 year mountain peak. Or: Mac was a burning meteor, shining briefly but with dazzling brightness, whereas Lendl was a massive planet, like Jupiter, silently going about his majestic long orbit.

Good post.

zagor
03-13-2008, 06:46 PM
You are obviously new to tennis. First off, Fed has won all his Wimby titles on a grass court slower than the US Open court. That is a FACT.

The years 85-00 had a collection of the greatest grass-court players maybe in the history of tennis (or at least in my life time). Becker, Edberg, Mac and Sampras (who was 7-0 in W finals) are better grass court players (the fast grass of original W) over the past 25 years. Fed has beaten Nadal and Roddick for 4 of his wins. Hardly grass court players...in fact, they are NOT grass court players. You stick Nadal or Roddick on grass from 85-00, they would not make it past the 4th round (Nadal maybe the 2nd). So because you are obviously clueless about the history of tennis, I won't argue with someone as ignorant as you. I am trying to learn that people that have no clue what they are talking about provides a no win arguement.

Sampras not much better???? You don't even know they played on 2 completely different speeds at Wimbledon. Do you realize that? If you don't, then I won't bother with explaining why Pete is heads above Fed at Wimbledon.

Lastly...you should re-read everything twice from now on. I said Fed is probably the greatest player (all-around) of all time.

LOL you're such an arrogant *******.Yes I realise grass was much faster pre 2002 but Federer would be a great player even on old grass.He has great serve,movement,return of serve,passing shots,solid netplay etc. to be succesfull on old grass.Also you don't have to point out that Sampras was 7-0 in Wimbledon finals when I watched almost his every match at Wimbledon from 1992 (when Goran beat him in semis) till the end of his career.

CAM178
03-13-2008, 07:37 PM
LOL you're such an arrogant *******.
Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks this. slappano is one of these guys who thinks he knows it all. Any who break from his ideology are inferior idiots to him. Sad, really. He's not a very fun person with whom to discuss, as he doesn't care what anyone else in the room thinks, unless it is the same thing that he thinks.

To sum up this thread: Mac himself said that Fed is the best he's ever seen. What else is there to discuss?

vwfye
03-13-2008, 08:59 PM
i would have an easier time accepting Fed's #s if there were compared to a Mac that only played singles... but, let's face it, Mac played singles and doubles and if (as some have argued) Mac wasn't in as good conditioning as Fed, wouldn't attrition play a part in Mac not winning as many titles?

My point is, you can bend and twist most any set of stats to work in your arguement's favor...

jasoncho92
03-13-2008, 09:22 PM
Stopped reading your post at this point. If you think Mac could not take a set from Fed it just shows you are clueless about Mac and the player he was. Since you are clueless, why not ignore the thread and not post. makes you look really dim-witted.
I re-read my post and i was caught up in the moment when i typed that there is no way to argue it, but i still doubt that McEnroe could win a set, and yes i have watched multiple videos of McEnroe.

BTW, instead of trying to force people to see it your way, try to look at theirs for once and then post

BeHappy
03-13-2008, 09:45 PM
I re-read my post and i was caught up in the moment when i typed that there is no way to argue it, but i still doubt that McEnroe could win a set, and yes i have watched multiple videos of McEnroe.

BTW, instead of trying to force people to see it your way, try to look at theirs for once and then post

At his very best, ie, 1984, on a very fast court, pumped full of those steroids that took him to the top,(true!), Mac could be competetive, but he'd still lose more often than not.

vndesu
03-13-2008, 10:05 PM
i never liked mcenroe.
his additude toward tennis is shamful.
he is a commentor for tennis and yet when he plays he cries like a baby.
he needs to grow up.

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 09:12 AM
LOL you're such an arrogant *******.Yes I realise grass was much faster pre 2002 but Federer would be a great player even on old grass.He has great serve,movement,return of serve,passing shots,solid netplay etc. to be succesfull on old grass.Also you don't have to point out that Sampras was 7-0 in Wimbledon finals when I watched almost his every match at Wimbledon from 1992 (when Goran beat him in semis) till the end of his career.

Sampras was 7-0..never lost in a W final. He would have beaten Fed too.

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 09:17 AM
Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks this. slappano is one of these guys who thinks he knows it all. Any who break from his ideology are inferior idiots to him. Sad, really. He's not a very fun person with whom to discuss, as he doesn't care what anyone else in the room thinks, unless it is the same thing that he thinks.

To sum up this thread: Mac himself said that Fed is the best he's ever seen. What else is there to discuss?

I quote YOU "Ummm. . . yeah. . . . it miiiiiiight be time for you to get drug tested."

Now why is it ok for you to insult someone when they were just making a point? You are a hipocrite.

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 09:19 AM
I re-read my post and i was caught up in the moment when i typed that there is no way to argue it, but i still doubt that McEnroe could win a set, and yes i have watched multiple videos of McEnroe.

BTW, instead of trying to force people to see it your way, try to look at theirs for once and then post

I do, honestly. Your comment is just absurd. Mac beat some of the greatest players ever and you don't think he would take a set from Federer? I'm sorry, but your view is not very realistic. You saw videos?? You mean like YouTube and some old VCR tapes?

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 09:20 AM
At his very best, ie, 1984, on a very fast court, pumped full of those steroids that took him to the top,(true!), Mac could be competetive, but he'd still lose more often than not.

'roids..I thought he took those in 1986 or so...

To Federer?

Ultra2HolyGrail
03-14-2008, 09:46 AM
I do, honestly. Your comment is just absurd. Mac beat some of the greatest players ever and you don't think he would take a set from Federer? I'm sorry, but your view is not very realistic. You saw videos?? You mean like YouTube and some old VCR tapes?


Mcenroe against federer? Sorry i cant help this but umm, time to seek a professional.

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 09:53 AM
Mcenroe against federer? Sorry i cant help this but umm, time to seek a professional.

maybe you could recommend me one. Considering the way you post everywhere around here you are bound to have a few.

peluzon
03-14-2008, 10:01 AM
If John McEnroe can't even beat Marcelo Rios, what makes you think he could beat Roger Federer?

classic stupid post about Rios ,,, its so sad the jealous that argentinans has for the Master Rios ,,, you should go to live with Drakulie and think about Rios all day.


Mc Enroe is 17 years older than Rios , so it was not a fear match.

Anyway they played a fun tennis match in Portugal the last year

Click on the picture to download the higlights

Regards


http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4185/riosmcenroeak4.jpg (http://rapidshare.com/files/34899207/Rios_McEnroe_Set_1_Portugal_2006.wmv.html)

ksbh
03-14-2008, 10:46 AM
Slappano ... trying to have an intelligent conversation about Federer with a Fedophile? Good luck! Will make for some amusing reading though!

I quote YOU "Ummm. . . yeah. . . . it miiiiiiight be time for you to get drug tested."

Now why is it ok for you to insult someone when they were just making a point? You are a hipocrite.

Leelord337
03-14-2008, 10:46 AM
You know that John Mcenroe beat Andy Murray in Superset Tennis in an set in 2004. I think pretty convincingly too like 6-1.

"British youngster Andrew Murray also took part but was beaten 6-1 in just 24 minutes by McEnroe in the first round.

"Murray is the type of player I hope I will be involved with because I think he has the potential to be a good player," said McEnroe. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/3712346.stm

Just recently Andy Murray beat Roger Federer in Dubai, so this is possible:

Mcenroe > Murray > Federer

Leelord337
03-14-2008, 10:50 AM
classic stupid post about Rios ,,, its so sad the jealous that argentinans has for the Master Rios ,,, you should go to live with Drakulie and think about Rios all day.


Mc Enroe is 17 years older than Rios , so it was not a fear match.

Anyway they played a fun tennis match in Portugal the last year

Click on the picture to download the higlights

Regards


http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4185/riosmcenroeak4.jpg (http://rapidshare.com/files/34899207/Rios_McEnroe_Set_1_Portugal_2006.wmv.html)

awesome! thx for the video

peluzon
03-14-2008, 11:07 AM
Mcenroe > Murray > Federer


Chile beats Brasil 4-0 in soccer some time ago

so


Chile > Brasil = 5 times World soccer Champions

:)

thank you leelord , you are the man

NamRanger
03-14-2008, 12:34 PM
Stopped reading your post at this point. If you think Mac could not take a set from Fed it just shows you are clueless about Mac and the player he was. Since you are clueless, why not ignore the thread and not post. makes you look really dim-witted.


It would heavily depend on the surface. For Mac to have a solid chance of winning a set, it would have to be an extremely fast surface, such as indoor carpet, pre 2002 grass, or oldschool US Open HCs that were BLAZING fast. That or they could play on wood.



If we put Mac against Fed on any medium paced surface, Federer would eat him up. Johnny Mac has great touch, but Federer would not give him the angles to work with in the first place.


I do agree John McEnroe has a chance, a slim one at that, but with the right conditions, it would be possible for John to beat Federer.



Remember, Federer has always had some trouble with S&V players. For awhile Tim Henman owned him. Roddick nearly beat him at the 2006 TMC by pure S&V, and he sucks at volleying.

lambielspins
03-14-2008, 01:11 PM
Remember, Federer has always had some trouble with S&V players. For awhile Tim Henman owned him. Roddick nearly beat him at the 2006 TMC by pure S&V, and he sucks at volleying.

Roddick not did not just pure S&V at the 2006 TMC. He was ripping his forehand from the backcourt and serving huge in that match. He mostly charged in off a big forehand, he didnt do alot of pure S&V.

Roger began to own Tim in 2004 when he began his prime as a player even though Henman had maybe his best ever year in 2004. Henman only did well vs a lesser version of Roger who was also owned by people like Hewitt and Nalbandian too. I do agree Roger might have had trouble with serve-volleyers but they would have had to be a heck of alot better then Henman, which of course McEnroe is.

Babb
03-14-2008, 01:31 PM
This is an easy one to answer. I've bold printed and underlined the answer which is provided within your original post.

As for your thoughts, what you're basically saying is that you know more about John McEnroe, then John McEnroe knows about himself.

Jukka

I agree! That's true.

the green god
03-14-2008, 01:36 PM
Put wood in their hands and it is a whole other story. Advantage Mcenroe.

NamRanger
03-14-2008, 04:31 PM
Roddick not did not just pure S&V at the 2006 TMC. He was ripping his forehand from the backcourt and serving huge in that match. He mostly charged in off a big forehand, he didnt do alot of pure S&V.

Roger began to own Tim in 2004 when he began his prime as a player even though Henman had maybe his best ever year in 2004. Henman only did well vs a lesser version of Roger who was also owned by people like Hewitt and Nalbandian too. I do agree Roger might have had trouble with serve-volleyers but they would have had to be a heck of alot better then Henman, which of course McEnroe is.



I'd hardly call that Roddick ripping his forehand. He placed his groundstrokes well, and did alot of S&Ving. Came to net plenty of times and frustrated Federer.

Benhur
03-14-2008, 04:49 PM
People seem to believe that humans have a tennis gene, or set of genes, that mutate every 5 or 10 years to create players undreamed of in the past. Even if such a gene existed (it doesn't), evolution moves at a much more glacier-like pace. Even in sports in which physical performance comprises about 100% of the outcome (track and field, say) progress occurs not through evolution but through training techniques. In tennis, physical performance is only a relatively small part of the outcome. Most players have a very similar level of physical conditioning, and many are probably in better physical shape than Federer, just like many were in better shape than Mac in his time. But that can only bring you so far. Ability, dexterity, has always been the main differentiator in tennis. It so happens that innate ability, dexterity, does not improve from one generation to the next. That's nonsense. Notions of current sports stars being somehow extraterrestrial -- Federer being a demi-god, or Nadal being a "freak of nature" etc. -- in comparison with their hominid ancestors of 20years ago, are fantasies entertained by easily impressionable children who grow up on video games and the notion of eternal progress.

The only way these questions can be approached meaningfully is by assuming that the players to be compared learned the game in the same period and with similar equipment. So: assume Federer was born the same year as Mac, or Mac the same year as Federer, and they learned the game in the same era. Then you are comparing talents, abilities.

I see no reason to suppose that McEnroe, in his prime, had less talent and ability than Federer, or any other player who ever played the game, for that matter. It's a given to me that both at their prime, having grown in the same period, would be highly competitive against one another. Neither one would have an easy "lunch" of the other in any systematic way.

That is true not only of McEnroe, but also of the best players of each generation in their prime: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Laver, Gonzales... in their prime would be competitive with any of the top players today, including Federer if assumed to grow up and learn the game in the same era.

Time-tunnel speculations where a player emerges in a different era and is given equipment with which he is not familiar, to play a type of game with which he is not familiar, are meaningless and idle exercises.

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 04:50 PM
It would heavily depend on the surface. For Mac to have a solid chance of winning a set, it would have to be an extremely fast surface, such as indoor carpet, pre 2002 grass, or oldschool US Open HCs that were BLAZING fast. That or they could play on wood.



If we put Mac against Fed on any medium paced surface, Federer would eat him up. Johnny Mac has great touch, but Federer would not give him the angles to work with in the first place.


I do agree John McEnroe has a chance, a slim one at that, but with the right conditions, it would be possible for John to beat Federer.



Remember, Federer has always had some trouble with S&V players. For awhile Tim Henman owned him. Roddick nearly beat him at the 2006 TMC by pure S&V, and he sucks at volleying.

yes, surface is key. Would he take a set off Fed on clay...no, but put him in W or the USO and Mac can beat him. I am also not talking about one match. If I had to pick a one match prime vs prime I would take Fed on all surfaces except W (carpet too), but all other surfaces I would take Fed.

Mac is one of the greatest players of all time. Not to give him enough credit to take a set from Fed is ridiculous.

Azzurri
03-14-2008, 04:57 PM
People seem to believe that humans have a tennis gene, or set of genes, that mutate every 5 or 10 years to create players undreamed of in the past. Even if such a gene existed (it doesn't), evolution moves at a much more glacier-like pace. Even in sports in which physical performance comprises about 100% of the outcome (track and field, say) progress occurs not through evolution but through training techniques. In tennis, physical performance is only a relatively small part of the outcome. Most players have a very similar level of physical conditioning, and many are probably in better physical shape than Federer, just like many were in better shape than Mac in his time. But that can only bring you so far. Ability, dexterity, has always been the main differentiator in tennis. It so happens that innate ability, dexterity, does not improve from one generation to the next. That's nonsense. Notions of current sports stars being somehow extraterrestrial -- Federer being a demi-god, or Nadal being a "freak of nature" etc. -- in comparison with their hominid ancestors of 20years ago, are fantasies entertained by easily impressionable children who grow up on video games and the notion of eternal progress.

The only way these questions can be approached meaningfully is by assuming that the players to be compared learned the game in the same period and with similar equipment. So: assume Federer was born the same year as Mac, or Mac the same year as Federer, and they learned the game in the same era. Then you are comparing talents, abilities.

I see no reason to suppose that McEnroe, in his prime, had less talent and ability than Federer, or any other player who ever played the game, for that matter. It's a given to me that both at their prime, having grown in the same period, would be highly competitive against one another. Neither one would have an easy "lunch" of the other in any systematic way.

That is true not only of McEnroe, but also of the best players of each generation in their prime: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Laver, Gonzales... in their prime would be competitive with any of the top players today, including Federer if assumed to grow up and learn the game in the same era.

Time-tunnel speculations where a player emerges in a different era and is given equipment with which he is not familiar, to play a type of game with which he is not familiar, are meaningless and idle exercises.

Now this statement should end this thread. Very good points!:)

Take a 1936 Jesse Owens and give him the nutrition, technology (maybe roids..:wink:) and training of today's track athletes and he competes with today's greatest track stars. For some to think today;s athletes are so much better than their contempries is niot accurate when the contemprie is given the same training and equipment.

hoodjem
03-15-2008, 08:13 AM
Time-tunnel speculations where a player emerges in a different era and is given equipment with which he is not familiar, to play a type of game with which he is not familiar, are meaningless and idle exercises.

People on this site seem to like "meaningless and idle exercises." (Maybe myself included.) It's fun to play the what-if game, and imagine.

I think prime Mac vs. prime Fed would be a great match: S&V touch versus power precision.

David L
03-15-2008, 04:33 PM
People seem to believe that humans have a tennis gene, or set of genes, that mutate every 5 or 10 years to create players undreamed of in the past. Even if such a gene existed (it doesn't), evolution moves at a much more glacier-like pace. Even in sports in which physical performance comprises about 100% of the outcome (track and field, say) progress occurs not through evolution but through training techniques. In tennis, physical performance is only a relatively small part of the outcome. Most players have a very similar level of physical conditioning, and many are probably in better physical shape than Federer, just like many were in better shape than Mac in his time. But that can only bring you so far. Ability, dexterity, has always been the main differentiator in tennis. It so happens that innate ability, dexterity, does not improve from one generation to the next. That's nonsense. Notions of current sports stars being somehow extraterrestrial -- Federer being a demi-god, or Nadal being a "freak of nature" etc. -- in comparison with their hominid ancestors of 20years ago, are fantasies entertained by easily impressionable children who grow up on video games and the notion of eternal progress.

The only way these questions can be approached meaningfully is by assuming that the players to be compared learned the game in the same period and with similar equipment. So: assume Federer was born the same year as Mac, or Mac the same year as Federer, and they learned the game in the same era. Then you are comparing talents, abilities.

I see no reason to suppose that McEnroe, in his prime, had less talent and ability than Federer, or any other player who ever played the game, for that matter. It's a given to me that both at their prime, having grown in the same period, would be highly competitive against one another. Neither one would have an easy "lunch" of the other in any systematic way.

That is true not only of McEnroe, but also of the best players of each generation in their prime: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Laver, Gonzales... in their prime would be competitive with any of the top players today, including Federer if assumed to grow up and learn the game in the same era.

Time-tunnel speculations where a player emerges in a different era and is given equipment with which he is not familiar, to play a type of game with which he is not familiar, are meaningless and idle exercises.
I would attribute improvements in the game to more than just training methods. While we cannot speak of evolution in the literal biological sense or a tennis gene, there is a form of natural selection going on in the modern game which just did not exist to the same extent in past eras. The genetic pool today is larger, more robust, varied and honed than ever before because the talent pool is much bigger today. You have more people playing tennis, from a wider variety of countries and backgrounds, you have more tennis programs preparing kids from the youngest of ages for a tennis career, the money in the sport draws larger participation, as does the history of the sport and all the publicity it receives, even the ranking system goes much deeper than before. In short, many more numbers and varieties of people are playing tennis. This translates into stiffer competition for everybody and an increase in the general level of talent.

For this reason I would disagree with the idea the talent level at the top remains constant as a rule. To me it seems obvious it can improve or get worse, depending on surrounding circumstances. Today, on a purely theoretical level, I think the likelihood of the talent level being greater far outweigh the likelihood of it being the same or worse. I also disagree with the notion of inevitability, the idea that this or that player would have been great in any era. If by some freak accident all the greats had grown up in the same era, there would be many of them winning a lot less Slams, some might not even win any. Players are only great because of how much they achieve in relation to their peers, not because of predetermination or a greatness gene. Roddick would probably have 4 or 5 Slams by now if Federer had not been born. He would be viewed very differently from the way he is now and would probably be a different person, more secure and confident maybe. Put Federer, Sampras, Becker and McEnroe into the modern era at the same age and I think McEnroe is going to draw the short straw, may not escape with so much as one Wimbledon. McEnroe was and is a great player, but the extent of his achievements would without question vary from era to era, as would all the other players, and some eras would be more fruitful than others.

As for the original claim by djsiva, I think Federer and Sampras would be too much for McEnroe, and McEnroe to his credit acknowledges this. The extent to which an individual can play their game is to some degree controlled by their opponent. McEnroe was a great player, but would only be able to play as well as his opponents game would let him, as is the case for all players. Unlike golf, tennis is codependent, and McEnroe faired better against the likes of Borg and Connors than he did or would have against Becker, Sampras and Federer.

BounceHitBounceHit
03-15-2008, 06:57 PM
Best hold game ever? Ehh...he gets broken his share of times. Especially against Davydenko.

Of course he gets broken. This is the ATP Tour. But the point is that RELATIVE TO OTHER PROS, FedEx's hold game is legendary. No less an authority than Andre Agassi himself has said so on multiple occasions. :) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-15-2008, 06:58 PM
I couldn't agree more with any post in this thread....

Thanks! ;) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-15-2008, 06:59 PM
The only good post in this thread.

Thanks, I appreciate it! :) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-15-2008, 07:02 PM
I would attribute improvements in the game to more than just training methods. While we cannot speak of evolution in the literal biological sense or a tennis gene, there is a form of natural selection going on in the modern game which just did not exist to the same extent in past eras. The genetic pool today is larger, more robust, varied and honed than ever before because the talent pool is much bigger today. You have more people playing tennis, from a wider variety of countries and backgrounds, you have more tennis programs preparing kids from the youngest of ages for a tennis career, the money in the sport draws larger participation, as does the history of the sport and all the publicity it receives, even the ranking system goes much deeper than before. In short, many more numbers and varieties of people are playing tennis. This translates into stiffer competition for everybody and an increase in the general level of talent.

For this reason I would disagree with the idea the talent level at the top remains constant as a rule. To me it seems obvious it can improve or get worse, depending on surrounding circumstances. Today, on a purely theoretical level, I think the likelihood of the talent level being greater far outweigh the likelihood of it being the same or worse. I also disagree with the notion of inevitability, the idea that this or that player would have been great in any era. If by some freak accident all the greats had grown up in the same era, there would be many of them winning a lot less Slams, some might not even win any. Players are only great because of how much they achieve in relation to their peers, not because of predetermination or a greatness gene. Roddick would probably have 4 or 5 Slams by now if Federer had not been born. He would be viewed very differently from the way he is now and would probably be a different person, more secure and confident maybe. Put Federer, Sampras, Becker and McEnroe into the modern era at the same age and I think McEnroe is going to draw the short straw, may not escape with so much as one Wimbledon. McEnroe was and is a great player, but the extent of his achievements would without question vary from era to era, as would all the other players, and some eras would be more fruitful than others.

As for the original claim by djsiva, I think Federer and Sampras would be too much for McEnroe, and McEnroe to his credit acknowledges this. The extent to which an individual can play their game is to some degree controlled by their opponent. McEnroe was a great player, but would only be able to play as well as his opponents game would let him, as is the case for all players. Unlike golf, tennis is codependent, and McEnroe faired better against the likes of Borg and Connors than he did or would have against Becker, Sampras and Federer.

A very thoughtful post. Thank you. CC

Benhur
03-15-2008, 07:39 PM
I would attribute improvements in the game to more than just training methods. While we cannot speak of evolution in the literal biological sense or a tennis gene, there is a form of natural selection going on in the modern game which just did not exist to the same extent in past eras. The genetic pool today is larger, more robust, varied and honed than ever before because the talent pool is much bigger today. You have more people playing tennis, from a wider variety of countries and backgrounds, you have more tennis programs preparing kids from the youngest of ages for a tennis career, the money in the sport draws larger participation, as does the history of the sport and all the publicity it receives, even the ranking system goes much deeper than before. In short, many more numbers and varieties of people are playing tennis. This translates into stiffer competition for everybody and an increase in the general level of talent.

For this reason I would disagree with the idea the talent level at the top remains constant as a rule. To me it seems obvious it can improve or get worse, depending on surrounding circumstances. Today, on a purely theoretical level, I think the likelihood of the talent level being greater far outweigh the likelihood of it being the same or worse. I also disagree with the notion of inevitability, the idea that this or that player would have been great in any era. If by some freak accident all the greats had grown up in the same era, there would be many of them winning a lot less Slams, some might not even win any. Players are only great because of how much they achieve in relation to their peers, not because of predetermination or a greatness gene. Roddick would probably have 4 or 5 Slams by now if Federer had not been born. He would be viewed very differently from the way he is now and would probably be a different person, more secure and confident maybe. Put Federer, Sampras, Becker and McEnroe into the modern era at the same age and I think McEnroe is going to draw the short straw, may not escape with so much as one Wimbledon. McEnroe was and is a great player, but the extent of his achievements would without question vary from era to era, as would all the other players, and some eras would be more fruitful than others.

As for the original claim by djsiva, I think Federer and Sampras would be too much for McEnroe, and McEnroe to his credit acknowledges this. The extent to which an individual can play their game is to some degree controlled by their opponent. McEnroe was a great player, but would only be able to play as well as his opponents game would let him, as is the case for all players. Unlike golf, tennis is codependent, and McEnroe faired better against the likes of Borg and Connors than he did or would have against Becker, Sampras and Federer.

In the first place it is debatable whether tennis is a more popular sport today than in the Connors-Borg-McEnroe days.

However that may be, your assumption of an automatic and appreciable improvement in the level of play every few years by virtue of a gradually larger pool is not warranted under the relatively small time spans under consideration, especially when you present Becker, Sampras and Agassi as automatically better than McEnroe at his peak, on those grounds. Truth is as long as you have a sufficiently representative pool of the population picking up the sport, the relation with quality is far from linear and the curve would flatten out pretty quickly.

If your theory were adequate, it should be reflected into neat relationships between the relative tennis pools of different countries and percentage of top players. Such relation is far from being predictable, and in fact swings widely for unexplainable reasons. California must have the largest number of tennis facilities per capita of any place I know, and tennis is and has always been an immensely popular recreational sport here, that people can play year round. The number of public courts per capita in places like San Francisco (I am not even considering private clubs) is immensely larger than in places like Spain. With comparable populations, California and Spain produce widely different numbers of top tennis players. The case of places like Serbia are even more astonishing. There is no question that the number of tennis facilities per capita in Serbia is much smaller, and tennis is far from being the only popular sport. Czechoslovakia in the 80s was also highly unusual. Growing up in Ostrava, Lendl had his winter practice time severely restricted because he had to wait his turn like everyone else to use the only indoor court in town.

Another anecdotal example: Soccer in Brazil is THE sport, and it was even *more* so in the 70's, with practically ALL kids playing it from a very young age. Yet a small country like Holland, with a small fragment of Brazil's population, and many other sports to draw players away from it, had a team in those years that was as good as Brazil's. Clearly the difference in the pool of players was huge, I mean bigger by orders of magnitude than the difference in pool you could expect in a sport like tennis between 1985 and 1995, say. Where is the expectable difference in quality?

And so, clearly, your theory seems flawed.

It is simply unsustainable to maintain that a top player in the late 80s or mid 90s would be automatically better than one in the mid 80s by virtue of an increase in tennis quality brought about by a larger tennis pool, when it is not even clear there was a significantly larger tennis pool, and when relations between tennis pools and top players by region are pretty unpredictable.

You say that a top player of a given era, like McEnroe, would have been less successful if he had the misfortune to have top players of other eras in his generation. Well, of course. That's trivially true. But nothing follows from that to what we are discussing. And please not it is true not only for McEnroe but for all the others as well. If people like Gonzales, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Nadal were all the same age and had matured playing the game at the same time, two things follow, which are two sides of the same coin:

1. It is highly likely that they would *all* have been less succesful than they were without facing that competition.
2. It is higly unlikely that one or two would dominate the rest the way they did in their respective eras.

The one thing that perhaps a larger pool and improvements in training may be claimed to produce is an increase in the *depth* of the game, by which we mean that the drop in quality from the top to say the 100th or 200th player is probably less steep now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. But again, you cannot from this extrapolate an automatic significant difference in top *ability* between eras.

I also wish to note that in my mind the main difference by far in the evolution of the game is a result of:

1. Racquets.
2. Surface shift from predominance of clay/gras to complete predominance of hard courts.

That shift has nothing to do with changes in innate ability of top players.

On a different note, to end this, it would be quite a treat to have such a dream team of top ability, as the list mentioned above, playing in the same era. Mmmm. Delicious. Unfortunately, only the Almighty, in His omipotence, can watch those dream matches from his privileged atemporal perch.

(FEDERER)vs(NADAL)
03-15-2008, 10:07 PM
"Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though."

If John McEnroe can't even beat Marcelo Rios, what makes you think he could beat Roger Federer?

exactly, there's no way

Arafel
03-16-2008, 11:15 AM
Federer is simply the logical progression of what has happened in the game over the past 20-30 years. He is a TRUE all court player who can play all the shots from any part of the court. His 'tennis smarts' are unparalleled, and strategically he has no peer. No one has ever thought their way through a match like Fed can. Additionally, he has power, speed, and an INCREDIBLE serve game. Notice I said 'serve game' and NOT serve. Sampras had the best SERVE, ever. Federer has the best HOLD GAME, ever. ;) CC

I don't understand why people here think Federer is such a brilliant all-court player. He's absolutely not. His volleys are mediocre; they just look better compared to the rest of the tour, who mostly can't volley their way out of a paper bag. Federer is a baseliner, plain and simple. It's why he can do so well at the French. I'd like to see Fed make the finals playing serve/volley the whole time like McEnroe did in 84.

All court player indeed. I'm not taking away from Federer's greatness as a player, but too many people here have drunk the Fedgod Kool Aid and think he is the best at everything. It gets old.

hoodjem
03-16-2008, 11:31 AM
I've seen Fed do some good S & V tennis, but that was a few years ago. Lately he's been hanging back and playing baseline-banger tennis--and still winning.

Fed will play all-court tennis when he has to--when the competition pushes him too, that is when today's players get better tha being baseline-bangers.

Today's players may be "genetically enhanced" by a superior gene pool, but they are all mesmerized by the technology and thus pretty one-dimesional.

I'd take the top five of 1969 any day.

morten
03-16-2008, 12:07 PM
I don't understand why people here think Federer is such a brilliant all-court player. He's absolutely not. His volleys are mediocre; they just look better compared to the rest of the tour, who mostly can't volley their way out of a paper bag. Federer is a baseliner, plain and simple. It's why he can do so well at the French. I'd like to see Fed make the finals playing serve/volley the whole time like McEnroe did in 84.

All court player indeed. I'm not taking away from Federer's greatness as a player, but too many people here have drunk the Fedgod Kool Aid and think he is the best at everything. It gets old.
i agree!.....

David L
03-16-2008, 04:21 PM
In the first place it is debatable whether tennis is a more popular sport today than in the Connors-Borg-McEnroe days.

However that may be, your assumption of an automatic and appreciable improvement in the level of play every few years by virtue of a gradually larger pool is not warranted under the relatively small time spans under consideration, especially when you present Becker, Sampras and Agassi as automatically better than McEnroe at his peak, on those grounds. Truth is as long as you have a sufficiently representative pool of the population picking up the sport, the relation with quality is far from linear and the curve would flatten out pretty quickly.

If your theory were adequate, it should be reflected into neat relationships between the relative tennis pools of different countries and percentage of top players. Such relation is far from being predictable, and in fact swings widely for unexplainable reasons. California must have the largest number of tennis facilities per capita of any place I know, and tennis is and has always been an immensely popular recreational sport here, that people can play year round. The number of public courts per capita in places like San Francisco (I am not even considering private clubs) is immensely larger than in places like Spain. With comparable populations, California and Spain produce widely different numbers of top tennis players. The case of places like Serbia are even more astonishing. There is no question that the number of tennis facilities per capita in Serbia is much smaller, and tennis is far from being the only popular sport.

It is simply unsustainable to maintain that a top player in the late 80s or mid 90s would be automatically better than one in the mid 80s by virtue of an increase in tennis quality brought about by a larger tennis pool, when it is not even clear there was a significantly larger tennis pool, and when relations between tennis pools and top players by region are pretty unpredictable.

You say that a top player of a given era, like McEnroe, would have been less successful if he had the misfortune to have top players of other eras in his generation. Well, of course. That's trivially true. But nothing follows from that to what we are discussing. And please not it is true not only for McEnroe but for all the others as well. If people like Gonzales, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Nadal were all the same age and had matured playing the game at the same time, two things follow, which are two sides of the same coin:

1. It is highly likely that they would *all* have been less succesful than they were without facing that competition.
2. It is higly unlikely that one or two would dominate the rest the way they did in their respective eras.

The one thing that perhaps a larger pool and improvements in training may be claimed to produce is an increase in the *depth* of the game, by which we mean that the drop in quality from the top to say the 100th or 200th player is probably less steep now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. But again, you cannot from this extrapolate an automatic significant difference in top *ability* between eras.

I also wish to note that in my mind the main difference by far in the evolution of the game is a result of:
1. Racquets.
2. Surface shift from predominance of clay/gras to complete predominance of hard courts.

When I talk about popularity I mean serious participation across the globe, not just as a spectator sport or recreational pastime in America. It's obvious there are many more tennis academies and programs than ever before. Management agencies are head-hunting kids barely in their teens. Tennis is big business and everyone's trying to get in on it. Globally it's huge. American universities are being flooded with foreign talent, academies and programs all over the world develop none native students. The net trying to catch and develop talent is just much bigger than during the Connors-Borg-McEnroe era and before.

I only used Sampras and Becker, not Agassi, to support my belief that greatness in a codependent sport like tennis is not inevitable, but a product of how much one is able to achieve over the current competition. I believe, with Sampras and Becker as peers, McEnroe would have achieved much less. I don't believe his achievements are intrinsic parts of his biology, predetermined as if by destiny, and that goes for all other players. I was not saying Sampras or Becker were products of the current rise we see in the popularity of tennis, although many of today's players are.

There is nothing neat about this world nor do general patterns or probabilities require the precision we see in a subject like maths. With all rules, one allows for anomalies and exceptions. It should be clear to anyone that a larger group of talented individuals has a greater chance of producing better talents than a smaller group, all other things being equal. This does not guarantee that it will, but probability is on its side. Comparing the produce of Serbia, Spain and America does not negate this fact, because so many other things besides talent are required to produce world beaters, and then one has to allow for anomalies as well, many of which can be explained. The story behind the production of the current Serbian players is not really that inexplicable when you break it down. To make it in tennis, many things are required, talent, health, desire, hunger, hard work, resources and a little luck, at a minimum. Tennis development is a global phenomenon, one can no longer divide it into isolated pockets, because individuals go beyond the resources provided by their own countries. All of the Serbian players went abroad to tennis academies, so their development has nothing to do with Serbia. This is a growing trend as we see with Baghdatis, Murray and many other players. They bring the talent and the global net catches and develops it. Players from poor or war torn backgrounds have the added advantage of having the hunger to put in the necessary hard work. Those from smaller countries will probably have to deal with less distractions than will be found in a huge melting pot like America. All of these things will affect the degree to which an individual will first be interested in tennis and then have the hunger and means to get really good at it.

Saying McEnroe would not have achieved as much in other eras is not trivial, because there are some arguing he would have been great regardless. I think he would have been a very good tennis player regardless, but not great in terms or achievement regardless. I also think that amongst all players, there is a hierarchy of who has more talent and who would have had more ability, all other things being equal apart from themselves. Obviously, I don't claim to know who would be where in this hierarchy, but I think it's improbable all their talents and abilities are exactly equal. If all the greats were born at the same time and became tennis players, the less able would suffer the most, but the most able may still have dominated. It's a pointless exercise to try and figure out who would be where, but given my previous argument, I think we are seeing better talents later in the history of tennis than earlier, anomalies notwithstanding.

As you say, the game has more depth than it did, but I don't separate this from what is happening at the top. In past eras, one could take going deep in draws more for granted. For this reason, I find domination in the past less impressive than domination today, although both are impressive. Furthermore, I am less inclined to equate achievement with ability. Players like Djokovic, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Blake and Youzhny, just for example, may not end up achieving as much as some past Grandslam winners or even players like Brad Gilbert, but they may still be superior talents. Their comparative lack of achievement may simply be a reflection of how good everyone else is now. A case of parity among superiors.

On this board many seem to complain about or overstate the technology. Clearly, technology has affected the game, but advances in technology have accompanied tennis throughout its history, it's nothing new. From the asymmetrical and non-standardised rackets of the 19th century, through to the symmetrical wooden rackets in all their guises, the first metal frame in Connors' Wilson T2000 and other metal rackets, the first composite graphite type rackets, the wide-bodies and so on. Advances in technology have always been there to help players ply their craft more effectively. While it may influence the way the game is played and the type of players who can flourish, just like any other era, the options are the same for everyone. Just as Luxilon may help a player be more effective in some areas of their game, graphite technology helped others, like Sampras, before. Technology will not make you a good tennis player, just as a Stradivarius will not make you sound good on the violin if you are not already very skilled. Nor has technology made the game easier at the very top. It may help one hit harder and with more spin, but the other side of the story is someone on the other end has to deal with these shots, subsequently nullifying the perceived general benefit. The athletic challenge of getting heavier, faster and more volatile balls back more regularly, and volleying them, has risen in accordance with advances in technology and beyond. Pros will maximise the benefits to the detriment of their opponents, so a sense of equilibrium is always maintained.

Playing conditions will always favour some more than others, that's just the nature of the beast. The best will learn to adapt.

David L
03-16-2008, 05:05 PM
I don't understand why people here think Federer is such a brilliant all-court player. He's absolutely not. His volleys are mediocre; they just look better compared to the rest of the tour, who mostly can't volley their way out of a paper bag. Federer is a baseliner, plain and simple. It's why he can do so well at the French. I'd like to see Fed make the finals playing serve/volley the whole time like McEnroe did in 84.

All court player indeed. I'm not taking away from Federer's greatness as a player, but too many people here have drunk the Fedgod Kool Aid and think he is the best at everything. It gets old.
Federer's volleys are not mediocre. They are not the best we have seen, but they are still very good.

If by all-courter you mean a serve and volleying, chip n charging, net rusher who hangs on the baseline occasionally, then no, Federer is not an all-courter. Depends what you understand all-court tennis to mean, because people seem to have different definitions. I see Federer as an all-courter because he is very competent in all areas of the game and exceptional in others. He plays mainly from the baseline, but will mix it up when it suits him and adopt different strategies against different opponents, staying on the baseline or finishing points at the net. A baseliner to me, is someone like Agassi, Nadal, Davydenko, Ferrer. Players who almost exclusively stick to the baseline and show little ambition to finish points off at the net. Federer is nothing like these players.

I think you can get all-courters who have a baseline or net preference. It's a term which allows greater flexibility in its application than 'serve and volleyer' or 'baseliner'.

kungfusmkim
03-16-2008, 06:08 PM
I have People like federer as appetizers in my generations. Generation X!

Azzurri
03-16-2008, 06:12 PM
I don't understand why people here think Federer is such a brilliant all-court player. He's absolutely not. His volleys are mediocre; they just look better compared to the rest of the tour, who mostly can't volley their way out of a paper bag. Federer is a baseliner, plain and simple. It's why he can do so well at the French. I'd like to see Fed make the finals playing serve/volley the whole time like McEnroe did in 84.

All court player indeed. I'm not taking away from Federer's greatness as a player, but too many people here have drunk the Fedgod Kool Aid and think he is the best at everything. It gets old.

not really disagreeing with your post, but have you ever watched the Fed-Sampras match and or the 2003 Wimbledon? The man has terrific volley skills, while most of the field have mediocre.

kungfusmkim
03-16-2008, 06:19 PM
Lol if he had mediocore voolies he would have never made pass agassi and santoro

federerfanatic
03-16-2008, 06:22 PM
Lol if he had mediocore voolies he would have never made pass agassi and santoro

That comment makes no sense.

aceroberts13
03-17-2008, 04:55 AM
I would love to see McEnroe in his prime take on Fed. Too bad it will never happen.:( I give Fed the edge but I would love to see johnny mac attack feds baseline game. I don't think Mac would be intimidated at all either, it would be refreshing to see someone like mac go after Fed all out.

Benhur
03-17-2008, 06:14 AM
When I talk about popularity I mean serious participation across the globe, not just as a spectator sport or recreational pastime in America. It's obvious there are many more tennis academies and programs than ever before. Management agencies are head-hunting kids barely in their teens. Tennis is big business and everyone's trying to get in on it. Globally it's huge. American universities are being flooded with foreign talent, academies and programs all over the world develop none native students. The net trying to catch and develop talent is just much bigger than during the Connors-Borg-McEnroe era and before.

I only used Sampras and Becker, not Agassi, to support my belief that greatness in a codependent sport like tennis is not inevitable, but a product of how much one is able to achieve over the current competition. I believe, with Sampras and Becker as peers, McEnroe would have achieved much less. I don't believe his achievements are intrinsic parts of his biology, predetermined as if by destiny, and that goes for all other players. I was not saying Sampras or Becker were products of the current rise we see in the popularity of tennis, although many of today's players are.

There is nothing neat about this world nor do general patterns or probabilities require the precision we see in a subject like maths. With all rules, one allows for anomalies and exceptions. It should be clear to anyone that a larger group of talented individuals has a greater chance of producing better talents than a smaller group, all other things being equal. This does not guarantee that it will, but probability is on its side. Comparing the produce of Serbia, Spain and America does not negate this fact, because so many other things besides talent are required to produce world beaters, and then one has to allow for anomalies as well, many of which can be explained. The story behind the production of the current Serbian players is not really that inexplicable when you break it down. To make it in tennis, many things are required, talent, health, desire, hunger, hard work, resources and a little luck, at a minimum. Tennis development is a global phenomenon, one can no longer divide it into isolated pockets, because individuals go beyond the resources provided by their own countries. All of the Serbian players went abroad to tennis academies, so their development has nothing to do with Serbia. This is a growing trend as we see with Baghdatis, Murray and many other players. They bring the talent and the global net catches and develops it. Players from poor or war torn backgrounds have the added advantage of having the hunger to put in the necessary hard work. Those from smaller countries will probably have to deal with less distractions than will be found in a huge melting pot like America. All of these things will affect the degree to which an individual will first be interested in tennis and then have the hunger and means to get really good at it.

Saying McEnroe would not have achieved as much in other eras is not trivial, because there are some arguing he would have been great regardless. I think he would have been a very good tennis player regardless, but not great in terms or achievement regardless. I also think that amongst all players, there is a hierarchy of who has more talent and who would have had more ability, all other things being equal apart from themselves. Obviously, I don't claim to know who would be where in this hierarchy, but I think it's improbable all their talents and abilities are exactly equal. If all the greats were born at the same time and became tennis players, the less able would suffer the most, but the most able may still have dominated. It's a pointless exercise to try and figure out who would be where, but given my previous argument, I think we are seeing better talents later in the history of tennis than earlier, anomalies notwithstanding.

As you say, the game has more depth than it did, but I don't separate this from what is happening at the top. In past eras, one could take going deep in draws more for granted. For this reason, I find domination in the past less impressive than domination today, although both are impressive. Furthermore, I am less inclined to equate achievement with ability. Players like Djokovic, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Blake and Youzhny, just for example, may not end up achieving as much as some past Grandslam winners or even players like Brad Gilbert, but they may still be superior talents. Their comparative lack of achievement may simply be a reflection of how good everyone else is now. A case of parity among superiors.

On this board many seem to complain about or overstate the technology. Clearly, technology has affected the game, but advances in technology have accompanied tennis throughout its history, it's nothing new. From the asymmetrical and non-standardised rackets of the 19th century, through to the symmetrical wooden rackets in all their guises, the first metal frame in Connors' Wilson T2000 and other metal rackets, the first composite graphite type rackets, the wide-bodies and so on. Advances in technology have always been there to help players ply their craft more effectively. While it may influence the way the game is played and the type of players who can flourish, just like any other era, the options are the same for everyone. Just as Luxilon may help a player be more effective in some areas of their game, graphite technology helped others, like Sampras, before. Technology will not make you a good tennis player, just as a Stradivarius will not make you sound good on the violin if you are not already very skilled. Nor has technology made the game easier at the very top. It may help one hit harder and with more spin, but the other side of the story is someone on the other end has to deal with these shots, subsequently nullifying the perceived general benefit. The athletic challenge of getting heavier, faster and more volatile balls back more regularly, and volleying them, has risen in accordance with advances in technology and beyond. Pros will maximise the benefits to the detriment of their opponents, so a sense of equilibrium is always maintained.

Playing conditions will always favour some more than others, that's just the nature of the beast. The best will learn to adapt.


If huge differences in player pools across regions do not produce anywhere near consistent outcomes in percentage of top players, then, relatively small differences in player pools across time should be expected to do so even less.

I've already agreed that McEnroe, or any top player from any erea, faced with the misfortune of having top competitors from other eras re-incarnated or pre-incarnated in his contemporaries, would have a much tougher time. That's to be expected. What's not to be expected is that the current players would have others for "lunch" or viceversa.

The game does look a lot different now, because it *is* different. But the most obvious reason for the difference is not the ability of the players, but rather the very palpable changes in technology and surface which caused the way the game is played to evolve. The changes in racquets and strings since the early 80s would be by themselves the equivalent of adding a few extra tendons and muscles to the human anatomy. That's evolution on steroids, except it comes exclusively from equipment. The changes in surface are what they are. The alleged changes in ability are all but imponderable in comparison, and definitely not predictable, and probably small to non-existent. Goes without saying that today's top players know how to play *today's* game better than players from two or three or four decades ago would, if they suddenly were plunged into the current era. But it also goes without saying that if you gave today's top players a wood racquet and dropped them in those past eras, they would not play very well and would lose to many players very badly.

In sum, I continue to be unconvinced that there has been any appreciable progress in innate tennis ability in the last 3 or 4 decades. Physical conditioning is probably better today, but this is not a factor in what I have been arguing, which is that you can only make meaningful comparisons assuming players were contemporaries. If Laver were 26 years old today, he would have grown up with current physical conditioning practices and current racquets, and the current game, and would be as fit as the others and, given his ability, would probably be able to play a competitive game against anyone. Same applies to Federer if he had grown up playing in Laver's time.

hoodjem
03-17-2008, 06:20 AM
If Laver were 26 years old today, he would have grown up with current physical conditioning practices and current racquets, and the current game, and would be as fit as the others and, given his ability, would probably be able to play a competitive game against anyone. Same applies to Federer if he had grown up playing in Laver's time.

In our little, imaginary time-travel game with the parameters that you have stated, I agree.

I actually like the image of Fed with a wooden racquet: Maxply or Kramer Staff, probably the Kramer--given his Wilson connections.

I'll take Laver in four.

David L
03-18-2008, 05:38 PM
If huge differences in player pools across regions do not produce anywhere near consistent outcomes in percentage of top players, then, relatively small differences in player pools across time should be expected to do so even less.

I've already agreed that McEnroe, or any top player from any erea, faced with the misfortune of having top competitors from other eras re-incarnated or pre-incarnated in his contemporaries, would have a much tougher time. That's to be expected. What's not to be expected is that the current players would have others for "lunch" or viceversa.

The game does look a lot different now, because it *is* different. But the most obvious reason for the difference is not the ability of the players, but rather the very palpable changes in technology and surface which caused the way the game is played to evolve. The changes in racquets and strings since the early 80s would be by themselves the equivalent of adding a few extra tendons and muscles to the human anatomy. That's evolution on steroids, except it comes exclusively from equipment. The changes in surface are what they are. The alleged changes in ability are all but imponderable in comparison, and definitely not predictable, and probably small to non-existent. Goes without saying that today's top players know how to play *today's* game better than players from two or three or four decades ago would, if they suddenly were plunged into the current era. But it also goes without saying that if you gave today's top players a wood racquet and dropped them in those past eras, they would not play very well and would lose to many players very badly.

In sum, I continue to be unconvinced that there has been any appreciable progress in innate tennis ability in the last 3 or 4 decades. Physical conditioning is probably better today, but this is not a factor in what I have been arguing, which is that you can only make meaningful comparisons assuming players were contemporaries. If Laver were 26 years old today, he would have grown up with current physical conditioning practices and current racquets, and the current game, and would be as fit as the others and, given his ability, would probably be able to play a competitive game against anyone. Same applies to Federer if he had grown up playing in Laver's time.
Personally, on a pure talent and ability basis, I think it's more difficult to be competitive as a pro today than in the past, even when all the changes which have occurred are taken into account. Laver and others have said the same. For this reason, I think that a great deal many more pros today would have had more than enough of what it took to be a good pro in the past, than past players would have had to be good today. Can't prove it, but that's my considered opinion.

BounceHitBounceHit
03-18-2008, 05:45 PM
I don't understand why people here think Federer is such a brilliant all-court player. He's absolutely not. His volleys are mediocre; they just look better compared to the rest of the tour, who mostly can't volley their way out of a paper bag. Federer is a baseliner, plain and simple. It's why he can do so well at the French. I'd like to see Fed make the finals playing serve/volley the whole time like McEnroe did in 84.

All court player indeed. I'm not taking away from Federer's greatness as a player, but too many people here have drunk the Fedgod Kool Aid and think he is the best at everything. It gets old.

Respectfully, Federer is a very fine volleyer. Not just my opinion, nor just that of others on this board. Two of my good friends are high level (ATP/WTA level) coaches and they both consistently comment on Fed's prowess at net. Additionally, s/v is not just about the volley itself. It is about the approach, the ability to cover the net, and the capacity to back up strong volleys with a potent overhead. Fed DOES have all those abilities. AND he is ALSO a fine baseline player, as you correctly state. If this doesn't make you an 'all court player' then I must have missed the definition of 'all court play'. :) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-18-2008, 05:49 PM
Federer's volleys are not mediocre. They are not the best we have seen, but they are still very good.

If by all-courter you mean a serve and volleying, chip n charging, net rusher who hangs on the baseline occasionally, then no, Federer is not an all-courter. Depends what you understand all-court tennis to mean, because people seem to have different definitions. I see Federer as an all-courter because he is very competent in all areas of the game and exceptional in others. He plays mainly from the baseline, but will mix it up when it suits him and adopt different strategies against different opponents, staying on the baseline or finishing points at the net. A baseliner to me, is someone like Agassi, Nadal, Davydenko, Ferrer. Players who almost exclusively stick to the baseline and show little ambition to finish points off at the net. Federer is nothing like these players.

I think you can get all-courters who have a baseline or net preference. It's a term which allows greater flexibility in its application than 'serve and volleyer' or 'baseliner'.

Good points. Fed is NOT a s/v player, he is an all-courter. Further he tends to excel at varying his game according to the demands any particular opponent may present. ;) CC

samster
03-18-2008, 05:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TCOOxcFn8w&feature=related

Forget about the first part of the vid. Check the video around 0:45 and watch that drop volley. I thought it was going 4 feet out when he struck the ball. Amazing. Insane touch, even at 45 years old.

Agreed. Man, Mac's touch is just sick.

samster
03-18-2008, 06:00 PM
Good points. Fed is NOT a s/v player, he is an all-courter. Further he tends to excel at varying his game according to the demands any particular opponent may present. ;) CC

Just like you, Craig, just like you!

zagor
03-18-2008, 06:37 PM
Respectfully, Federer is a very fine volleyer. Not just my opinion, nor just that of others on this board. Two of my good friends are high level (ATP/WTA level) coaches and they both consistently comment on Fed's prowess at net. Additionally, s/v is not just about the volley itself. It is about the approach, the ability to cover the net, and the capacity to back up strong volleys with a potent overhead. Fed DOES have all those abilities. AND he is ALSO a fine baseline player, as you correctly state. If this doesn't make you an 'all court player' then I must have missed the definition of 'all court play'. :) CC

High level coaches you say? Nah,their knowledge is nothing compared to the keyboard tennis gurus on this board.On a serious note I think that Federer's volleys while very good are not the best on tour but his approach shots and backhand smash are.He also has amazing footwork and anticipation.In my opinion Federer is one of the most adaptable and versatile players ever and would have no problems adapting to the 90's grass,contrary to what some of the other posters on this board say.

Arafel
03-18-2008, 09:44 PM
Federer's volleys are not mediocre. They are not the best we have seen, but they are still very good.

If by all-courter you mean a serve and volleying, chip n charging, net rusher who hangs on the baseline occasionally, then no, Federer is not an all-courter. Depends what you understand all-court tennis to mean, because people seem to have different definitions. I see Federer as an all-courter because he is very competent in all areas of the game and exceptional in others. He plays mainly from the baseline, but will mix it up when it suits him and adopt different strategies against different opponents, staying on the baseline or finishing points at the net. A baseliner to me, is someone like Agassi, Nadal, Davydenko, Ferrer. Players who almost exclusively stick to the baseline and show little ambition to finish points off at the net. Federer is nothing like these players.

I think you can get all-courters who have a baseline or net preference. It's a term which allows greater flexibility in its application than 'serve and volleyer' or 'baseliner'.

Exhibit A for a true all court player to my mind is Jimmy Connors. Connors liked to stand on the baseline, get into rallies, slam the ball deep down the line and put it away from the net. Connors possessed a weaker server, so he used his groundstrokes to get him to the net, and played from there. He could serve and volley though, and did it to win the 82 Wimbledon final against McEnroe.

If you watch his US Open matches though, he plays from the baseline until he can get to the net, every point. That's how I define an all court player.

To my mind, Federer doesn't actually look comfortable at the net. He gets up there and shanks more volleys than he should, and he looks like he wonders why he came in.

However, since you list people like Ferrer and Davydenko as true baseliners, I guess I can see your point. Compared to them, Fed is an all-court player. He does have decent volleys, but his volleys are nothing on what I consider the better volleyers, like McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras and Becker. I'd also consider Connors a better volleyer, which I is why I define Connors as a true all court player.

Arafel
03-18-2008, 09:56 PM
On another note, getting back to why McEnroe was so great, watch these two videos:

89: McEnroe vs. Wilander, Wimbledon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OygwxZRvTBU&feature=related

89: McEnroe vs. Edberg, Wimbledon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N-CspW20rY&feature=related

McEnroe vs. Becker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Mf_Q20rnM&feature=related

And watch this get against Cahill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds_hlt8VK4g&feature=related

llgc8080
03-19-2008, 04:09 AM
thanks arafel!

hoodjem
03-19-2008, 06:02 AM
If this doesn't make you an 'all court player' then I must have missed the definition of 'all court play'. :) CC

I think what he is saying is that Fed doesn't seem like an all-court player lately, because he has been hanging back at the baseline so much in the last two or so years.

I think CC has an excellent and persuasive point, but I am inclined to agree with the essence of David's point: that Fed has appeared to be more of a baseliner lately.

hoodjem
03-19-2008, 06:08 AM
On another note, getting back to why McEnroe was so great, watch this video:


McEnroe vs. Becker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Mf_Q20rnM&feature=related


Amazing: precision touch tennis.

Against a power player like Becker, Mac proves you don't have to blow away your opponent--just put the ball (at whatever speed) where he can't touch it.

Against Fed? I think a great match. Against a baseline-basher, Mac would clean house.

Love that BH return-approach shot.

BounceHitBounceHit
03-19-2008, 04:57 PM
Just like you, Craig, just like you!

Now THAT is a compliment! ;) Thanks man. CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-19-2008, 05:07 PM
I think what he is saying is that Fed doesn't seem like an all-court player lately, because he has been hanging back at the baseline so much in the last two or so years.

I think CC has an excellent and persuasive point, but I am inclined to agree with the essence of David's point: that Fed has appeared to be more of a baseliner lately.


Sure. I do see where he is going.

However, while I don't mean to be argumentative, I will stand by my point. Fed is playing from the baseline more often than not right now because that is the most effective way to defeat the opponents he typically faces. ;)

CC

hoodjem
03-19-2008, 06:08 PM
Fed is playing from the baseline more often than not right now because that is the most effective way to defeat the opponents he typically faces.

I agree. Fed is a true utilitarian: he does what works most efficiently.

Arafel
03-19-2008, 09:17 PM
I agree. Fed is a true utilitarian: he does what works most efficiently.

Not really. He can be amazingly stubborn. If he did what worked most efficiently, he would serve and volley against Nadal, especially on clay and grass.

Nadal came in more than Federer in their Wimbledon final last year. That says a lot.

BTW, it's she, not he. :)

David L
03-20-2008, 12:24 AM
Exhibit A for a true all court player to my mind is Jimmy Connors. Connors liked to stand on the baseline, get into rallies, slam the ball deep down the line and put it away from the net. Connors possessed a weaker server, so he used his groundstrokes to get him to the net, and played from there. He could serve and volley though, and did it to win the 82 Wimbledon final against McEnroe.

If you watch his US Open matches though, he plays from the baseline until he can get to the net, every point. That's how I define an all court player.

To my mind, Federer doesn't actually look comfortable at the net. He gets up there and shanks more volleys than he should, and he looks like he wonders why he came in.

However, since you list people like Ferrer and Davydenko as true baseliners, I guess I can see your point. Compared to them, Fed is an all-court player. He does have decent volleys, but his volleys are nothing on what I consider the better volleyers, like McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras and Becker. I'd also consider Connors a better volleyer, which I is why I define Connors as a true all court player.
Yes, Edberg, Sampras, Becker and McEnroe were better volleyers than Federer, but he can't be the best at everything. Federer's not a serve and volleyer, so I would hope those guys had better volleys than him. As it is, Federer's volleys are still very good. It's also a lot tougher to play the net today than at any time in the past, so you're not really comparing volley skills on an even playing field. The way an inexperienced Federer handled Sampras at Wimbledon 2001, serve and volleying, shows how adaptable his potential is. That was then, this is now and Federer has had to make adjustments with the times.

urban
03-20-2008, 12:56 AM
Its speculation, but i think, that - style wise - Mac would have done better against Federer, than against Sampras or Becker. Mac was always vulnerable against power players with flat hard ground strokes. He had more problems with Connors and Lendl than with Borg. Federer is basically a defensive player, relying on good moving and accurate, topspinning baseline strokes, not unlike Borg. Mac could handle Borg, even against these great passing shots of the Suede. His lefthanded serve would give Federer much trouble as well.

David L
03-20-2008, 01:29 AM
Not really. He can be amazingly stubborn. If he did what worked most efficiently, he would serve and volley against Nadal, especially on clay and grass.

Nadal came in more than Federer in their Wimbledon final last year. That says a lot.

BTW, it's she, not he. :)
Serve and volleying against Nadal on clay is suicide. Federer would probably lose 6-1 6-1 6-1 if he did that. He has played Nadal the right way on clay, at times he could have been a bit more aggressive and run Nadal around a little more, but he has been very close each time they have played. He just needs a day when he's playing really well and he gets some of the breaks. The problem Federer has with Nadal on clay is less about tactics and more about execution. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

Nadal is also a tricky customer on grass. Bulldozing your way into the net at every instance, probably will not win you the match. Nadal only needs to break you once each set and hold, and it's over. He's beaten Ancic and Mirnyi on grass already. Let's not forget Agassi has taken out the likes of McEnroe, Becker, Krajicek and Ivanisevic on the old grass of Wimbledon, from the baseline. Even Courier has scalped Edberg and Martin on the old stuff, and pushed Sampras to four sets, where two of Sampras' sets were won in tie-breaks. If these guys can beat top quality serve and volleyers on the fast grass of Wimbledon, imagine the field day Nadal could have on the slower grass if a less experienced serve and volleyer, in the form of Federer, elected to serve and volley. Also, let's not forget Federer actually won their grass court encounters, without really playing particularly well and with Nadal playing extremely well. If Federer manages to play at a good level, he should win more comfortably, but again, no one said winning Wimbledon was easy. Why people expect Federer to ease through the draw and crush whoever he meets in the final, I don't know. People seem to forget he's playing other very highly skilled tennis players, professional tennis players who are good enough to earn millions doing what they do. Federer is good, but he's not perfect and so far I think he has been doing a very good job.

David L
03-20-2008, 01:44 AM
Its speculation, but i think, that - style wise - Mac would have done better against Federer, than against Sampras or Becker. Mac was always vulnerable against power players with flat hard ground strokes. He had more problems with Connors and Lendl than with Borg. Federer is basically a defensive player, relying on good moving and accurate, topspinning baseline strokes, not unlike Borg. Mac could handle Borg, even against these great passing shots of the Suede. His lefthanded serve would give Federer much trouble as well.Please, where do they get you guys? Federer is not a defensive player and is nothing like Borg. He plays great defence, but that hardly makes one a defensive player. Federer has huge weapons in all areas of his game. He is more capable than probably any other current player, of blowing opponents off court.

urban
03-20-2008, 02:23 AM
Why so sensitive to compare Federer with Borg. Borg has more 6-1,6-0 scores than Federer, he ceratinly could blow people out of court. Borg had a big forehand, too, with which he could be aggressive. But as Federer, he was basically a defensive player.

David L
03-20-2008, 02:38 AM
Why so sensitive to compare Federer with Borg. Borg has more 6-1,6-0 scores than Federer, he ceratinly could blow people out of court. Borg had a big forehand, too, with which he could be aggressive. But as Federer, he was basically a defensive player.
I'm not sensitive about the comparison, it's just that they are totally diffent players. Stylistically, Nadal is the modern day Borg. It has nothing to do with winning 6-1 or 6-0 sets, I'm talking about the style of play. Borg's whole mindset was to get the ball back with topspin and wait for the error, very similar to Nadal. At Wimbledon he had to be more aggressive, but his default position was to wait for the error, Federer is the opposite of this. Here is an excerpt from Borg's book, 'My Life and Game'.

I have broken nearly every rule recommended by instruction books over the past fifty years. For example, the normal advice on where to stand when returning service is a foot beyond the base line. And, when receiving a second serve, a foot inside the base line. Anyone who has seen me play knows I don't do this. Not even close.
I postion myself as much as ten feet past the base line, and when Roscoe Tanner is serving, I retreat even further back. The reason? I want to get the longest look possible at a hard serve. I need ample time to sight the direction of delivery, then wind up and swing at the ball.
...My idea is to get every single service return back so as to pressure the net man into missing. Because my goal is not to hit instant winners, there is no burden on me in returning serve...
The result is that I end up hitting more outright winners on return of serve than anyone else on the pro tour...
I return every serve. This both annoys and surprises my opponents...
Sure, there is a "give-up" in standing back--an opponent might exploit the angles of a wide serve, but the benefits of having more time, in my opinion, far outweigh the risks...

My game is different. It is based on patience. Not attack. But my top-spin drives prevent opponents from attacking, because I have enough control to shoot my ground strokes from side to side. If an opponent decides to come to net behind a less-than-perfect approach, he is playing into my strength, dipping passing shots...

Another example of my ignoring standard instruction is my postion during a ralley. Most "experts" recommend that forehands and backhands should be tackled from approximately two feet behind the base line. I double and sometimes triple that. Why? Because the exchange of ground strokes is a game of attrition. If the base-line style is played properly, no one hits a winner from the back court.

If I strike a ball that lands a foot from my opponent's base line, it's an accident, because I'm only aiming for two yards past the service box--for security [that is 12 feet in front of the baseline]. My ground strokes are so wristy that it would be impossible for me to control a ball regularly that's aimed for the base line. I do get depth, however, by using murderous top spin, which carries the ball deep into the back court after the bounce. In this fashion I achieve both depth and margin for error.
It's all possible because of my "crazy" western forehand grip and wristy two-handed backhand, both of which force me to hit with exaggerated overspin. Violent top spin is my trademark, and I hadn't had the courage to improvise when I was young, and shatter the conventional beliefs about grips and depth, I might still be struggling through the qualifying rounds at Wimbledon rather than shooting for a string of successive titles.

http://tennis.quickfound.net/training/bjorn_borg.html

superman1
03-20-2008, 03:46 AM
Why so sensitive to compare Federer with Borg. Borg has more 6-1,6-0 scores than Federer, he ceratinly could blow people out of court. Borg had a big forehand, too, with which he could be aggressive. But as Federer, he was basically a defensive player.

Federer, when he's playing well, is whatever he needs to be to win. When he played Agassi, he was as aggressive as any baseliner could possibly be. When he plays a more defensive player, he sometimes likes to play like them, and beat them at their own game.

zagor
03-20-2008, 03:52 AM
Its speculation, but i think, that - style wise - Mac would have done better against Federer, than against Sampras or Becker. Mac was always vulnerable against power players with flat hard ground strokes. He had more problems with Connors and Lendl than with Borg. Federer is basically a defensive player, relying on good moving and accurate, topspinning baseline strokes, not unlike Borg. Mac could handle Borg, even against these great passing shots of the Suede. His lefthanded serve would give Federer much trouble as well.

One of the reasons Federer has been so succesfull is his amazing defense nobody will deny that however he has great offense as well.Just look at his stats when he play against other players,he is usually way ahead in the winners category even when playing power hitters like Safin,Blake,Berdych,Gonzo etc.

urban
03-20-2008, 03:55 AM
"I return every serve", this Borg sentence could be made by Federer as well. The sentence: "I get control to shoot my groundstrokes form side to side" could mark Federer's style, too. Borg differenciates between attackers and players with patience. Out of these two categories, i certainly wouldn't Federer call an attacker. Neither does he attack behind his own serve; nor does he attack with his first return. He plays the first return safe, to move his opponent from side to side, and to search for openings for his forehand. Yes, Federer is more a player of patience, as Borg calls himself.

hoodjem
03-20-2008, 05:55 AM
Federer . . . can't be the best at everything. Federer's not a serve and volleyer . . . .

Oooooohhhh! Watch out what you say here. The Fedadulators will hunt you down.

Arafel
03-20-2008, 08:07 AM
Serve and volleying against Nadal on clay is suicide. Federer would probably lose 6-1 6-1 6-1 if he did that. He has played Nadal the right way on clay, at times he could have been a bit more aggressive and run Nadal around a little more, but he has been very close each time they have played. He just needs a day when he's playing really well and he gets some of the breaks. The problem Federer has with Nadal on clay is less about tactics and more about execution. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

Nadal is also a tricky customer on grass. Bulldozing your way into the net at every instance, probably will not win you the match. Nadal only needs to break you once each set and hold, and it's over. He's beaten Ancic and Mirnyi on grass already. Let's not forget Agassi has taken out the likes of McEnroe, Becker, Krajicek and Ivanisevic on the old grass of Wimbledon, from the baseline. Even Courier has scalped Edberg and Martin on the old stuff, and pushed Sampras to four sets, where two of Sampras' sets were won in tie-breaks. If these guys can beat top quality serve and volleyers on the fast grass of Wimbledon, imagine the field day Nadal could have on the slower grass if a less experienced serve and volleyer, in the form of Federer, elected to serve and volley. Also, let's not forget Federer actually won their grass court encounters, without really playing particularly well and with Nadal playing extremely well. If Federer manages to play at a good level, he should win more comfortably, but again, no one said winning Wimbledon was easy. Why people expect Federer to ease through the draw and crush whoever he meets in the final, I don't know. People seem to forget he's playing other very highly skilled tennis players, professional tennis players who are good enough to earn millions doing what they do. Federer is good, but he's not perfect and so far I think he has been doing a very good job.

The one time Federer beat Nadal on clay he was playing more aggressively and coming in. When he pushed Nadal to 5 at the Italian Open in 06, he did the same thing. Maybe he doesn't need to serve volley, although he should throw it in their to keep Nadal from getting into a rhythm, but he should definitely come in more. I remember watching the French final last year and the commentators were very surprised that Fed abandoned his net play that had beaten Nadal two weeks earlier.

David L
03-20-2008, 11:31 PM
"I return every serve", this Borg sentence could be made by Federer as well. The sentence: "I get control to shoot my groundstrokes form side to side" could mark Federer's style, too. Borg differenciates between attackers and players with patience. Out of these two categories, i certainly wouldn't Federer call an attacker. Neither does he attack behind his own serve; nor does he attack with his first return. He plays the first return safe, to move his opponent from side to side, and to search for openings for his forehand. Yes, Federer is more a player of patience, as Borg calls himself.If you cannot see the clear differences between Federer and Borg, the most obvious of which is the one and two handed backhand, then I cannot help your understanding any more. They are both great tennis players regardless.

David L
03-21-2008, 12:07 AM
The one time Federer beat Nadal on clay he was playing more aggressively and coming in. When he pushed Nadal to 5 at the Italian Open in 06, he did the same thing. Maybe he doesn't need to serve volley, although he should throw it in their to keep Nadal from getting into a rhythm, but he should definitely come in more. I remember watching the French final last year and the commentators were very surprised that Fed abandoned his net play that had beaten Nadal two weeks earlier.
The problem with these things is always in the execution. It's all very well saying what needs to be done on paper, actually doing it is a different matter. Nadal does not make it easy for opponents to take control of the net. Volleys have to be almost perfect, because he gets to so many balls. Trying to weaken his ability to pass by hitting tough approach shots, is quite hard to do because of his movement, retrieving and passing ability. His spinny groundstrokes which hang in the air, are deceptively hard to attack, especially on clay, etc. etc.

To beat Nadal by attacking him, you have to attack at the right times, on the right balls, otherwise he can leave you stranded. Problem is, only hindsight is 20/20. An all out attack would be a risky low percentage play for Federer, unless it was impossible for him to make technical errors or errors in judgement. No player is good enough to make all the shots they go for or execute every plan to perfection, look at the recent losses of Blake and Tsonga. You have to take risks now and again, but you also have to play the percentages. Most of the time it's the percentages which win you the match.

Also, in those matches you mentioned, a great deal of rallying went on as well.

urban
03-21-2008, 07:30 AM
Thanks for the help. I never knew that Borg was a doublehander. Must have been blind, when i saw him play live.

lambielspins
03-21-2008, 06:50 PM
Federer is basically a defensive player, relying on good moving and accurate, topspinning baseline strokes, not unlike Borg.

The comedic relief on these boards still does not cease to amaze.

David L
03-21-2008, 07:25 PM
Thanks for the help. I never knew that Borg was a doublehander. Must have been blind, when i saw him play live.You're welcome, any time.:wink:

Wuornos
03-22-2008, 06:02 AM
Comparing the two players when they were at their peaks, Federer edges it, but not by as much as some people may think. Remember McEnroe in 1984 was fantastic.

ELO would estimate the following probabilities in a match between these two players at their peaks:

Roger Federer Peak ELO = 2776
John McEnroe Peak ELO = 2736

ELO Difference = 40 Points.

Probable results on random surface in 3 set match=

30% Federer in straight sets
27% Federer in three sets
22% McEnroe in three sets
20% McEnroe in straight sets

Probability Federer Win 57%
Probability McEnroe Win 43%

Data that does not sum to exactly 100% is due to rounding.

For an explanation of ELO see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=178992

Regards

Tim

David L
03-22-2008, 07:43 AM
Some of the tennis "experts" haha ahem.... on here are severely lacking in observational skills. Of course, it's not entirely uncommon for the extent of someone's talent to go unrecognised by one's contemporaries. I'm reminded of the complaint made by Emperor Joseph II, that Mozart's music had "too many notes". So for the benefit of the unenlightened, I thought I would post some quotes from some good tennis players and one coach, who actually know a thing or two about the game. I've highlighted in red, comments relevant to some of the topics which have arisen in this thread. Follow the link if you want to see more quotes.



Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournament in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him? He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.

Goran Ivanisevic, Wimbledon Champion.


He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in. No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue to play for another three or five years.

Bjorn Borg, winner of 11 Grand Slams, at Wimbledon 2007.


He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors', Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That, to me, says it all.

If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like him.

He's probably the greatest player that ever lived.

John McEnroe, winner of 7 Grand Slams.


I had a taste of what the best is tonight and I think Roger has that extra gear. He has good volleys and he has this little backhand flick that honestly, I have never seen before... it’s something that I didn’t have. I am happy with my performance tonight. I hung in there right until the end.

Pete Sampras, winner of 14 Grand Slams, after playing his second exhibition match with Roger Federer, Kuala Lumpur, Nov. 22, 2007.


Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time.

Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion.

The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head with a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won because standards are much higher these days.

Rod Laver, winner of 11 Grand Slams, considered by some the greatest player to ever play the game of tennis.


Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strokes. He is just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of. John [McEnroe] and Ilie [Nastase] were very talented but you always knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I would go and watch him practice, he's so good.

He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't even think about trying. He has so many skills.

Ivan Lendl, winner of 8 Grand Slams.


There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody.

He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.

Andre Agassi, winner of 8 Grand Slams.


We have a guy from Switzerland who is just playing the game a way I haven't seen anyone—and I mean anyone—play before. How fortunate we are to be able to see that. If he stays healthy and motivated—and the wonderful feel he has stays with him—he is the kind of guy who can overtake the greatest.

Boris Becker, winner of 6 Grand Slams.


I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.

Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, is the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's doing to him.

Jack Kramer, winner of 3 Grand Slams.


Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever had such quality.

Rafael Nadal, winner of 3 Grand Slams.


I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much as Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful, elegant and fluid—a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce tennis shots that should be declared illegal.

Tracy Austin, winner of 2 Grand Slams.


He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racquet around

Andy Roddick, US Open Champion.


He's the best player I've ever played against, full stop ... and he was just too good today.

Tim Henman, Grand Slam semi-finalist and a former world No.4.


Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He has the capacity to become the greatest in history.

Nick Bollettieri, former coach of multiple Grand Slam champions.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

David L
03-22-2008, 08:03 AM
Comparing the two players when they were at their peaks, Federer edges it, but not by as much as some people may think. Remember McEnroe in 1984 was fantastic.

ELO would estimate the following probabilities in a match between these two players at their peaks:

Roger Federer Peak ELO = 2776
John McEnroe Peak ELO = 2736

ELO Difference = 40 Points.

Probable results on random surface in 3 set match=

30% Federer in straight sets
27% Federer in three sets
22% McEnroe in three sets
20% McEnroe in straight sets

Probability Federer Win 57%
Probability McEnroe Win 43%

Data that does not sum to exactly 100% is due to rounding.

For an explanation of ELO see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=178992

Regards

Tim
The ELO system is great for comparing results, but it cannot measure talent or ability in anything other than extremely crude terms and it certainly cannot rank these qualities across eras. To observe where abilities and talents diverge and converge with greater accuracy, one requires the educated human eye and brain. That's not to say both cannot take the ELO system into account.

Could the ELO system have predicted Sampras' and Wayne Ferreira's h2h?

urban
03-22-2008, 08:05 AM
Now, all you Federer fans can do, apparently is, to repeat all those old quotes again and again. Its pretty lame and unconvincing, citing the same again from an adulation webside. I have read quotes by Becker, Mac and Laver, in which they referred to the right tactic vs. Federer, and that was to attack him. Becker would never call Federer an attacker.
Why not describe his style with own words and categories. Federer is a great player, no question, his style works in the current game, but he is no attacker. He gave up his attacking mood since the 2004 season. The main difference in comparison to Borg is, that he plays more near the baseline. Borg started his return way back, but it is to be said, that he moved in, when he actually met the ball with his racket. And if you start to think about slice, Borg got a pretty good backhand slice, which worked well on grass, especially in the 1978 Wimbledon final with Connors.

David L
03-22-2008, 08:43 AM
Now, all you Federer fans can do, apparently is, to repeat all those old quotes again and again. Its pretty lame and unconvincing, citing the same again from an adulation webside. I have read quotes by Becker, Mac and Laver, in which they referred to the right tactic vs. Federer, and that was to attack him. Becker would never call Federer an attacker.
Why not describe his style with own words and categories. Federer is a great player, no question, his style works in the current game, but he is no attacker. He gave up his attacking mood since the 2004 season. The main difference in comparison to Borg is, that he plays more near the baseline. Borg started his return way back, but it is to be said, that he moved in, when he actually met the ball with his racket. And if you start to think about slice, Borg got a pretty good backhand slice, which worked well on grass, especially in the 1978 Wimbledon final with Connors.This has nothing to do with being a fan of Federer. It's about understanding his game and the extent of his abilities. No one's saying Federer is an all out attacker, just that he's not a defensive player. In my own words, I would put Federer somewhere in between. He mixes things up, sometimes he'll be aggressive from the baseline, sometimes defensive, he's good at finishing points in the mid-court and at approaching the net. The ratio of his aggressive game to his defensive game will vary from match to match. This is why they call him multi-dimensional. Sampras and Edberg played the same way regardless of who and where they played, serve and volley all the time, and very effective it was too. Federer is more of a chameleon, constructing points as he goes.

The point of providing quotes from people with proven knowledge, is to lend credibility to my observations about Federer's game, not to claim them as my own. It also helps those who are not so familiar with tennis, but want to know more and want to be sure information is credible. That's why books have footnotes and references, to support their claims. For some reason, some people feel threatened by such references on this tennis board. In any case, I posted the quotes to address the original question of how Federer's game stacks up to others from past eras, not really to analyse the ins and outs of his game, despite that being something you and I briefly discussed.

saram
03-22-2008, 08:52 AM
^^^Federer can play S&V tennis. Did you not see the 2001 match with Roger and Pete? It was ALL S&V!!!!

krosero
03-22-2008, 09:00 AM
The point of providing quotes from people with proven knowledge, is to lend credibility to my observations about Federer's game, not to claim them as my own. It also helps those who are not so familiar with tennis, but want to know more and want to be sure information is credible. That's why books have footnotes and references, to support their claims. For some reason, some people feel threatened by such references on this tennis board. Just to put my two cents in about quote lists such as these. A statement has meaning in its original context, which is why it's a good thing to be skeptical about any quotes listed without their original context. People do it often to create an illusory effect -- taking quotes out of their original contexts and making them serve a purpose. In this case the purpose seems to be to adulate Federer -- or else there would be critical quotes on that page; there aren't any. That's why the list comes off, not as you wanted it (as providing analysis), but as a list of quotes intended by fans to produce an effect. Of course people are going to resist such a thing (unless they want the same effect). I think such a list could only drive the conversation to make it a general and useless question about how great Roger is. Best, imo, just to stick to the analysis. There's nothing you're arguing about Federer that needs any credibility from third parties.

I actually agree with your point about Federer; I see more differences with Borg than similarities. I can see, though, how someone would look at it differently.

David L
03-22-2008, 09:17 AM
Now, all you Federer fans can do, apparently is, to repeat all those old quotes again and again. Its pretty lame and unconvincing, citing the same again from an adulation webside. I have read quotes by Becker, Mac and Laver, in which they referred to the right tactic vs. Federer, and that was to attack him. Becker would never call Federer an attacker.
Why not describe his style with own words and categories. Federer is a great player, no question, his style works in the current game, but he is no attacker. He gave up his attacking mood since the 2004 season. The main difference in comparison to Borg is, that he plays more near the baseline. Borg started his return way back, but it is to be said, that he moved in, when he actually met the ball with his racket. And if you start to think about slice, Borg got a pretty good backhand slice, which worked well on grass, especially in the 1978 Wimbledon final with Connors.
I should add, to beat Federer, there is no right tactic per se. He can be beaten like anyone else, in many different ways. The key is, his opponent has to play better than him on the day, regardless of style. Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Murray, Djokovic Volandri, Canas, Nadal, have all beaten Federer of late. Henman beat Federer once or twice when he was No.1. The style doesn't matter, it's whether you can do it well enough when Federer is not playing at his highest level or whether your ability matches his, even at his highest level.

Becker, Mac and Laver all acknowledge Federer is the most talented player they have ever seen, but that does not mean they cannot speculate about what their approach would be if they were to play him. They are not saying it's guaranteed to work, just that that's the way they would try to play him or others should try to play him. Federer has beaten enough big servers, decent volleyers and baseliners, to prove he can handle all types of styles. It's a question of someone being better on the day.

David L
03-22-2008, 09:50 AM
Just to put my two cents in about quote lists such as these. A statement has meaning in its original context, which is why it's a good thing to be skeptical about any quotes listed without their original context. People do it often to create an illusory effect -- taking quotes out of their original contexts and making them serve a purpose. In this case the purpose seems to be to adulate Federer -- or else there would be critical quotes on that page; there aren't any. That's why the list comes off, not as you wanted it (as providing analysis), but as a list of quotes intended by fans to produce an effect. Of course people are going to resist such a thing (unless they want the same effect). I think such a list could only drive the conversation to make it a general and useless question about how great Roger is. Best, imo, just to stick to the analysis. There's nothing you're arguing about Federer that needs any credibility from third parties.

I actually agree with your point about Federer; I see more differences with Borg than similarities. I can see, though, how someone would look at it differently.This is why I prefaced the list of quotes with a comment about their purpose and highlighted the relevant parts for this discussion, in some of their context. Many of the relevant parts I pointed out provide information, as opposed to eulogy, which cannot be used to deceive out of context. Also, if anyone wants to see the full context, all the quotes are referenced with access to the full article, if you follow the link.

I disagree that quoting in this fashion makes the conversation general and useless, I would say the opposite in fact. A lot of hot air gets posted in this forum, but I like to provide posts with a little more substance. I know it's just a tennis forum and I'm not writing an academic dissertation, but my personality is such that I always like a little bit of substance, even when it comes to light entertainment. Even if I address a post to someone, in my mind I'm really not just addressing it to them alone, but anyone who might read it, "expert" or "novice". Analysis without support on an anonymous internet forum, renders all analysis equally credible to the "uneducated" eye, which kind of defeats the purpose of sharing/providing information and knowledge. It might not be to everyone's tastes, but I'm sure there are others like me.

urban
03-24-2008, 09:07 AM
Maybe Fish read my post.Just kidding. But Steve Tignor echoed some of my statements here yesterday on tennis webside. I qote:" For years, Federer defended, returned and backhand passed his way round attackers". Federer is of course no pure defender, nor was Borg. You don't win 5 Wimbies with defense only.

David L
03-24-2008, 02:14 PM
Maybe Fish read my post.Just kidding. But Steve Tignor echoed some of my statements here yesterday on tennis webside. I qote:" For years, Federer defended, returned and backhand passed his way round attackers". Federer is of course no pure defender, nor was Borg. You don't win 5 Wimbies with defense only.
Tignor is a hack. I always feel underwhelmed whenever I make the mistake of reading one of his articles. The guy probably doesn't have an athletic bone in his body and his "insights" leave much to be desired. I prefer to go by my own observations and Borg's own understanding of his game, and what he was trying to accomplish with his "war of attrition". In any case, I did previously acknowledge Borg, like Nadal, had to make adjustments when playing on grass, so his game was always more aggressive there than was typical. Also, it is still possible for two players to not be pure defenders, yet for one to be significantly more aggressive or defensive than the other, Tignor is not necessarily saying Federer and Borg are essentially the same type of player. Another thing, I do not equate aggression with approaching the net only. Agassi was a very aggressive player, but was rarely seen at the net and did not have a big serve, preferring to ply his trade from the baseline almost exclusively. Federer combines an aggressive baseline game with a defensive one, and numerous approaches to the net.

On an unrelated note, I thought I would post an article written by John McEnroe in 2005 where he says Federer may not be able to equal Sampras' records because of the increased depth in the game.

'Depth may put Sampras record beyond Federer'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2005/07/03/stmcen03.xml

urban
03-25-2008, 02:02 AM
Ok, all commentators, whose opinion doesn't fit into your scheme, are hacks. Add Tebutt, Bierley, Drucker and some others. Nice discussion style. And add Roche, who tried in vain, to put more attack into Federer's game.

Moose Malloy
03-25-2008, 10:50 AM
prefer to go by my own observations and Borg's own understanding of his game, and what he was trying to accomplish with his "war of attrition". In any case, I did previously acknowledge Borg, like Nadal, had to make adjustments when playing on grass, so his game was always more aggressive there than was typical.

I have many old matches on tape, & Borg comes to the net far more than Federer or Nadal. The stats don't lie. He S&Ved on 1st & 2nd serve on every point in the '76 W final(watched this recently). Even in 2001, Fed only S&Ved on 1st serve when he beat Sampras. And Borg came in more on hardcourt or indoor carpet than Fed does. He even came in a fair bit on clay(no joke) I don't rely on 10 second youtube clips, but watch entire matches to learn this info.

It's nice that you can find links from Borg's book, but I don't think its possible to really understand Borg unless you have seen many matches of his, on all surfaces, like urban has. have you?

I also noticed that the only time you participate in 'Former Pro Player talk' is when Fed is mentioned(you do post on him a lot), have you been following the game long? I know urban has, his is one of the most knowledgable posters here.

On an unrelated note, I thought I would post an article written by John McEnroe in 2005 where he says Federer may not be able to equal Sampras' records because of the increased depth in the game.

'Depth may put Sampras record beyond Federer'


That's pretty funny, because that's exactly what many greats were saying in Sampras' time when started winning a lot of majors("no way can he get to 13, there is too much depth in 'today's' game" But since that was pre-internet, I guess it really didn't happen)

I've actually compared the draws at all the majors from '93-'97 & '03-'07 & the 90s had more upsets than today(just counting 1-16, since 32 seeds didn't exist), & far lower ranked players were making the later rounds of majors than today(& posted the data here, which of course everyone ignored)
So much for superior 'depth' today.

You can learn all this on atptennis under results archive, its probably not wise to just accept anything said in the media as fact, especially when they are just opinions. I think facts outweigh opinions, and depth, or lack therof, can be easily proven, if anyone cares to make the effort of looking at draws, rankings, scores, etc. And this evidence occasionally pops up(like a recent article at atptennis, where it said that there were only 5 first time winners on the atp last year. In comparison, there were 18(!) first time winners in '95. Talk about depth.

The disturbing amount of upsets in the 90s is partly why 32 seeds were adopted by the majors, fans were a bit sick to see so many no-names in the QF, SF, of majors in the 90s, & majors where all the top 10 were out by the round of 16. It was sort of ridiculous.

Now with the remarkable consistency of top players today, you can see what a difference 32 seeds makes. If anything Sampras had it tougher, 32 seeds instead of 16 makes a huge difference in the difficulty of a draw. Fed is more likely to get an easy early round draw playing today, than 10 years ago.

I can only imagine what will be said about this era in 10 years('weaker depth'
will almost certainly be a common phrase), since I've seen it happen with the 90s compared to 2000s.

btw, I think Federer is the best player I've seen in 20 some years of following tennis. I just don't think its necessary to be misleading about past generations(like the weaker depth stuff) in order to build him up, his results speak for themselves.

And if you are so adamant in using that as an argument, be prepared to accept that in the future many (including HOF type commentators) will be saying that he didn't face much depth, or the quality of athletes that players will be facing 10-15 years from now. It is inevitable, since I've seen it happen so often over the last 20 years.
I understand why this happens, its hard to keep a fanbase in tennis, since so many players come & go(while in team sports, the teams have histories, it doesn't matter that players change over the years), so you need a little hyperbole to entice impressionable young tennis fans.

BeHappy
03-25-2008, 11:22 AM
borg S&V'd to different extents in different matches in wimby Moose, check out his semi final versus jimmy connors to see an example of him playing the baseline.

Azzurri
03-25-2008, 12:05 PM
Why so sensitive to compare Federer with Borg. Borg has more 6-1,6-0 scores than Federer, he ceratinly could blow people out of court. Borg had a big forehand, too, with which he could be aggressive. But as Federer, he was basically a defensive player.

LOL..I let it go the first time, but Fed is NOT a defensive player. Not at all. Please define defensive..maybe you and others have a different meaning. I am just curious, because you may think of defensive completely differently than I do. Fed is an aggresive player and hits lots of down the line shots...hardly defensive in my view. I will wait to hear from you.:)

David L
03-25-2008, 09:35 PM
Ok, all commentators, whose opinion doesn't fit into your scheme, are hacks. Add Tebutt, Bierley, Drucker and some others. Nice discussion style. And add Roche, who tried in vain, to put more attack into Federer's game.Listen, I don't know what they are and I don't really care, but I give greater credence to my own observations and pros who have played the game at a high level. Most of these journalists don't even play sport.

David L
03-25-2008, 11:24 PM
I have many old matches on tape, & Borg comes to the net far more than Federer or Nadal. The stats don't lie. He S&Ved on 1st & 2nd serve on every point in the '76 W final(watched this recently). Even in 2001, Fed only S&Ved on 1st serve when he beat Sampras. And Borg came in more on hardcourt or indoor carpet than Fed does. He even came in a fair bit on clay(no joke) I don't rely on 10 second youtube clips, but watch entire matches to learn this info.

It's nice that you can find links from Borg's book, but I don't think its possible to really understand Borg unless you have seen many matches of his, on all surfaces, like urban has. have you?

I also noticed that the only time you participate in 'Former Pro Player talk' is when Fed is mentioned(you do post on him a lot), have you been following the game long? I know urban has, his is one of the most knowledgable posters here.



That's pretty funny, because that's exactly what many greats were saying in Sampras' time when started winning a lot of majors("no way can he get to 13, there is too much depth in 'today's' game" But since that was pre-internet, I guess it really didn't happen)

I've actually compared the draws at all the majors from '93-'97 & '03-'07 & the 90s had more upsets than today(just counting 1-16, since 32 seeds didn't exist), & far lower ranked players were making the later rounds of majors than today(& posted the data here, which of course everyone ignored)
So much for superior 'depth' today.

You can learn all this on atptennis under results archive, its probably not wise to just accept anything said in the media as fact, especially when they are just opinions. I think facts outweigh opinions, and depth, or lack therof, can be easily proven, if anyone cares to make the effort of looking at draws, rankings, scores, etc. And this evidence occasionally pops up(like a recent article at atptennis, where it said that there were only 5 first time winners on the atp last year. In comparison, there were 18(!) first time winners in '95. Talk about depth.

The disturbing amount of upsets in the 90s is partly why 32 seeds were adopted by the majors, fans were a bit sick to see so many no-names in the QF, SF, of majors in the 90s, & majors where all the top 10 were out by the round of 16. It was sort of ridiculous.

Now with the remarkable consistency of top players today, you can see what a difference 32 seeds makes. If anything Sampras had it tougher, 32 seeds instead of 16 makes a huge difference in the difficulty of a draw. Fed is more likely to get an easy early round draw playing today, than 10 years ago.

I can only imagine what will be said about this era in 10 years('weaker depth'
will almost certainly be a common phrase), since I've seen it happen with the 90s compared to 2000s.

btw, I think Federer is the best player I've seen in 20 some years of following tennis. I just don't think its necessary to be misleading about past generations(like the weaker depth stuff) in order to build him up, his results speak for themselves.

And if you are so adamant in using that as an argument, be prepared to accept that in the future many (including HOF type commentators) will be saying that he didn't face much depth, or the quality of athletes that players will be facing 10-15 years from now. It is inevitable, since I've seen it happen so often over the last 20 years.
I understand why this happens, its hard to keep a fanbase in tennis, since so many players come & go(while in team sports, the teams have histories, it doesn't matter that players change over the years), so you need a little hyperbole to entice impressionable young tennis fans.
I've addressed most of the issues you bring up, in my previous posts. And I cannot bear to repeat myself. All I will say is, the game has changed. It's more difficult to play the net today, so less people do. Borg played during a time when it would have been a bigger disadvantage not to take the net away from your opponent on grass, so he was forced to come in. Federer, for me, is more aggressive from the baseline, which is where he plays most of his tennis. He approaches the net when the opportunity arises and usually not off the serve, preferring to play the baseline most of the time. It doesn't matter, one can still be aggressive from the baseline and there are more tournaments than just Wimbledon.

Personally, I prefer to play tennis more than watch it. Becker was my favourite player growing up and I vaguely remember seeing the McEnroe/Borg Wimbledon matches live on tv when I was very young. Naturally, since then I have seen both players on video numerous times. Tennis as a spectator sport began to bore me during the period the Agassi/Sampras rivalry began to wind down. I preferred to play and catch the occasional match. Hewitt was dominating at this time. I had seen Federer and the other players, but Safin was probably the most interesting player to me during this period. That all changed when I saw Federer destroy Roddick in the 2003 Wimbledon semi-final, playing some of the most destructive and elegant tennis I had ever seen.

I'm not really interested in the personalities of players. I'm interested in their games, and there are not many who interest me out there at the moment, with the exception of Federer and one or two others. This is probably why you will not find me piping in most of the time regarding most other players, although I have. I'm not a tennis groupie or junkie when it comes to watching endless amounts of tennis or collecting autographs and memorabilia. Not interested. I'm interested in seeing special things done on the court, and I'm the same in other areas of life. I'm an aesthete, but have no great attachment to teams, clubs, countries etc. etc, just the sublime. I'm also interested in perfecting my own game and abilities, for my own idle pleasure. It's only since joining this forum that I have engaged in inane debates of the kind which go on here and been tinged a little with anorakitus. I only have myself to blame and am still trying to shake out of it.:lol:

Azzurri
03-26-2008, 09:36 AM
I've addressed most of the issues you bring up, in my previous posts. And I cannot bear to repeat myself. All I will say is, the game has changed. It's more difficult to play the net today, so less people do. Borg played during a time when it would have been a bigger disadvantage not to take the net away from your opponent on grass, so he was forced to come in. Federer, for me, is more aggressive from the baseline, which is where he plays most of his tennis. He approaches the net when the opportunity arises and usually not off the serve, preferring to play the baseline most of the time. It doesn't matter, one can still be aggressive from the baseline and there are more tournaments than just Wimbledon.

Personally, I prefer to play tennis more than watch it. Becker was my favourite player growing up and I vaguely remember seeing the McEnroe/Borg Wimbledon matches live on tv when I was very young. Naturally, since then I have seen both players on video numerous times. Tennis as a spectator sport began to bore me during the period the Agassi/Sampras rivalry began to wind down. I preferred to play and catch the occasional match. Hewitt was dominating at this time. I had seen Federer and the other players, but Safin was probably the most interesting player to me during this period. That all changed when I saw Federer destroy Roddick in the 2003 Wimbledon semi-final, playing some of the most destructive and elegant tennis I had ever seen.

I'm not really interested in the personalities of players. I'm interested in their games, and there are not many who interest me out there at the moment, with the exception of Federer and one or two others. This is probably why you will not find me piping in most of the time regarding most other players, although I have. I'm not a tennis groupie or junkie when it comes to watching endless amounts of tennis or collecting autographs and memorabilia. Not interested. I'm interested in seeing special things done on the court, and I'm the same in other areas of life. I'm an aesthete, but have no great attachment to teams, clubs, countries etc. etc, just the sublime. I'm also interested in perfecting my own game and abilities, for my own idle pleasure. It's only since joining this forum that I have engaged in inane debates of the kind which go on here and been tinged a little with anorakitus. I only have myself to blame and am still trying to shake out of it.:lol:

I actually read this post twice...really interesting take on tennis. I assume we around the same age. I also just started watching tennis when Mac began to dominate. Mac is the reason I started to play. Not only was tennis great in the 80's, but you had some really interesting players from 80-95. Today's players bore me. I like Safin, but he loses way too often. Nadal is boring, Davydenko, and any other robot. While I dislike Roddick, I watch him because of his a-holeness on the court. James Blake because he goes for broke...but Federer for all that great about the sport itself. Watching him brings back the good old days. Its a shame what has happened to tennis..no S&V players to combat the baseliner. I too rather play than watch (I do watch a lot of the GS and Masters series, but not as much as I watched from 80-99).

hollywood9826
03-26-2008, 09:49 AM
I feel proud of my self that for my 50th post I resurrected this thread which had been dead for like 7 months.

Irregardless I have to agree with slap on this one. Although I am a little younger than he. There is no disparity in the game anymore, and besides fed and some 6'10" freakzoid its all kinda the same to watch. Ill just save my TV to watching slams when it gets to semis.

hoodjem
03-26-2008, 10:18 AM
Today's players bore me. I like Safin, but he loses way too often. Nadal is boring, Davydenko, and any other robot. While I dislike Roddick, I watch him because of his a-holeness on the court. James Blake because he goes for broke...but Federer for all that great about the sport itself. Watching him brings back the good old days. Its a shame what has happened to tennis..no S&V players to combat the baseliner. I too rather play than watch (I do watch a lot of the GS and Masters series, but not as much as I watched from 80-99).

I agree with much of this. I started to play tennis back in the 60s. I really got into watching the pros at the tail end of the Laver-Rosewall era/beginning of the Connors-Borg era.

I too find Nadal, Davydenko, and other clay-court grinders robotically boring. Blake and Safin are far more exciting, but I don't enjoy watching players meltdown or implode.

I started out enjoying watching Federer play because of his "classic" strokes, and all-court game. But in the last few years have found his backcourt strategy (even though it is effective and he wins) not that interesting to watch. Plus, I missed the thrill of not knowing who will win in the end--Fed always did. (As you might guess, I did really appreciate the 2008 AO because it suggested more competition or a "changing of the guard.") I wish a great S&V player would come along to challenge Fed and force him out of his baseline encampment. Maybe Djokovic is the best we can hope for, given the supposed "depth" of today's game.

Speaking of this, I take issue with McEnroe that the game is so much deeper today. I believe that it was much "deeper" with higher quality players in the late 60s/70s. Here's a comparison which suggests what I mean:

Top FIVE in 2008
1. Federer
2. Nadal (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles)
4. Davydenko (0 Grand Slam titles)
5. Ferrer (0 Grand Slam titles)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)

(Of course, I know that these lists are early in some of these 2008 players' careers. I am aware also that many persons on this site don't care anything about doubles, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it and that it does not matter.)

Azzurri
03-27-2008, 08:01 AM
I agree with much of this. I started to play tennis back in the 60s. I really got into watching the pros at the tail end of the Laver-Rosewall era/beginning of the Connors-Borg era.

I too find Nadal, Davydenko, and other clay-court grinders robotically boring. Blake and Safin are far more exciting, but I don't enjoy watching players meltdown or implode.

I started out enjoying watching Federer play because of his "classic" strokes, and all-court game. But in the last few years have found his backcourt strategy (even though it is effective and he wins) not that interesting to watch. Plus, I missed the thrill of not knowing who will win in the end--Fed always did. (As you might guess, I did really appreciate the 2008 AO because it suggested more competition or a "changing of the guard.") I wish a great S&V player would come along to challenge Fed and force him out of his baseline encampment. Maybe Djokovic is the best we can hope for, given the supposed "depth" of today's game.

Speaking of this, I take issue with McEnroe that the game is so much deeper today. I believe that it was much "deeper" with higher quality players in the late 60s/70s. Here's a comparison which suggests what I mean:

Top FIVE in 2008
1. Federer
2. Nadal (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles)
4. Davydenko (0 Grand Slam titles)
5. Ferrer (0 Grand Slam titles)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)

(Of course, I know that these lists are early in some of these 2008 players' careers. I am aware also that many persons on this site don't care anything about doubles, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it and that it does not matter.)

Great point about Federer. I liked his game way more in 04-05. He is too much of a baseliner today. I wish he would S&V more, but like Pete (as he got older) hopefully he will look to end points more quickly. I don't mind Djokavic, but I am at a crossroad with him. I may really like him or really hate him. I am really concerned about tennis in 5 years. If they all look and play alike, there will be little reason to watch.

hoodjem
03-27-2008, 12:17 PM
Great point about Federer. I liked his game way more in 04-05. He is too much of a baseliner today.

Thanks. I think he should take you advice and S&V more to end the points more quickly, instead of getting in a tiring slugfest.


I am really concerned about tennis in 5 years. If they all look and play alike, there will be little reason to watch.

Me too. Talk about boring--watching two baseline bashers--I'll start watching that fast-paced game of golf.

Remember the great days of Borg vs. McEnroe: baseliner versus S&Ver. Classic, edge-of-your-seat matches!

NikeWilson
03-27-2008, 05:36 PM
McEnroe couldn't even beat Jim Courier. and he still can't.

Azzurri
03-27-2008, 06:10 PM
Thanks. I think he should take you advice and S&V more to end the points more quickly, instead getting in a tiring slugfest.




Me too. Talk about boring--watching two baseline bashers--I'll start watching that fast-paced game of golf.

Remember the great days of Borg vs. McEnroe: baseliner versus S&Ver. Classic, edge-of-your-seat matches!

It just makes me sad, so sad. If I would have known what tennis would be like today, I would have wathced much more tennis back then (I wathced quite a bit, but could have watched more).

Azzurri
03-27-2008, 06:16 PM
McEnroe couldn't even beat Jim Courier. and he still can't.

Mac has a 1-2 record, but are you saying he never beat him on the Champions Tour? I thought Mac beat him a few times?

Jackie T. Stephens
03-27-2008, 06:21 PM
was there ever a player that was as good as Mac @ 'serve wide, put away volley to the completely open court'?

i don't believe so... tell me Mac's serve wasn't dominant! it was, just not with a radar gun. since when did dominant mean 'more powerful'?

Agassi....

zagor
03-27-2008, 06:26 PM
It just makes me sad, so sad. If I would have known what tennis would be like today, I would have wathced much more tennis back then (I wathced quite a bit, but could have watched more).

You still have a few guys who can play at the net like Ancic,Lopez,Stepanek,
Mahut,Federer(even though he went to the net a lot more in 2003 and 2004).Of course you won't see match-ups like Sampras-Agassi,Rafter-Agassi,Edberg-Courier etc.those were special.They should really speed up surfaces.

Andres
03-27-2008, 07:20 PM
classic stupid post about Rios ,,, its so sad the jealous that argentinans has for the Master Rios ,,, you should go to live with Drakulie and think about Rios all day.

Are you drunk, or you simply can't read?? I didn't say ANYTHING stupid about Rios... in fact, if anything, I'm praising him!!

I said: "If McEnroe can't beat Marcelo Rios, how in hell would he beat Roger Federer!?" ... how is that a bad remark about Rios??

Not everything we say is against Rios, you paranoid freak. In fact, I like the guy quite a bit. I hate his attitude, but he had such a beautiful game.

And now, in case you still HAVEN'T got what I said, I'll rephrase it in a way even YOU could understand:

"If McEnroe can't even beat Rios, who's been retired for some years and he's 10 years younger than him, how in hell is he gonna beat Roger Federer, who's the world's #1 for the past 4 years? "

Ahhh, I see it now... wow! That was a huge Rios bashing!! shame on me! :roll:

Andres
03-27-2008, 07:22 PM
Ok, I'll rephrase it one last time, so you won't have anything else to say:

"If McEnroe can't beat Ivanisevic most of the time, how in hell is he gonna beat Roger Federer?"

Or was that disrespectful to Goran as well?

Azzurri
03-28-2008, 06:33 AM
You still have a few guys who can play at the net like Ancic,Lopez,Stepanek,
Mahut,Federer(even though he went to the net a lot more in 2003 and 2004).Of course you won't see match-ups like Sampras-Agassi,Rafter-Agassi,Edberg-Courier etc.those were special.They should really speed up surfaces.

Yes, speed up the surface and eliminate poly strings.

Azzurri
03-28-2008, 06:35 AM
Ok, I'll rephrase it one last time, so you won't have anything else to say:

"If McEnroe can't beat Ivanisevic most of the time, how in hell is he gonna beat Roger Federer?"

Or was that disrespectful to Goran as well?

How dare you insult Goran!:mad::)

NLBwell
03-28-2008, 05:42 PM
I bet McEnroe and Bjorkman could beat Federer.

Wuornos
04-02-2008, 03:45 AM
Most people would consider Mcenroe arrogant, but he openly admits Sampras and Federer are better than him. I seriously don't think so. McEnroe was amazing. For once McEnroe doesn't give himself enough credit. I hope he is reading this.

No one comes close to his mastery at the net. He looked so cool coming to the net. Like Travolta in Saturday night Fever. He didn't try to overpower you. He dropped stuff nicely just right out your reach and made you look stupid. Guys would dart across the court as if to save their mom from a moving training while McEnroe would softly dump and deflect volleys left and right without even flinching. It was like he was some super hero. Watch him toy with Chang the year before Chang won the French. Mind you this way after his prime. But still there are flashes that dreams are made of. I miss those days. I would love to see him toy with Venus, Serena, or even Henin. He would make them look so stupid. Even at his age right now. I would pay $10,000 to see this. I'm sure lots of us would. All this women are too scared though.

Yes he was a great player, but you shouldn't underestimate Federer to much. Enjoy watching him play, it will be a long time before we see another player of his calibre.

Personally I would make a peak Federer 2-1 on to beat a peak McEnroe in a 5 set match, and that isn't belittling McEnroe, it's praising Federer.

hoodjem
04-02-2008, 06:15 AM
Enjoy watching him play, it will be a long time before we see another player of his calibre.

Tim,

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but I think it is ironic that when Sampras was on the verge of retiring, TV commentators said "it will be a long time before we see that kind of dominance and a single player winning that many slam titles," or something to that effect.

Then Roger came along pretty soon thereafter, and proved them wrong.

kiki
03-20-2011, 07:32 AM
Threads like this are unbelievable. McEnroe and Federer are both great players. One wouldnt have the other for "lunch" if both were in their primes.

McEnroe in 1984 was unbelievable. If I had to guess I think he would have the slight edge on Fed that year, but Fed would still have given him a good battle. The 1980-1983 version of McEnroe, maybe Fed the slight edge, but McEnroe would have been real competition.

That is all hypothetical though. I dont see either having the other for lunch. Maybe the less mature Federer of 2001-early 2003 McEnroe would have had for lunch; or the less motivated McEnroe of 1986-onwards, Fed would own. However not when both were in their primes and feeling well.

Great post.Finally, a mature, well rounded argument.1984 Mac was spectacular, many years Fed has dominated, he never had the difficult opposition that Mac had (Connors,Borg,Wilander,Lendl).Still, while Mac is much more enjoyable to watch, Federer is a more complete, better player.

Mac would win some indoor or grass matches, but would fell on hard and on clay, that is my impression.

hoodjem
03-20-2011, 08:45 AM
Mac would win some indoor or grass matches, but would fell on hard and on clay, that is my impression.Do you think Mac was better on grass or hard-court or indoor carpet?

kiki
03-20-2011, 08:52 AM
Do you think Mac was better on grass or hard-court?

He was great on both, but I think his game would give Federer more trouble on ( old) grass than hard courts.Federer never played on old grass, while he is full of hard court tournaments to play at, even more than Mac had in the 80´s.

On the other hand, it is the reverse indoors, today there is no indoor tennis, ( old fast) indoor tennis while during Mac´s era it was a predominant surface.



As a matter of fact, if we compare the circuits during Mac´s era and Roger´s era, there is more or less the same number of grass ( though a very different kind of grass) and clay court events, but the indoor/hard court proportion is inversed.¿Do you agree?

borg number one
03-20-2011, 08:54 AM
He was great on both, but I think his game would give Federer more trouble on ( old) grass than hard courts.Federer never played on old grass, while he is full of hard court tournaments to play at, even more than Mac had in the 80´s.

On the other hand, it is the reverse indoors, today there is no indoor tennis, ( old fast) indoor tennis while during Mac´s era it was a predominant surface. During the late 1970's-early 1980's, for example, you had a lot of indoor (esp. fast indoor carpet tournaments). You also had Wimbledon with faster courts. That has changed, while we have had a growth in hard court tourneys. Even at the US Open, I believe the surface was faster back then compared to today. Yet, you do have more hard court tournaments instead of those indoor tourneys. Meanwhile, Wimbledon has slowed and the clay season has not changed much.



As a matter of fact, if we compare the circuits during Mac´s era and Roger´s era, there is more or less the same number of grass ( though a very different kind of grass) and clay court events, but the indoor/hard court proportion is inversed.¿Do you agree?

Well put and an excellent observation.

hoodjem
03-20-2011, 09:00 AM
As a matter of fact, if we compare the circuits during Mac´s era and Roger´s era, there is more or less the same number of grass ( though a very different kind of grass) and clay court events, but the indoor/hard court proportion is inversed.¿Do you agree?True. Come to think of it, where are the indoor tournaments nowadays?

borg number one
03-20-2011, 09:05 AM
True. Come to think of it, are there any indoor tournaments nowadays?

There are a few, but not as many as before. Borg had 20+ indoor titles, and Connors and McEnroe both have far more indoor titles than Federer for example, but they played in many more indoor tournaments during their respective careers.

kiki
03-20-2011, 09:14 AM
True. Come to think of it, are there any indoor tournaments nowadays?

Nope, not what I mean for indoor ( remember the old clear blue Supreme court?).Now that you mentioned it, I just wanted compare the big events of , say 2010 vs the big events, say 1980 ( in terms of price money).

I have made a free similarity of the current TMS with those same events or others that had the same value during the 80´s.That memans, even if it is not the very same event, their importance within the circuit would be comparable.

GRAN SLAMS

French : always on clay
Wimbledon: old grass in 80, new grass in 2010
USO: always hard " decoturf"
AO: grass in the 80´s, hard, now.But the old aussie grass would be more similar to the current grass than to the old Wimbledon grass.

Masters: Indoor supreme carpet then, Indoor HARD COURT today ( which is not indoor for my taste, because you can also have indoor clay, indoor grass or whatever)

PHILADELPHIA/PARIS BERCY. Indoor Supreme / Hard Court Indoor
PALM SPRINGS/iNDIAN WELLS: Hard court both
LAS VEGAS/MIAMI: Hard court both
TORONTO/TORONTO: Hard court both
ROME/ROME: Clay both
MONTECARLO/MONTECARLO:Clay both
HAMBURG/MADRID: Clay both
TOKYO SEIKO/SHANGAI: Indoor supreme / hard Court indoor
MEMPHIS/CINCINNAT:. Indoor supreme/Hard Court
ROTTERDAM/ROTTERDAM. Indoor supreme/Indoor ¿Supreme? ( not sure)
JOHANNESBOURG/JOHANNESBOURG. Hard court both

other big events in 1980 like
Wembley,Frankfurt,Milan,Stockholm,Richmond,Monterr ey were held on indoor supreme.

The US clay court circuit of the 80´s had clay events like Boston,Washington,North Conway and Indianapolis, today have been completely removed and Boston,Washington,New Heaven and Indianapolis are played on the same hard courts as Flushing Meadows.

Barcelona keeps being played on clay, while other classic events such as WCT (indoor) Finals, Houston and Buenos Aires (Clay) have dissapeared.

borg number one
03-20-2011, 09:17 AM
Kiki, that's a very good rundown of surface shifts over that time period. As to Houston though, I would point out that they do still hold clay event there every year. It hosts the "U.S. Clay Court Championships" while will be in April 2011. It has held clay events for a very long time, but for many years, it was an exhibition at River Oaks. It's the site once again.

kiki
03-20-2011, 09:21 AM
Kiki, that's a very good rundown of surface shifts over that time period. As to Houston though, I would point out that they do still hold clay event there every year. It hosts the "U.S. Clay Court Championships" while will be in April 2011. It has held clay events for a very long time, but for many years, it was an exhibition at River Oaks. It's the site once again.

Thank you Borg Nº 1.You´re right about Houston and the great River Oaks ( one of the favourite venues for the 1980 pros, anyway).back then, the US CC Champiosnhips were held in Indianapolis, isn´t it ?.I think Houston was one of the stalwards of the WCT Circuit, and the last regular tournament before the WCT FINALS at Cobb Arena, if I recall properly.

borg number one
03-20-2011, 09:32 AM
Yes Kiki. I go there every year. I had the wonderful opportunity to see Borg and Connors play an exhibition there in the 1990's for example. I saw Vilas and Wilander there in the 1980's. A young Borg lost to Laver on clay at River Oaks in the mid 70's in a final. They now have the US Clay Court Championships. Yes, it used to be held in Indianapolis. That was a big event back then. By the way, I love the River Oaks venue. See this info.

River Oaks Country Club has played host to the River Oaks International Tennis Tournament since 1931. The tournament is the oldest in the country to still be played in its original site, in the original stadium. From the very beginning, the River Oaks International was an amateur tournament, and was not associated with the professional tennis associations. From the start, the field was filled with a few stars and then local candidates filled out the rest of the field. There were many years when the stars found themselves headed home early.
One of the landmark tournament events was in 1974, the championship match was broadcast before a national audience; thirty-four year old Rod Laver, met the heir apparent, seventeen year old Björn Borg. For both this marked a highlight in their careers, Laver became the first man to hold 4 singles championships at River Oaks, and for Borg it marked the beginning of his impressive tennis career.
In 2008, the River Oaks International was merged with the US Men's Clay Court Championship to continue the storied and tradition filled tennis stadium at River Oaks. The merger between one of the oldest, and last remaining clay court tournaments in the United States, with the tradition oriented River Oaks, created an atmosphere like none other. With the name of the tournament the River Oaks Clay Court Championships [1]
The River Oaks US Men's Clay Court Championship will return again this April, for another round of tennis under the shady oaks. The dates are April 6–12, 2009.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/leelord337/0409091820.jpg

kiki
03-20-2011, 09:38 AM
Yes Kiki. I go there every year. I had the wonderful opportunity to see Borg and Connors play an exhibition there in the 1990's for example. I saw Vilas and Wilander there in the 1980's. A young Borg lost to Laver on clay at River Oaks in the mid 70's in a final. They now have the US Clay Court Championships. Yes, it used to be held in Indianapolis. That was a big event back then. By the way, I love the River Oaks venue. See this info.



http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/leelord337/0409091820.jpg

Good point, Borg Nº 1.I used to follow the Houston results and I know most of the big names of the 70´s,80´s and may be 90´s have lured playing there.I also heard lot of nice things about the promenade that leads to the clubhouse.Texas people must have been fortunate to be able to see great clay court action in Houston and, probably, the best ever indoor event at Dallas.

morten
03-20-2011, 09:58 AM
True. Come to think of it, are there any indoor tournaments nowadays?

yes, but they still play slow like any other surface..

MichaelH
03-21-2011, 06:07 AM
Partisan speculations are fun, aren't they? With ALL due respect, though, they don't prove a single thing.

McEnroe brought something to the game that no one else did: Whether you liked him -- hated him -- despised him -- makes no difference. He brought excitement to the game like no one else.

MichaelH
03-21-2011, 06:27 AM
I DO have an opinion I'd like to propose, here...one that isn't "pie in the sky"...

Since the days of McEnroe and the other greats of tennis from yesteryear, training and technique have markedly improved. Additionally the rewards (financial) for tennis have taken quantum leaps. These FACTS lead to only one conclusion: The tennis now is better than it was back "then". The most glaring evidence of that is in the women's game. I coached for over thirty years, both men's and women's tennis at the prep level, and there are prep women in HIGH SCHOOL (now), who would whip some of the 'greats' of the past.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
03-21-2011, 07:46 AM
I DO have an opinion I'd like to propose, here...one that isn't "pie in the sky"...

Since the days of McEnroe and the other greats of tennis from yesteryear, training and technique have markedly improved. Additionally the rewards (financial) for tennis have taken quantum leaps. These FACTS lead to only one conclusion: The tennis now is better than it was back "then". The most glaring evidence of that is in the women's game. I coached for over thirty years, both men's and women's tennis at the prep level, and there are prep women in HIGH SCHOOL (now), who would whip some of the 'greats' of the past.

I think the equipments have changed too much for any kind of comparison.

Imean what other sport changed somuch? in fact what "hasn't"changed in tennis..pretty much court dimension andthats it..shoes have changed too

peak macenroe with wood..when everyone else has no choice but to use wood as well..I just thik it'sgonnaget ugly for anyone across the net to mac.

Notice how loads ofthreads take past players and bring them forward to today with todays equipment..rather than GO BACK in time.
egNadal vs Macenroe...onlyWOOD
or borg vs sampras ..onlyWOOD..etc etc

as for your statement..once again its equipmentrelated..players do hit the ball harder and with more spin because they can with todays technology....you talk as if past players couldn't do things...well they werent allowed to with the tech of thetime.

Its like saying Fangio was a useless driver, Schumacher can goway faster thanhim

urban
03-21-2011, 08:29 AM
I think, to all who have witnessed it, the 1984 McEnroe reached a sort of ultimate peak in terms of sheer tennis play. True, the big graphite hitters were just on the horizon, and a year later, they took over. But this 1984 was sort of Orwellesk, and in most peoples minds, this tennis remains surreal. Mac's play at the Wimbledon final against a alltime great, on a blistering hot day, on a ultra-fast court, which played like a billard table, was sensational. Perfect mix of power, Mac hammered his serves and returns that day, and sensitivity. Tennis was so simple then. I remember, that Mac slid out, fell to the ground and still glided into the next shot and won the point. Or a semi-lob out of nothing, without any spin, straight down the middle, leaving Connors stranded. Connors' court half looked double the size of Mac's. Mac simply couldn't put a foot wrong on that particular day.

TMF
03-21-2011, 08:30 AM
"If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like him."

-John McEnroe

borg number one
03-21-2011, 08:36 AM
"If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like him."

-John McEnroe

That was a nice quote, but think about it. Roger Federer never had the chance to see McEnroe play back in 1984. So, he's not even aware of how well McEnroe played, whereas McEnroe watched Federer play, so he's able to say nice things about another great player. When he says "I wish I could play like him", he's certainly not talking about his serve and volley game. Plus, the courts were much faster in the 1980's versus now, so the style that McEnroe played was more rewarded at Wimbledon especially.

kiki
03-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Let´s assume that Wimbledon from 1970´s to 1990´s was a much different tournament than Wimbledon of today.We can compare feats but still, we won´t be talking about the same thing.Federer has been the undeniable king and master of slow court Wimbledon, while Mac was predominant, but not certainly the best, on fast court Wimbledon.

Let´s chose what Wimbledon do you want, but let´s give to everyone what belongs to him.Same thing when comparing Court,Navratilova or Graf record on grass vs Serena´s, Venus or Maria´s.Same venue, yes, same tournament, no.

hoodjem
03-21-2011, 01:41 PM
"If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like him."

-John McEnroeThe question I would ask is who is a more complete player: McEnroe or Federer? If the answer is Federer, then I would agree with Mac's statement.

kiki
03-21-2011, 02:21 PM
I do not think anybody said that, given the talent and natural class of both players, a good Federer vs Mc Enroe clash would be more than welcome on any of this planet´s surface.So, forget about who wins it...and enjoy it.