PDA

View Full Version : More entertaining: S & V matches or today's matches?


bladepdb
01-11-2009, 02:25 PM
The title is pretty self explanatory. I just want to settle this once and for all :)

I was surprised how many people on these forums seem to think S&V is a more enjoyable/interesting style of play. I personally get bored watching an old Sampras match. It's not that it isn't rich with technique, but rather it's just boring to watch. Serve, ace...or 1-2 punch. That's probably 80% of the points in those matches.

In today's matches, it's exciting watching people play at the baseline IMO. You never can tell what direction one person will take the ball to or how the opponent will respond to a quick change in direction once a rally is started. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean I want to watch Nadal all day pouncing from the baseline...I still enjoy a game with variety like Murray's (just one example).

So that's my two cents on the matter. I'm NOT arguing which is a better style of play, but simply which is more "entertaining" to watch? If your job was to watch tennis 8 hours a day and you got paid for it, would you watch S & V players go at it or more baseline oriented players like the top players today?

Nadal_Freak
01-11-2009, 02:30 PM
More baseline oriented players and it isn't even close. I can't stand S&V.

veroniquem
01-11-2009, 02:54 PM
What 's entertaining is versatility (and strategic intelligence and adaptability). Systematic serve and volley is as tedious as interminable monotonous baseline rallies.

tacou
01-11-2009, 03:05 PM
^ bingo.

anyone who plays their game well I enjoy. I love watching Safin/Fed at AO05, in my opinion the greatest display of baseline bashing, but get a guy like Robredo playing Ferrer and jeeeez I fall asleep.

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 03:14 PM
The title is pretty self explanatory. I just want to settle this once and for all :)

I was surprised how many people on these forums seem to think S&V is a more enjoyable/interesting style of play. I personally get bored watching an old Sampras match. It's not that it isn't rich with technique, but rather it's just boring to watch. Serve, ace...or 1-2 punch. That's probably 80% of the points in those matches.

In today's matches, it's exciting watching people play at the baseline IMO. You never can tell what direction one person will take the ball to or how the opponent will respond to a quick change in direction once a rally is started. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean I want to watch Nadal all day pouncing from the baseline...I still enjoy a game with variety like Murray's (just one example).

So that's my two cents on the matter. I'm NOT arguing which is a better style of play, but simply which is more "entertaining" to watch? If your job was to watch tennis 8 hours a day and you got paid for it, would you watch S & V players go at it or more baseline oriented players like the top players today?

Many people didn't get bored of the likes of Sampras because of his serve and volley, they got bored of his big serve!

What 's entertaining is versatility. Systematic serve and volley is as tedious as interminable monotonous baseline rallies.

I agree 100% with this post.

bladepdb
01-11-2009, 03:24 PM
What 's entertaining is versatility (and strategic intelligence and adaptability). Systematic serve and volley is as tedious as interminable monotonous baseline rallies.

These are characteristic of today's modern game as exhibited by the top players (Murray, Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt(?), and to a certain extent, Nadal, come to mind).

The Pure One
01-11-2009, 03:33 PM
To me S&V in the late 80”s and 90’s was resp. for the decline of the game popularity. The ATP perceived it, but acted too much late in supporting more slow-medium surfaces tournaments and slowing the game. Wimbledon also knew it and changed the type of grass and opened the cans of balls weeks before the tournament in order to slow the game a little bit. Now I’m enjoying Wim.

S&V and tennis in quick surfaces is simply boring to watch, no matter how you try to put it or try to sell it. At least, it surely is for the occasional spectator and the beginner or developing player, who by the way do not play that kind of game at the clubs. To me S&V tennis is just SUPER one-dimensional. Do you like to watch lots of games won by the guy who just served ace after ace after ace? Or by seeing a player that just served and made a point by volleying too easy because of a weak or “sitting duck” return? S&V is like having time out or an official in a basketball game stopping the game every two seconds! The S&V game always needed a baseliner to make the game watchable. Sampras needed more Agassi than Agassi needed him.

Forgive me but, I rather see a painted wall dry, some people throw some darts, play cards, dominos, etc., than having a “competition” (if you can call it that way) between two powerful S&V’ers and almost NO rallies. I mean, a sport is supposed to be about a confrontation or competition between two of parties or more. Quick surfaces and S&V means a one-dimensional and boring sport. It is not a tennis game, is just a serve competition. That is why nobody is claiming the return of ultra fast courts, except Pete Sampras in his exo games. And do not get me wrong, slow pace game in clay (like the one two or three decades ago) is also equally boring.

And for those who like to see ace, after ace, after ace: Is this your GOAT? A player that possesses a huge and consistent serve (145+ MPH) and nothing more (like a super or polished Ivo Karlovic) and he goes out and win 15 GS (10 Winby and 5 USO), but never won a single clay court, rebound ace or slower court tournament, IS HE THE GOAT JUST BECAUSE HE WON MORE GS (with that type of game)? Not to me. To be the GOAT you must be able to be the top player playing the game on ice AND in sand. Not in just one type of (super fast) surface.

Thank God we have clay and other slow-medium court tournaments. Amen!

tacou
01-11-2009, 03:35 PM
10 char .

Breaker
01-11-2009, 03:38 PM
Equal for me. Becker and Hewitt are/were my favourites to watch for very different reasons but both styles of play are entertaining in my eyes.

Some types of baseline game are boring and some types of Serve/volley game are boring. Really if you're asking if I'd rather watch 90's/early 00's matches or today's matches I'd say the former simply because there was a wider variety of players and different styles winning on different surfaces.

Andres
01-11-2009, 03:41 PM
I'll take Sampras vs. Becker on indoor carpet instead of Acasuso vs. Ferrer on clay 15 out of 10 times.

The Pure One
01-11-2009, 03:54 PM
I'll take Sampras vs. Becker on indoor carpet instead of Acasuso vs. Ferrer on clay 15 out of 10 times.

There is no comparison between the first two players (former number one's in the world) and the last two. Put some better claycourters! Like Coria vs. Nadal or Guga v. Ferrero on clay. Now, what is your pick?

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 04:00 PM
To me S&V in the late 80”s and 90’s was resp. for the decline of the game popularity. The ATP perceived it, but acted too much late in supporting more slow-medium surfaces tournaments and slowing the game. Wimbledon also knew it and changed the type of grass and opened the cans of balls weeks before the tournament in order to slow the game a little bit. Now I’m enjoying Wim.

S&V and tennis in quick surfaces is simply boring to watch, no matter how you try to put it or try to sell it. At least, it surely is for the occasional spectator and the beginner or developing player, who by the way do not play that kind of game at the clubs. To me S&V tennis is just SUPER one-dimensional. Do you like to watch lots of games won by the guy who just served ace after ace after ace? Or by seeing a player that just served and made a point by volleying too easy because of a weak or “sitting duck” return? S&V is like having time out or an official in a basketball game stopping the game every two seconds! The S&V game always needed a baseliner to make the game watchable. Sampras needed more Agassi than Agassi needed him.

Forgive me but, I rather see a painted wall dry, some people throw some darts, play cards, dominos, etc., than having a “competition” (if you can call it that way) between two powerful S&V’ers and almost NO rallies. I mean, a sport is supposed to be about a confrontation or competition between two of parties or more. Quick surfaces and S&V means a one-dimensional and boring sport. It is not a tennis game, is just a serve competition. That is why nobody is claiming the return of ultra fast courts, except Pete Sampras in his exo games. And do not get me wrong, slow pace game in clay (like the one two or three decades ago) is also equally boring.

And for those who like to see ace, after ace, after ace: Is this your GOAT? A player that possesses a huge and consistent serve (145+ MPH) and nothing more (like a super or polished Ivo Karlovic) and he goes out and win 15 GS (10 Winby and 5 USO), but never won a single clay court, rebound ace or slower court tournament, IS HE THE GOAT JUST BECAUSE HE WON MORE GS (with that type of game)? Not to me. To be the GOAT you must be able to be the top player playing the game on ice AND in sand. Not in just one type of (super fast) surface.

Thank God we have clay and other slow-medium court tournaments. Amen!

What you're describing is an ace fest. That's not what serve and volley is/was. Serve and volley was Edberg, Rafter, Sampras, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, McEnroe, etc.

Karlovic is serve, and he volleys when the serve hasn't won the point for him. All the more power to him. Oh, btw, Karlovic employs this game style on today's surfaces!!!!!!! Yes, todays surfaces. He hasn't won Queens yet, so your argument is null and void.

I can see how Sampras could be boring because of his huge serve, but that's not all he had. He could do crazy things on the volleys as well.

And which GOAT are you talking about.

I'll take Sampras vs. Becker on indoor carpet instead of Acasuso vs. Ferrer on clay 15 out of 10 times.

Andres, did you fail math?

S H O W S T O P P E R !
01-11-2009, 04:06 PM
I would take today's matches between all-courters. S&V= meh. Baselining=meh. Baselining+S&V= great matches.

veroniquem
01-11-2009, 04:15 PM
These are characteristic of today's modern game as exhibited by the top players (Murray, Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt(?), and to a certain extent, Nadal, come to mind).
Good, that's probably why I enjoy watching today's game so much. (PS the "to a certain extent" was completely unnecessary)

GameSampras
01-11-2009, 04:16 PM
Oh give me Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Becker, Courier-Goran any day over the "99 percent baseline bashing" we see today. Nothing wrong with the baseline, grind it out style, it makes for interesting tennis.. But too much of one thing is not necassarily a great thing. Thats why I think its nice to see Players like Tsonga or Karlovic, or Fed when he is mixing things up and attack the net as well as Murray. Its a breathe of fresh air for once

NamRanger
01-11-2009, 04:19 PM
There is no comparison between the first two players (former number one's in the world) and the last two. Put some better claycourters! Like Coria vs. Nadal or Guga v. Ferrero on clay. Now, what is your pick?



Lol.... Coria vs Nadal? Obviously you didn't watch the Rome final. That was the biggest snooze fest I've ever seen. Coria hits BHs crosscourt, Nadal hits FHs back crosscourt, repeat, etc.

GameSampras
01-11-2009, 04:21 PM
Only match I think would present some major interest is of course a Nadal-Bruguera (Battle of the Topspins) or Nadal-Guga RG match.. Maybe a Nadal-Wilander match as well. I dunno how much more interest a Fed-Nadal RG final could garner these days

NamRanger
01-11-2009, 04:22 PM
To me S&V in the late 80”s and 90’s was resp. for the decline of the game popularity. The ATP perceived it, but acted too much late in supporting more slow-medium surfaces tournaments and slowing the game. Wimbledon also knew it and changed the type of grass and opened the cans of balls weeks before the tournament in order to slow the game a little bit. Now I’m enjoying Wim.

S&V and tennis in quick surfaces is simply boring to watch, no matter how you try to put it or try to sell it. At least, it surely is for the occasional spectator and the beginner or developing player, who by the way do not play that kind of game at the clubs. To me S&V tennis is just SUPER one-dimensional. Do you like to watch lots of games won by the guy who just served ace after ace after ace? Or by seeing a player that just served and made a point by volleying too easy because of a weak or “sitting duck” return? S&V is like having time out or an official in a basketball game stopping the game every two seconds! The S&V game always needed a baseliner to make the game watchable. Sampras needed more Agassi than Agassi needed him.

Forgive me but, I rather see a painted wall dry, some people throw some darts, play cards, dominos, etc., than having a “competition” (if you can call it that way) between two powerful S&V’ers and almost NO rallies. I mean, a sport is supposed to be about a confrontation or competition between two of parties or more. Quick surfaces and S&V means a one-dimensional and boring sport. It is not a tennis game, is just a serve competition. That is why nobody is claiming the return of ultra fast courts, except Pete Sampras in his exo games. And do not get me wrong, slow pace game in clay (like the one two or three decades ago) is also equally boring.

And for those who like to see ace, after ace, after ace: Is this your GOAT? A player that possesses a huge and consistent serve (145+ MPH) and nothing more (like a super or polished Ivo Karlovic) and he goes out and win 15 GS (10 Winby and 5 USO), but never won a single clay court, rebound ace or slower court tournament, IS HE THE GOAT JUST BECAUSE HE WON MORE GS (with that type of game)? Not to me. To be the GOAT you must be able to be the top player playing the game on ice AND in sand. Not in just one type of (super fast) surface.

Thank God we have clay and other slow-medium court tournaments. Amen!





This statement is simply so untrue it is ridiculous. Bjorn Borg vs McEnroe at Wimbledon was an extremely fast match. Points ended within 2-3 shots. Yet it is still heralded as one of the greatest matches of all time.



Tennis ratings were far better during the 70s and 80s, when S&V was much more dominant and seen far more often. Ralleys were quick, usually not lasting more than 5 points unless it involves Lendl, Bjorn Borg, or another claycourt player.



During the golden era of S&V (70s/80s/early 90s), the TV ratings were at their highest around the world. So please, don't say that S&V is boring. The world clearly disagrees with this statement.

ohlori
01-11-2009, 04:27 PM
To me S&V in the late 80”s and 90’s was resp. for the decline of the game popularity. The ATP perceived it, but acted too much late in supporting more slow-medium surfaces tournaments and slowing the game. Wimbledon also knew it and changed the type of grass and opened the cans of balls weeks before the tournament in order to slow the game a little bit. Now I’m enjoying Wim.

S&V and tennis in quick surfaces is simply boring to watch, no matter how you try to put it or try to sell it. At least, it surely is for the occasional spectator and the beginner or developing player, who by the way do not play that kind of game at the clubs. To me S&V tennis is just SUPER one-dimensional. Do you like to watch lots of games won by the guy who just served ace after ace after ace? Or by seeing a player that just served and made a point by volleying too easy because of a weak or “sitting duck” return? S&V is like having time out or an official in a basketball game stopping the game every two seconds! The S&V game always needed a baseliner to make the game watchable. Sampras needed more Agassi than Agassi needed him.

Forgive me but, I rather see a painted wall dry, some people throw some darts, play cards, dominos, etc., than having a “competition” (if you can call it that way) between two powerful S&V’ers and almost NO rallies. I mean, a sport is supposed to be about a confrontation or competition between two of parties or more. Quick surfaces and S&V means a one-dimensional and boring sport. It is not a tennis game, is just a serve competition. That is why nobody is claiming the return of ultra fast courts, except Pete Sampras in his exo games. And do not get me wrong, slow pace game in clay (like the one two or three decades ago) is also equally boring.

And for those who like to see ace, after ace, after ace: Is this your GOAT? A player that possesses a huge and consistent serve (145+ MPH) and nothing more (like a super or polished Ivo Karlovic) and he goes out and win 15 GS (10 Winby and 5 USO), but never won a single clay court, rebound ace or slower court tournament, IS HE THE GOAT JUST BECAUSE HE WON MORE GS (with that type of game)? Not to me. To be the GOAT you must be able to be the top player playing the game on ice AND in sand. Not in just one type of (super fast) surface.

Thank God we have clay and other slow-medium court tournaments. Amen!

You make a caricature of it. S&V players were often seen as the more talented players in the past. Wimbledon was for the skilled players and Roland Garros more for the grinder types.
BTW, Sampras won the Italian Open on clay and two Australian Opens on rebound ace.

bladepdb
01-11-2009, 04:38 PM
Good, that's probably why I enjoy watching today's game so much. (PS the "to a certain extent" was completely unnecessary)

Haha don't worry I love Nadal, however to be objective his net game is nothing like Murray's or Federer's. He has terrific feel and movement at the net, but doesn't mix it up as much as Fed/Murray do.

Anyway I digress, just a little aside on variety.


Oh and let me throw this into the mix:

Wimbledon 2008 Final.

Need I say more for entertainment value?

veroniquem
01-11-2009, 04:39 PM
Haha don't worry I love Nadal, however to be objective his net game is nothing like Murray's or Federer's. He has terrific feel and movement at the net, but doesn't mix it up as much as Fed/Murray do.

Anyway I digress, just a little aside on variety.


Oh and let me throw this into the mix:

Wimbledon 2008 Final.

Need I say more for entertainment value?
Nope! You said it all...

oneleggedcardinal
01-11-2009, 04:41 PM
To me S&V in the late 80”s and 90’s was resp. for the decline of the game popularity. The ATP perceived it, but acted too much late in supporting more slow-medium surfaces tournaments and slowing the game. Wimbledon also knew it and changed the type of grass and opened the cans of balls weeks before the tournament in order to slow the game a little bit. Now I’m enjoying Wim.

S&V and tennis in quick surfaces is simply boring to watch, no matter how you try to put it or try to sell it. At least, it surely is for the occasional spectator and the beginner or developing player, who by the way do not play that kind of game at the clubs. To me S&V tennis is just SUPER one-dimensional. Do you like to watch lots of games won by the guy who just served ace after ace after ace? Or by seeing a player that just served and made a point by volleying too easy because of a weak or “sitting duck” return? S&V is like having time out or an official in a basketball game stopping the game every two seconds! The S&V game always needed a baseliner to make the game watchable. Sampras needed more Agassi than Agassi needed him.

Forgive me but, I rather see a painted wall dry, some people throw some darts, play cards, dominos, etc., than having a “competition” (if you can call it that way) between two powerful S&V’ers and almost NO rallies. I mean, a sport is supposed to be about a confrontation or competition between two of parties or more. Quick surfaces and S&V means a one-dimensional and boring sport. It is not a tennis game, is just a serve competition. That is why nobody is claiming the return of ultra fast courts, except Pete Sampras in his exo games. And do not get me wrong, slow pace game in clay (like the one two or three decades ago) is also equally boring.

And for those who like to see ace, after ace, after ace: Is this your GOAT? A player that possesses a huge and consistent serve (145+ MPH) and nothing more (like a super or polished Ivo Karlovic) and he goes out and win 15 GS (10 Winby and 5 USO), but never won a single clay court, rebound ace or slower court tournament, IS HE THE GOAT JUST BECAUSE HE WON MORE GS (with that type of game)? Not to me. To be the GOAT you must be able to be the top player playing the game on ice AND in sand. Not in just one type of (super fast) surface.

Thank God we have clay and other slow-medium court tournaments. Amen!

I've highlighted some of the dumbest statements in this crap-filled post so others don't have to waste their time reading the whole thing.

Oh, and for the love of everything on this ****ing Earth, will you people stop with the Ivo Karlovic straw-man? "Blah blah just a serve blah blah this is what you'll get if the surfaces are speed up blah blah blah."

JeMar
01-11-2009, 04:51 PM
This poll needs a S&V versus a baseline basher option.

That being said, pure S&V versus pure S&V has the potential to be more boring than a match up between two baseliners. This is especially true if the two serve and volley players have big serves and relatively weak returns, as they were akin to having.

SourStraws
01-11-2009, 04:52 PM
I think a bit of both are good..... But I favour S&V


S.S.

Andres
01-11-2009, 05:13 PM
There is no comparison between the first two players (former number one's in the world) and the last two. Put some better claycourters! Like Coria vs. Nadal or Guga v. Ferrero on clay. Now, what is your pick?
My pick is still Sampras vs. Becker 15 out of 10 times

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 05:14 PM
I'm liking serve and volley, so yea, serve and volley.

I'm tired of baseline bashing.

Lendl and Federer Fan
01-11-2009, 05:18 PM
Today's tennis is just too monotonous, just bunch of baseliners. If nobody serve &volley on grass, you know something is really wrong in that picture. :twisted:

Chris De Tone
01-11-2009, 05:37 PM
I agree with Andres...S & V is way better as compared to baseline bashing. His math is fine. I've walked out on many baseline grindfests at live events. Once, I had to endure a 25 minute wait for a changeover between Ferrer and Ferrero in Miami...that put me in a mood.

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 05:38 PM
I agree with Andres...S & V is way better as compared to baseline bashing. His math is fine. I've walked out on many baseline grindfests at live events. Once, I had to endure a 25 minute wait for a changeover between Ferrer and Ferrero in Miami...that put me in a mood.

15/10, not so good math.....:p


Just messing with you Andres, I completely agree.

bladepdb
01-11-2009, 05:41 PM
Today's tennis is just too monotonous, just bunch of baseliners. If nobody serve &volley on grass, you know something is really wrong in that picture. :twisted:

So S & V is not monotonous? Please explain to my why/how. I would really like an explanation or a vid that shows how exciting S & V can be. I haev yet to come across one. I dont' mean to be condescending by any stretch, I really am interested.

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 05:44 PM
So S & V is not monotonous? Please explain to my why/how. I would really like an explanation or a vid that shows how exciting S & V can be. I haev yet to come across one. I dont' mean to be condescending by any stretch, I really am interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkNf3EwheMg


It's not all about topspin and clay!

Nadal_Freak
01-11-2009, 05:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkNf3EwheMg


It's not all about topspin and clay!
Haha nice avatar. I thought it was my post when I saw it first. lol

GameSampras
01-11-2009, 05:46 PM
The 90s had the mixture of both which were successful. Thats what was beautiful about the era. You had the serve volley dominate at Wimbeldon and really the baseline game could get you a slam at the Australian, US OPEN, and most definitely the RG.

I think a mixture of both makes Tennis the best to watch. The diversity in play makes tennis a beautiful game. Today there is just TOO MUCH of one and not the other

bladepdb
01-11-2009, 05:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkNf3EwheMg


It's not all about topspin and clay!
The description of that video speaks for itself...the highlights of Edberg's top moments. I will be honest though that those were some solid points :D

My claim is, however, that S & V matches are boring as a whole. There are always going to be points in a match that are the exception, but overall, it'll be one-two punches or a couple good plays at the net per point.

jamesblakefan#1
01-11-2009, 05:51 PM
It all depends on what you're talking about. S&V can be pretty bad if its between bad S&Vers. Just like there can be some error fests between baseliners.

But if you're talking the best vs. the best, then S&V is more entertaining and compelling.

World Beater
01-11-2009, 06:00 PM
sampras himself commented once that grass tennis wasn't all that exciting especially when the final was sampras vs goran.

definately today's game is much better than the 90s without a doubt. i dont want to watch a bunch of target practice from sampras, goran, krajicek, rusedski, becker etc but i would watch federer duke it out with the djoker, murray, safin, hewitt, nadal on any surface.

rafter and henman were different players that were enjoyable to watch because they tried to win points at net and not with the serve.

it would be better if the faster surfaces were sped up by like 10% so that we could still see guys approach the net and be successful. but even then i think today's raquet tech and baseline/returning skills are the biggest obstacle to s/v tennis returning...not necessarily slower surfaces.

oneleggedcardinal
01-11-2009, 06:02 PM
I'm liking serve and volley, so yea, serve and volley.

I'm tired of baseline bashing.

Best. Avatar. Ever.

Nadal_Freak
01-11-2009, 06:03 PM
Lame. I can't believe so many people like S&V.

bladepdb
01-11-2009, 06:09 PM
Lame. I can't believe so many people like S&V.

Yeah lol it's an overwhelming majority right now.... I honestly thought it would be the other way around.

World Beater
01-11-2009, 06:10 PM
Lame. I can't believe so many people like S&V.

i like s/v if its executed by the right practitioners.

i like edberg, rafter, henman style.

i can tolerate sampras, becker etc

i dont want to watch goran, rusedski style.

at the end of the day i like variety. today's game has quite a few baseline oriented players who are reasonably competetent at net. the game is interesting enough on all surfaces and you have a group of players who play well on all the surfaces and it makes for interesting matchups in the biggest tournaments.

for example, in the 90s we could really only see what happens between sampras/goran...sampras/becker...sampras/agassi (to a certain extent) on fast surfaces...what about slow surfaces? i would say the tennis audience is blessed to be able to see federer, nadal, djoker, murray etc play on all surfaces against each other in the biggest tournaments.

the problem is not so much court speed but technology + skills today that have become the antidote to s/v and net rushing play.

GameSampras
01-11-2009, 06:18 PM
Today's conditions are a big reason why there quite a few "all surface players." as many call them. Before, the same style of play was not going to get you alot of success on every surface like it does today. I think thats a big reason why we see the top players with more points for the seasons as opposed to those of different eras. The baseline game was not going to bring you much success at wimbeldon and the indoor courts that for sure. There were a few exceptions but it was very rare

tlm
01-11-2009, 06:30 PM
Just watch the exhibition matches between fed+sampras, this was about as boring as tennis can get, that s+v display totally sucked.

You can tell there must be a lot of older people here living in the past. That is the only reason i can explain that many voting for s+v.

Holly
01-11-2009, 06:38 PM
The Federer and Nadal rivalry has been the most exciting rivalry in the history of tennis, and Wimbledon 2008 was the most exciting tennis match in the history of tennis ( Wimbledon 2007 may have been the second most excting match).

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 06:42 PM
Just watch the exhibition matches between fed+sampras, this was about as boring as tennis can get, that s+v display totally sucked.

You can tell there must be a lot of older people here living in the past. That is the only reason i can explain that many voting for s+v.

I'm 16.........

Lendl and Federer Fan
01-11-2009, 06:42 PM
So S & V is not monotonous? Please explain to my why/how. I would really like an explanation or a vid that shows how exciting S & V can be. I haev yet to come across one. I dont' mean to be condescending by any stretch, I really am interested.

So you never watch Edberg played Becker.

NamRanger
01-11-2009, 06:51 PM
The Federer and Nadal rivalry has been the most exciting rivalry in the history of tennis, and Wimbledon 2008 was the most exciting tennis match in the history of tennis ( Wimbledon 2007 may have been the second most excting match).



Wimbledon 2008 was exciting due to the historical implications and the rivalry of two of the most dominant men in the history of the sport squaring off. It had nothing to due with the quality of tennis (granted that it was still high). I could easily name 5 matches off the top of my head that were far better in terms of quality of tennis.

bladepdb
01-11-2009, 06:52 PM
So you never watch Edberg played Becker.

I haven't. I only started following tennis seriously in the past three years.

Hatari!
01-11-2009, 06:53 PM
Tennis is tennis, and tennis is always entertaining.

paterson
01-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Is the ATP tour slowing down the courts for the benefit of the baseliners? No, they are trying to find a balance between the increased power of the modern racquets and the speed of the court to bring back a game that is more competetive at the net.

So far, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of the baseliners. They forgot that the new technology also allows players to hit groundstrokes they they wouldn't have dreamed of with wood racquets. Unless you hit a great serve or approach shot you are a sitting duck at the net. Today, the percentage play is to try and out slug your opponent from the baseline.
Now the points are longer (that's good).

At Wimbledon, the grass is getting chewed up more (that's bad). The more robust rye grass is helping. But that's also slowing things down.

The hope is that they can bring back a style of play that benefits the serve and volleyer without bringing back the boring power game of the '90s.

game set match 46 TIMES!!
01-11-2009, 07:35 PM
i like to see a great shot then get to the net...

yemenmocha
01-11-2009, 07:47 PM
I'll take Sampras vs. Becker on indoor carpet instead of Acasuso vs. Ferrer on clay 15 out of 10 times.

+1 any day.

Personally, I find the strategy far more entertaining and skillful. Watching baseliners is just as fun as watching joggers run a whole marathon.

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 07:53 PM
+1 any day.

Personally, I find the strategy far more entertaining and skillful. Watching baseliners is just as fun as watching joggers run a whole marathon.

Yea, S&V is more of an attacking game, and it takes balls!

So you never watch Edberg played Becker.

I haven't either (well, other than youtube/vimeo), but the play I have seen was beautiful

I haven't. I only started following tennis seriously in the past three years.

Well, I watched it here and there because my family liked it, but I only got serious playing last year. Regardless, Edberg and Becker played their best matches before I was born. but youtube/vimeo is your friend :D

JoshDragon
01-11-2009, 07:56 PM
I'll take Sampras vs. Becker on indoor carpet instead of Acasuso vs. Ferrer on clay 15 out of 10 times.

Mark me down for the exact opposite opinion. :)

Mansewerz
01-11-2009, 08:01 PM
Mark me down for the exact opposite opinion. :)

10 out of 15 times you'd want Sampras v.s Becker? That's still a good ratio.

JoshDragon
01-11-2009, 08:06 PM
10 out of 15 times you'd want Sampras v.s Becker? That's still a good ratio.

No, 15 out of 10 Ferrer vs Acasuso

World Beater
01-11-2009, 08:09 PM
No, 10 Sampras vs Becker matches would be way too much. I would prefer Ferrer vs Acasuso for sure.

i would take federer-nadal on any surface over becker-sampras.

Frankauc
01-11-2009, 08:11 PM
personnaly, i like both. That brings diversity in the game. More game style is always good. I love to see play nadal, murray, fed, djoko, but i love to see stepanek too and more attack oriented players. The best match ive seen is wimbledon final 2008. Great rivalry and grat play. There was good combinaison of attack and baseline play

DJG
01-11-2009, 08:14 PM
S&V vs Baseline bashers normally mkes for some good matchups... I do like an all-court game though.

orangettecoleman
01-11-2009, 09:09 PM
serve no, volley yes.

380pistol
01-11-2009, 09:56 PM
If those are the 2 options I go with the "S&V" then. ore all court play than today's baseline bashing.

Personally I think the best tennis is when you get a combination of both, Borg/McEnroe, Navratilova/Evert, Sampras/Agassi for eg. When you get a mix of everything, S&V/baseline, power/finesse, offense/defense, that's the best teenis to watch.

Now it's pretty much the same. Different variation of the same style. Today's tennis is like the same drink, with a different twist of lime.

norbac
01-11-2009, 10:11 PM
What 's entertaining is versatility (and strategic intelligence and adaptability). Systematic serve and volley is as tedious as interminable monotonous baseline rallies.

Completely agreed, well said.

380pistol
01-11-2009, 10:25 PM
The 90s had the mixture of both which were successful. Thats what was beautiful about the era. You had the serve volley dominate at Wimbeldon and really the baseline game could get you a slam at the Australian, US OPEN, and most definitely the RG.

I think a mixture of both makes Tennis the best to watch. The diversity in play makes tennis a beautiful game. Today there is just TOO MUCH of one and not the other

Agreed. People need to read and absorb.

matchmaker
01-12-2009, 03:41 AM
Most entertaining: SV player up against a baseliner.

Gorecki
01-12-2009, 03:45 AM
There is no comparison between the first two players (former number one's in the world) and the last two. Put some better claycourters! Like Coria vs. Nadal or Guga v. Ferrero on clay. Now, what is your pick?

that choice is as easy as whipping a baby's but!

The Pure One
01-12-2009, 04:08 AM
I can see how Sampras could be boring because of his huge serve, but that's not all he had. He could do crazy things on the volleys as well.

What 's entertaining is versatility (and strategic intelligence and adaptability). Systematic serve and volley is as tedious as interminable monotonous baseline rallies.

Many people didn't get bored of the likes of Sampras because of his serve and volley, they got bored of his big serve!

So S & V is not monotonous? Please explain to my why/how.

sampras himself commented once that grass tennis wasn't all that exciting especially when the final was sampras vs goran.

definately today's game is much better than the 90s without a doubt. i dont want to watch a bunch of target practice from sampras, goran, krajicek, rusedski, becker etc but i would watch federer duke it out with the djoker, murray, safin, hewitt, nadal on any surface.

rafter and henman were different players that were enjoyable to watch because they tried to win points at net and not with the serve.

Agree 100%!

Ahh those living in the past!

We have arguably the GOAT in Federer playing this decade with all his variety, beautiful game and shots and for some people the past S&V game was better. I do not trade all beautiful Fed games and his rivalry with Nadal, for all the 80's or 90's S&V games. S&V game needed the baseliner to be an entertaining match. Not the other way around. And that is OK. Not everybody has good taste like me!

The 90s had the mixture of both which were successful. That's what was beautiful about the era. You had the serve volley dominate at Wimbeldon and really the baseline game could get you a slam at the Australian, US OPEN, and most definitely the RG.

I remember that Wimbledon was losing popularity by the day. Articles in Tennis magazine were calling to change the surface. Even some of the male best players in the world were not attending (Guga, et als) because they did not respect the rankings. If it wasn't for the other slams (RG and the AUS and some USO), the tennis industry probably disappeared! And, btw please just explain the decline of tennis popularity in that decade.

Gorecki
01-12-2009, 04:22 AM
Agree 100%!

Ahh those living in the past!

We have arguably the GOAT in Federer playing this decade with all his variety, beautiful game and shots and for some people the past S&V game was better. I do not trade all beautiful Fed games and his rivalry with Nadal, for all the 80's or 90's S&V games. S&V game needed the baseliner to be an entertaining match. Not the other way around. And that is OK. Not everybody has good taste like me!



I remember that Wimbledon was losing popularity by the day. Articles in Tennis magazine were calling to change the surface. Even some of the male best players in the world were not attending (Guga, et als) because they did not respect the rankings. If it wasn't for the other slams (RG and the AUS and some USO), the tennis industry probably disappeared! And, btw please just explain the decline of tennis popularity in that decade.

man are you full of yourself...

when i was 16 i too tought everyone was just senile. i was the smartest *** in my school.. yet a grew up!

oranges
01-12-2009, 04:28 AM
Poll options are not much of a choice because A) it offers just one or the other, which has never been the case, though it could become just one in the coming years B) it presents all baseliners as one homogeneous group, which was also never the case and I suspect never will be.

If I had to choose, I'd go with S/V for the simple reason that it's close to extinction. Since the entire case is presented in extremes, I'd also say that I'd watch two good S/V players at it all day any day over most of baseliners doing the same. I'd go with two good all-courters over both, though, which in way provides the answer to the poll question - preserve variety of styles.

The Pure One
01-12-2009, 05:24 AM
man are you full of yourself...

when i was 16 i too tought everyone was just senile. i was the smartest *** in my school.. yet a grew up!

Some colleagues says something similar about me, especially when Judges agrees with me!

Gorecki
01-12-2009, 05:26 AM
Some colleagues says something similar about me, especially when Judges agrees with me!

huhu... mr lawyer!... you can call me Dr. Gorecki, Phd.

:twisted:

oranges
01-12-2009, 05:34 AM
Some colleagues says something similar about me, especially when Judges agrees with me!

If you argue that well and have the same grasp of facts in court, I'm guessing quite a few of your clients take action against you subsequently. I dreamed of being a figure skater when I was little, you'll grow out of it. :D

JoshDragon
01-12-2009, 06:38 AM
Lame. I can't believe so many people like S&V.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm thinking. To me the Sampras vs Agassi matches were decent but not great. The points were too short, (1-4 returns per point, usually) and I get tired of seeing Sampras blow Agassi off the court with his serve or volley. Sampras, wouldn't be able to do that today (because of the slower surfaces) and it would force him to play behind the baseline.

urban
01-12-2009, 07:23 AM
I would like to see more of a baseline game, that integrates approaches and net play, in the way Connors played the game. I personally find the older matches on you tube, for instance the Connors-Laver match of 1975, more entertaining than the modern ones. The Sampras-Goran serve-slugfests on grass or fast indoor courts could be very boring, if you don't like counting aces. The baseline matches of today lack a certain amount of allcourt play and shots, like the approach shot, the half-volley, the volley-volley-exchange, or the lob.

DarthFed
01-12-2009, 09:33 AM
I voted Baseline...but the truth is im torn

I prefer an all court game though...like Federer who can do both when necessary but i love awsome baseline rallies...like Fed-Agassi USO 2004

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 09:48 AM
Agree 100%!

Ahh those living in the past!

We have arguably the GOAT in Federer playing this decade with all his variety, beautiful game and shots and for some people the past S&V game was better. I do not trade all beautiful Fed games and his rivalry with Nadal, for all the 80's or 90's S&V games. S&V game needed the baseliner to be an entertaining match. Not the other way around. And that is OK. Not everybody has good taste like me!



I remember that Wimbledon was losing popularity by the day. Articles in Tennis magazine were calling to change the surface. Even some of the male best players in the world were not attending (Guga, et als) because they did not respect the rankings. If it wasn't for the other slams (RG and the AUS and some USO), the tennis industry probably disappeared! And, btw please just explain the decline of tennis popularity in that decade.

I dunno if it was Wimbeldon or the fact that Pete was unchallenged for so many years. That could have gotten old to people. Much like Fed's domination. It was a one man show and you got to the point where you thought, ahh well Fed has this WHY WATCH. And when one player wins 7 out of 8 wimbeldons, Im sure it could drive people away. I think it can be a backlash when you have one player that is so dominant. especially if they are unchallenged with virtually no rivals in sight

ShcMad
01-12-2009, 09:52 AM
The title is pretty self explanatory. I just want to settle this once and for all :)

I was surprised how many people on these forums seem to think S&V is a more enjoyable/interesting style of play. I personally get bored watching an old Sampras match. It's not that it isn't rich with technique, but rather it's just boring to watch. Serve, ace...or 1-2 punch. That's probably 80% of the points in those matches.

In today's matches, it's exciting watching people play at the baseline IMO. You never can tell what direction one person will take the ball to or how the opponent will respond to a quick change in direction once a rally is started. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean I want to watch Nadal all day pouncing from the baseline...I still enjoy a game with variety like Murray's (just one example).

So that's my two cents on the matter. I'm NOT arguing which is a better style of play, but simply which is more "entertaining" to watch? If your job was to watch tennis 8 hours a day and you got paid for it, would you watch S & V players go at it or more baseline oriented players like the top players today?

I think to the casual spectator, baseline rallies are more entertaining to watch. But, for fans that know something about tennis, too much of either is boring.

jackson vile
01-12-2009, 09:53 AM
all the above

Blade0324
01-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Gotta go baseline all the way. Watching S&V matches from the 80's etc. were so boring and no diversity. At least with 2 baseliners there is some diversity as they will venture to the net sometimes and the variety of shots is there, topspin, flat, slice etc. Those that have said that tennis ratings were at their highest during the 70's, 80's need to keep in perspective that there were about 3 choices for TV at that time so tennis was quite a popular choice to watch over the Saturday afternoon made for TV movie or whatever other crap was on the other 2 channels. Now with hundreds of channels people flip in and out of matches and have many other options to watch. It not that it was more popular then it was just a much more limited choice of what to watch.

rommil
01-12-2009, 10:22 AM
that choice is as easy as whipping a baby's but!

Don't do it Gorecki. DCF will be knocking at your door.

vbranis
01-12-2009, 10:22 AM
I strongly prefer baseline play. It makes matches more interesting with more momentum shifts and fascinating exchanges. I don't want to watch Becker play 4 tiebreaks against Sampras over and over again. I just about always change the channel at the beginning of sets.

Baseliners play more creatively and every point has different dynamics to it. Who doesn't like to see a "baseliner" run his opponent left and right, hit a sweet drop shot followed by a deft lob winner? Or short angles coupled with monster topspin forehands? With S&Vers, too many points are decided by aces or easy volley putaways. Some posters here need to stop living in the past and embrace a change which has proven to be good for the sport.

Oh, and it's not like today's baseliners don't volley at all (now that would be boring). They come in just enough to make it interesting.

tintin
01-12-2009, 10:29 AM
kinda nice to see a s/v player drive a baseliner mental:lol:
but I'm for all-court players like Federer,Henin,Mauresmo and Hingis

I won't add Murray in that list just yet because he stinks *** at the net

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 12:10 PM
In the 90's I started playing tennis. I tried to tune in and watch some pro tennis from time to time and I would ask myself why in the world anyone watches this crap. Sampras vs. Becker, omg the point lasts for 1.8 seconds and then I get to watch Becker walk around in his short shorts for 30. I didn't start enjoying the spectator side of the sport until after the millenium.

Michael Bluth
01-12-2009, 12:11 PM
Both have the potential to be boring and exciting, I think it depends on the quality of the player. I like players who have variety and use all the court like Fed but I can like SVers and baseliners too.

thejoe
01-12-2009, 12:46 PM
I think you need a mix. That should be an option. I think if Federer and Murray etc. (players who actually have the serve and the touch to pull it off) serve-volleyed on maybe 75% of first serves, and stayed back on seconds, it would be more interesting.

EDIT: The monotonous argument can work both ways, but if I had to choose one exclusively, then I would choose serve-volley.

bladepdb
01-12-2009, 01:20 PM
Notice how the second choice says "More baseline oriented players (Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, etc.)"

It's not "BASELINE BASHING" but rather "More baseline" preference.

I think that should probably move some votes over to this side, even if it is too late to vote again :P

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 01:34 PM
IMO the most entertaining matches are ones between players who's styles contrast. One that sticks out in recent memory was between Taylor Dent and Lleyton Hewitt at the USO.

Holly
01-12-2009, 01:43 PM
IMO the most entertaining matches are ones between players who's styles contrast. One that sticks out in recent memory was between Taylor Dent and Lleyton Hewitt at the USO.

How about Nadal Federer.....They have styles which contrast...dont they??

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 01:45 PM
How about Nadal Federer.....They have styles which contrast...dont they??

Sure, kind of. Federer is not serving and volleying on every point. I'm talking about complete polar opposite styles. Say Pat Rafter vs. Agassi. They played some classics in their day.

World Beater
01-12-2009, 02:01 PM
Sure, kind of. Federer is not serving and volleying on every point. I'm talking about complete polar opposite styles. Say Pat Rafter vs. Agassi. They played some classics in their day.

rafter and agassi were polar opposite in tactics but not in the way they hit the ball. They both hit relatively flat balls with little topspin. Of course rafter had the nasty slice but otherwise similar with exception for pace. the same goes with sampras and agassi.

nadal and federer are not polar opposites in tactics but they are different and they definately hit the ball also to other extremes.

the ultimate polar opposite would be nadal vs sampras. sampras using eastern grips hitting the ball flat and rushing the net while nadal torquing massive spin and passing sampras at net.

Holly
01-12-2009, 02:03 PM
Sure, kind of. Federer is not serving and volleying on every point. I'm talking about complete polar opposite styles. Say Pat Rafter vs. Agassi. They played some classics in their day.

Nadal and Federer are pretty much as opposite as you can get:

lefty vs righty

Two hander vs One hander

Topspin vs slice

Speed vs. shot making winners

Crazy new forehand style vs. classic beautiful forehand

Pirate shorts and sleevles shirt vs. classic style

Emotional "Vamos" vs. Classic quiet

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 02:07 PM
rafter and agassi were polar opposite in tactics but not in the way they hit the ball. They both hit relatively flat balls with little topspin. Of course rafter had the nasty slice but otherwise similar with exception for pace. the same goes with sampras and agassi.

nadal and federer are not polar opposites in tactics but they are different and they definately hit the ball also to other extremes.

the ultimate polar opposite would be nadal vs sampras. sampras using eastern grips hitting the ball flat and rushing the net while nadal torquing massive spin and passing sampras at net.


Thanks for the insight. You can't have it perfect every time. Another good match was Kuerten vs. Mirnyi at the USO in 2001. A classic clash of styles.

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Nadal and Federer are pretty much as opposite as you can get:

lefty vs righty

Two hander vs One hander

Topspin vs slice

Speed vs. shot making winners

Crazy new forehand style vs. classic beautiful forehand

Pirate shorts and sleevles shirt vs. classic style

Emotional "Vamos" vs. Classic quiet

Except for the fact that they both stand on the baseline and they both do most of their winning with the forehand.

JoshDragon
01-12-2009, 02:35 PM
In the 90's I started playing tennis. I tried to tune in and watch some pro tennis from time to time and I would ask myself why in the world anyone watches this crap. Sampras vs. Becker, omg the point lasts for 1.8 seconds and then I get to watch Becker walk around in his short shorts for 30. I didn't start enjoying the spectator side of the sport until after the millenium.



http://i39.tinypic.com/1zowxl4.gif

That must have been nasty.

JeMar
01-12-2009, 06:23 PM
Wimbledon 2008 was exciting due to the historical implications and the rivalry of two of the most dominant men in the history of the sport squaring off. It had nothing to due with the quality of tennis (granted that it was still high). I could easily name 5 matches off the top of my head that were far better in terms of quality of tennis.

I can think of a few, but could you name some, please? Not trying to start anything, I'm just curious and always looking for great tennis.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 07:26 PM
Sampras-Agassi US OPEN 01 was FAR BETTER than Fed-Nadal 08 Wimby in terms of tennis quality. 3 tiebreaks. Unreal. Of course Fed-Nadal had more drama due to the rain delays but the Tennis quality wasnt as memorable as others. Fed-Nadal was more the "greatest match of all time" due to the drama.. But not the BEST of all time due to the quality of tennis

JeMar
01-12-2009, 07:31 PM
To be honest, I find that match slightly overrated. I have it on DVD and have seen it several times, and aside from 10 minute stretches here and there, it's not *that* amazing.

bladepdb
01-12-2009, 08:11 PM
Yes it is.

d-quik
01-13-2009, 01:25 AM
serve no, volley yes.Systematic serve and volley is as tedious as interminable monotonous baseline rallies.we can end the thread now

d-quik
01-13-2009, 01:27 AM
nobody wants to see ivanisevic/becker on the 90s grass, or coria/ferrero on roman clay

FiveO
01-13-2009, 02:55 AM
nobody wants to see ivanisevic/becker on the 90s grass, or coria/ferrero on roman clay


This is one match.

Fed v. Nadal is one match.

The problem is that today, entire draws look like the latter.

Yes the exclusively clay court trained juniors turning pro have historically always played with more topspin than the US, UK, French, Aussie, S. African, et al, trained products. But that's it, you have extreme topspinners vs. less extreme topspinning baseliners and are treating that as "variety".

The observers of today's tennis are kidding themselves about a player or two coming to net on ten points today and trying to label that "all court" tennis.

What I find amusing from the newer tennis fan, is that belief (today having all courters) being stated, when there is never a discussion of the transition game, and how woefully missing from the game in total that it is today.

For perspective, next time someone is toying with the idea of anyone playing all court tennis on the tour right now, go back and watch, not Sampras, Henman or Rafter, instead watch players like Kafelnikov and Chang, watch how often they transitioned forward. Watch how often Chang felt it imperative to go to net, and even serve and volley to deny opponents the net and keep them off balance, when in fact he was considered a counter punching/retrieving baseliner.

Comparitively there is no variety today. No one shortens or changes the geometry of the court other than the way Borg did with topspin. Even Fed's transition game has atrophied from having not being used in match play.

Someone here correctly, IMO, pointed out, that while Nadal v. Fed Wimby '08 was dramatic/compelling as pure competition, momentum shifts, rain delays and questions as to whether it would be completed before it darkness stoppedit, but it was not remarkably well played. In fact most of the "clutch" passes were struck off mediocre to poor approach shots qualified as such only because someone came to net behind them.

Variety of game style is the most entertaining. What surface diversity encouraged was diversity of game style. What the existence of serve and volleyers did was force every other player, whether a topspinning, pure ball striking baseliner, counter puncher, true all-courter, big serve/big fh'er etc. to do, was first and foremost, deal with the time constraints, smaller windows, smaller margins, different angles, and quite frankly the pressure of someone coming to net on almost every point creates, BUT ALSO, incorporating much more proficient use of like skills to beat them there, to deny those players the net.

So yes, more serve and volley NOT all serve and volley.

5

coloskier
01-13-2009, 06:23 AM
This is one match.

Fed v. Nadal is one match.

The problem is that today, entire draws look like the latter.

Yes the exclusively clay court trained juniors turning pro have historically always played with more topspin than the US, UK, French, Aussie, S. African, et al, trained products. But that's it, you have extreme topspinners vs. less extreme topspinning baseliners and are treating that as "variety".

The observers of today's tennis are kidding themselves about a player or two coming to net on ten points today and trying to label that "all court" tennis.

What I find amusing from the newer tennis fan, is that belief (today having all courters) being stated, when there is never a discussion of the transition game, and how woefully missing from the game in total that it is today.

For perspective, next time someone is toying with the idea of anyone playing all court tennis on the tour right now, go back and watch, not Sampras, Henman or Rafter, instead watch players like Kafelnikov and Chang, watch how often they transitioned forward. Watch how often Chang felt it imperative to go to net, and even serve and volley to deny opponents the net and keep them off balance, when in fact he was considered a counter punching/retrieving baseliner.

Comparitively there is no variety today. No one shortens or changes the geometry of the court other than the way Borg did with topspin. Even Fed's transition game has atrophied from having not being used in match play.

Someone here correctly, IMO, pointed out, that while Nadal v. Fed Wimby '08 was dramatic/compelling as pure competition, momentum shifts, rain delays and questions as to whether it would be completed before it darkness stoppedit, but it was not remarkably well played. In fact most of the "clutch" passes were struck off mediocre to poor approach shots qualified as such only because someone came to net behind them.

Variety of game style is the most entertaining. What surface diversity encouraged was diversity of game style. What the existence of serve and volleyers did was force every other player, whether a topspinning, pure ball striking baseliner, counter puncher, true all-courter, big serve/big fh'er etc. to do, was first and foremost, deal with the time constraints, smaller windows, smaller margins, different angles, and quite frankly the pressure of someone coming to net on almost every point creates, BUT ALSO, incorporating much more proficient use of like skills to beat them there, to deny those players the net.

So yes, more serve and volley NOT all serve and volley.

5

Agree 100%. No one, not even Federer, knows how to hit a decent approach shot anymore. This is partly due to the fact that the courts no longer skip like they used to, keeping the ball low, which makes it even harder for a top baseliner to hit a passing shot. No heavy topspinner likes hitting the ball when it is lower than his knees. To get the heavy topspin, the racket has to start at least 12-18" lower than the height of the ball, and when the ball is only 12" above the court, that means you either have to shorten your swing, or watch your racket skip off the court. Thus, no more heavy topspin, which makes it much easier for a S&V player to cut off the passing shot.

Blade0324
01-13-2009, 06:54 AM
THere are certainly polar opposite ideas in terms of who like what type of play on this thread. Ultimately neither side will be able to make a compelling enough arguement to even slightly begin to sway the other side to there way of thinking. Basically this is just lively bantor back and forth that get kind of old. That said at least currently the surfaces on which most major tennis events are played today support baseline play with the occassional venture to net which is my preference. If at some point S&V becomes quite dominant again with top players I will just not watch tennis.

drakulie
01-13-2009, 06:59 AM
I'll take Sampras vs. Becker on indoor carpet instead of Acasuso vs. Ferrer on clay 15 out of 10 times.

make that 20 out of 5 times, and I might agree with you. :)

Rabbit
01-13-2009, 07:01 AM
make that 20 out of 5 times, and I might agree with you. :)

Shoot...I'd take a Becker/Edberg Wimbledon final over ANYBODY on clay 99/100 times

NamRanger
01-13-2009, 08:03 AM
I can think of a few, but could you name some, please? Not trying to start anything, I'm just curious and always looking for great tennis.



Connors v. McEnroe Wimbledon Final 1982


Connors rallies from 2 sets to 1 down in impressive fashion, showing his excellent allcourt abilities. He cut off McEnroe's serve, returned extremely well, came to the net often, and showed a wide variety of shots this match. McEnroe did what he always does, showing off his exquisite touch.



Safin v. Federer Australian Open 2005 Semi-Final

The epitome of baseline tennis. There was no one on the face of the planet who could have beaten Federer this tournament other than Safin himself. Previously, Federer had utterly dominated The King of the Australian courts, Andre Agassi in straights. The level of play here far surpassed that of the Wimbledon final of 2008, because both players were playing for the win. More often than not, Nadal was playing not to lose.



Bjorn Borg vs. McEnroe Wimbledon 1980

We all know why this match was good. Bjorn Borg showed TRUE adaptation to the grass. He was S&Ving, chipping and charging, using all sorts of shots including his topspin arsenal. He didn't just sit on top of the baseline as Nadal did.



Bjorn Borg vs. Jimmy Connors Wimbledon 1981

Bjorn Borg rallies from 2 sets to 0 down in order to defeat Connors in one of the greatest displays of mental strength, ever.



Agassi vs. Rafter, Wimbledon 2001 Semi-Final

One of the greatest duels between one of the best baseliners in the history of the sport against one of the greatest pure S&V players of the modern era. Great returns, great volleys, and plenty of shotmaking throughout the entire match. Agassi even came to the net often in order to take the net away from Rafter.

FiveO
01-13-2009, 09:00 AM
How about what most everyone who saw it, still describes as the best single day of professional tennis ever played?

For those who don't know, it was dubbed "Super Saturday":

The men's SF's and women's final which were played September 8, 1984:

SF Lendl defeated Cash: 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(5), 7-6(4)

F Navratilova def. Evert: 4-6, 6-4, 6-4

SF McEnroe def. Connors: 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 6-3

It wasn't just the scores, the personalities or that they took place in the ultimate of penultimate rounds of a Major, it was about the level of play and the absolute contrast of styles in each match.

If you didn't see it live, I feel for you. You don't know what you missed. If you can find them, buy them. You'll see why most fans of the sport having seen the sport played for more than 10 years want variety and diversity of surface speed and playing styles back in the game.

5

Nadal_Freak
01-13-2009, 09:13 AM
Except for the fact that they both stand on the baseline and they both do most of their winning with the forehand.
Fed steps inside the baseline a lot while stands behind the baseline a lot. Big difference imo though you like to generalize it so much and make it sound boring.

vbranis
01-13-2009, 09:14 AM
I think S&V is winning this poll because so many people would love to see Becker and Sampras go at it again (or similar S&V players). Baseline matches are everywhere in today's game, so they have gotten bored of them. If everyone would be S&Ving now, the poll results would be very different.

The grass is always greener on the other side (or in this case, the other era). People always tend to want something that's harder to get.

edmondsm
01-13-2009, 09:15 AM
Fed steps inside the baseline a lot while stands behind the baseline a lot. Big difference imo though you like to generalize it so much and make it sound boring.


I don't think it's boring, it's a fact. They are both baseliners, and they both do most of their damage with the forehand. You're just splitting hairs.

NamRanger
01-13-2009, 09:16 AM
Fed steps inside the baseline a lot while stands behind the baseline a lot. Big difference imo though you like to generalize it so much and make it sound boring.


Yes, because there's a huge difference between standing 5 feet from the baseline to standing 3 feet from the baseline. SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE.



You don't play tennis. You don't know what you're talking about. Your level of education isn't even that of a high school student. I'm getting sick and tired of you commenting on subjects in which you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Nadal_Freak
01-13-2009, 09:21 AM
Yes, because there's a huge difference between standing 5 feet from the baseline to standing 3 feet from the baseline. SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE.



You don't play tennis. You don't know what you're talking about. Your level of education isn't even that of a high school student. I'm getting sick and tired of you commenting on subjects in which you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
It doesn't take playing high quality tennis to know there is a difference between Fed's and Nadal's style. I played a ton of tennis. I never had a serve though so couldn't go much. Now I got a tear in my shoulder and tendinitis in the knees. Enough talking about me. Fed and Nadal are very different from the baseline. The way they construct the points and etc. Different type of rhythm. Almost polar opposites from the baseline. The players that usually give Nadal problems don't bother Fed and vice versa.

drakulie
01-13-2009, 09:23 AM
Shoot...I'd take a Becker/Edberg Wimbledon final over ANYBODY on clay 99/100 times

Yup. Both of them monsters at the net. Very exciting and artistic tennis >>> that is for sure.

abmk
01-13-2009, 09:28 AM
Safin v. Federer Australian Open 2005 Semi-Final

The epitome of baseline tennis. There was no one on the face of the planet who could have beaten Federer this tournament other than Safin himself. Previously, Federer had utterly dominated The King of the Australian courts, Andre Agassi in straights. The level of play here far surpassed that of the Wimbledon final of 2008, because both players were playing for the win. More often than not, Nadal was playing not to lose.



Better quality than wimbledon 2008 F , agree. Far surpassed ? Don't agree. Agree that it was THE epitome of baseline tennis.There was some good play at the net too in that match !


More often than not, Nadal was playing not to lose.

What !? :confused:

As far as the other matches are concerned,I wouldn't put agassi-rafter 2001 over this match. Haven't seen the other 3 full-length, just the highlights , but I don't know how many would agree that borg-connors 81 and connors-mac 82 was better than wimbledon finals in 2008 ...

edmondsm
01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
Fed and Nadal are very different from the baseline. The way they construct the points and etc. Different type of rhythm. Almost polar opposites from the baseline. The players that usually give Nadal problems don't bother Fed and vice versa.

This thread wasn't about different types of baseline games, it was about S&V vs. baseline tennis. Leave it up to Nadal fans to find a way to make every thread about Nadal and Federer.:rolleyes:

NamRanger
01-13-2009, 09:41 AM
Better quality than wimbledon 2008 F , agree. Far surpassed ? Don't agree. Agree that it was THE epitome of baseline tennis.There was some good play at the net too in that match !




What !? :confused:

As far as the other matches are concerned,I wouldn't put agassi-rafter 2001 over this match. Haven't seen the other 3 full-length, just the highlights , but I don't know how many would agree that borg-connors 81 and connors-mac 82 was better than wimbledon finals in 2008 ...


Nadal used the same tactic that has brought him numerous victories over Federer. Keep the ball in play, hit heavy topspin, and hit to the backhand. Federer clearly had a far superior number of winners, while Nadal generally just kept the ball in play the majority of the time.



His tactic was to not lose, rather than to play to win (as in force the issue).

NamRanger
01-13-2009, 09:42 AM
It doesn't take playing high quality tennis to know there is a difference between Fed's and Nadal's style. I played a ton of tennis. I never had a serve though so couldn't go much. Now I got a tear in my shoulder and tendinitis in the knees. Enough talking about me. Fed and Nadal are very different from the baseline. The way they construct the points and etc. Different type of rhythm. Almost polar opposites from the baseline. The players that usually give Nadal problems don't bother Fed and vice versa.



They do the same thing. They control the baseline and they attack with their forehands. Nadal just so happens to hit less winners than Federer due to the massive amount of spin he uses.

abmk
01-13-2009, 09:48 AM
Nadal used the same tactic that has brought him numerous victories over Federer. Keep the ball in play, hit heavy topspin, and hit to the backhand. Federer clearly had a far superior number of winners, while Nadal generally just kept the ball in play the majority of the time.

His tactic was to not lose, rather than to play to win (as in force the issue).

I don't see it that way. If he was playing the same way that has given him wins in the past, he is obviously looking to win. He was always looking to win. Forcing the issue is not the only way to look to win.

NamRanger
01-13-2009, 09:51 AM
I don't see it that way. If he was playing the same way that has given him wins in the past, he is obviously looking to win. He was always looking to win. Forcing the issue is not the only way to look to win.



Of course his goal was to win, but he wasn't playing in a winner's mindset. He was playing to prevent himself from losing from a tactical standpoint.


Forcing the issue puts you in the drivers seat, and if you are on that day, nothing can stop you. That is called playing to win.

abmk
01-13-2009, 09:51 AM
Don't agree with that viewpoint. Let's leave it at that.

d-quik
01-13-2009, 10:40 AM
Don't agree with that viewpoint. Let's leave it at that.so you are saying nadal has an offensive, attacking mentality?

edmondsm
01-13-2009, 11:00 AM
Nadal can attack at times, he has the ability, but his go-to-play is heavy topspin (often right down the middle of the court) so that his opponents cannot gain leverage in the point.

FiveO
01-13-2009, 11:18 AM
It seems that the OP wants to project an "all or nothing" attitude on those advocating a return of serve and volley. As if to say we want "serve and volley" over baselining.

"Which one do you prefer?"

This "It's one or the other" premise is naive.

What is becoming clearer is that many of the "baselining only" advocates appear to be young guns and have some distorted recollection and/or "youtube" sense of history, that within their lifetime the tour consisted of a majority of serve and volleyers.

That didn't happen, at least not within the lifetimes of the loudest critics of serve and volley here.

When do the young guns think the tour last consisted of 50% devout or at least very competent serve and volleyers, I wonder?

Secondly almost every one of us advocating a return of serve and volley are doing so in the hopes of restoring a healthier and more entertaining mix of styles and diversity in the game.

Those arguing pro-baseline on the other hand seem to be advocating for it in totality to the exclusion of all else.

All it requires is to read up on the rankings through the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's to see just how diverse the game was from top to bottom.

Here's the year end rankings from the mid-90's, 1994 to be exact:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA) all-courter
2 Agassi, Andre (USA) pure ball striking/center court controlling baseliner
3 Becker, Boris (GER) serve and volleyer, who saw himself as an all-courter
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP) topspinning baseliner
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) serve and volleyer
6 Chang, Michael (USA) counter punching/retrieving baseliner
7 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) serve and volleyer
8 Berasategui, Alberto (ESP) topspinning basliner
9 Stich, Michael (GER) all-courter
10 Martin, Todd (USA) all-courter
11 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) pure ball striking baseline/all-courter
12 Ferreira, Wayne (RSA) pure ball striking, shotmaking baseliner
13 Courier, Jim (USA) big fh baseliner
14 Rosset, Marc (SUI) big serve/big fh baseliner
15 Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) counter punching baseliner
16 Muster, Thomas (AUT) topspinning baseliner
17 Krajicek, Richard (NED) serve and volleyer
18 Korda, Petr (CZE) pure ball striking, shotmaking baseliner
19 Larsson, Magnus (SWE) big serve/big fh baseliner
20 Stoltenberg, Jason (AUS) serve and volleyer


This is the reality. Where's the problem?

5

oneleggedcardinal
01-13-2009, 11:42 AM
^^^^^^^^^
If you had just finished giving a speech, I'd be clapping right now.

Breaker
01-13-2009, 12:02 PM
It seems that the OP wants to project an "all or nothing" attitude on those advocating a return of serve and volley. As if to say we want "serve and volley" over baselining.

"Which one do you prefer?"


5

Exactly, perfect post. It is easy to see that some people have no clue what tennis was like in the 90's or even early 00's with the way every argument against it is citing Sampras vs. Becker Wimbledon matches as if they were the ONLY thing that occurred in the 90's. Baseliners still dominated Roland Garros and the Aussie Open and the US Open produced great champions baseline and serve/volley in the 90's.

Unfortunately only Wimbledon seems to stick out in the minds of those arguing against 90's/early 00's play and from Wimbledon for some reason the idea of "serve fests" has become common as a way to describe that time period when cleary it wasn't the case.

bladepdb
01-13-2009, 12:14 PM
It seems that the OP wants to project an "all or nothing" attitude on those advocating a return of serve and volley. As if to say we want "serve and volley" over baselining.

"Which one do you prefer?"

This "It's one or the other" premise is naive.

What is becoming clearer is that many of the "baselining only" advocates appear to be young guns and have some distorted recollection and/or "youtube" sense of history, that within their lifetime the tour consisted of a majority of serve and volleyers.

That didn't happen, at least not within the lifetimes of the loudest critics of serve and volley here.

When do the young guns think the tour last consisted of 50% devout or at least very competent serve and volleyers, I wonder?

Secondly almost every one of us advocating a return of serve and volley are doing so in the hopes of restoring a healthier and more entertaining mix of styles and diversity in the game.

Those arguing pro-baseline on the other hand seem to be advocating for it in totality to the exclusion of all else.

All it requires is to read up on the rankings through the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's to see just how diverse the game was from top to bottom.

Here's the year end rankings from the mid-90's, 1994 to be exact:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA) all-courter
2 Agassi, Andre (USA) pure ball striking/center court controlling baseliner
3 Becker, Boris (GER) serve and volleyer, who saw himself as an all-courter
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP) topspinning baseliner
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) serve and volleyer
6 Chang, Michael (USA) counter punching/retrieving baseliner
7 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) serve and volleyer
8 Berasategui, Alberto (ESP) topspinning basliner
9 Stich, Michael (GER) all-courter
10 Martin, Todd (USA) all-courter
11 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) pure ball striking baseline/all-courter
12 Ferreira, Wayne (RSA) pure ball striking, shotmaking baseliner
13 Courier, Jim (USA) big fh baseliner
14 Rosset, Marc (SUI) big serve/big fh baseliner
15 Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) counter punching baseliner
16 Muster, Thomas (AUT) topspinning baseliner
17 Krajicek, Richard (NED) serve and volleyer
18 Korda, Petr (CZE) pure ball striking, shotmaking baseliner
19 Larsson, Magnus (SWE) big serve/big fh baseliner
20 Stoltenberg, Jason (AUS) serve and volleyer


This is the reality. Where's the problem?

5

This has nothing over the preference of one style of player over another. Nothing regarding advocating one style of play or the other. The thread is asking for what is found more ENTERTAINING. It has nothing to do with eras, nothing to do with what went on in the 1990s, and everything to do with a simple set of questions:
Would you prefer to watch a match between two serve & volley preferring players?
Or would you rather prefer to watch a game that is dictated more at the baseline than the serve/net exclusively?

Each of these styles has already brought to us some amazing games and players in the process, no question about it. I'm not trying to say tennis should be played one way or the other, nor that one style will always be better than the other. On my end, I guess I am one of those young guns who would rather watch baseline-oriented matches. What would you rather watch?

Entertainment value, people, not which style is better than the other.

Breaker
01-13-2009, 12:39 PM
Just watch the exhibition matches between fed+sampras, this was about as boring as tennis can get, that s+v display totally sucked.

You can tell there must be a lot of older people here living in the past. That is the only reason i can explain that many voting for s+v.

This has nothing over the preference of one style of player over another. Nothing regarding advocating one style of play or the other. The thread is asking for what is found more ENTERTAINING. It has nothing to do with eras, nothing to do with what went on in the 1990s, and everything to do with a simple set of questions:
Would you prefer to watch a match between two serve & volley preferring players?
Or would you rather prefer to watch a game that is dictated more at the baseline than the serve/net exclusively?

Each of these styles has already brought to us some amazing games and players in the process, no question about it. I'm not trying to say tennis should be played one way or the other, nor that one style will always be better than the other. On my end, I guess I am one of those young guns who would rather watch baseline-oriented matches. What would you rather watch?

Entertainment value, people, not which style is better than the other.

The problem and the reason FiveO posted that is more than likely that you generalise the entire 90's generation as serve and volleyers whilst comparing them to "today's players" which as you say are 90+% baseline play. There was more than just serve and volley and the notion that all play was simply one-two tennis isn't accurate. There was a lot of variety during the 90's and early '00s that is disappearing and that is the main reason people say they "want a return to S&V", when they say they mean that they want a return to when a variety of players had success on different surfaces, not just baseline players.

For me honestly I enjoy baseline play more on average and find it more entertaining when it comes to certain types of baseliner. I enjoyed serve and volley as well but if the entire tour was serve and volley I admit I would be bored, but that really was never the case at any time period. There has always been a great mix between serve/volley and baseline play until recent years when it has died down slowly to a huge amount of baseliners with serve and volley play only appearing every once in a while with guys like Stepanek and Guccione.

I voted the first option because I would prefer the tennis of the 90's/early 00's more than what is currently out there but I enjoy it either way because it is tennis both ways. I love the sport but really the variety should be there to show the highest levels of the game from all angles.

380pistol
01-14-2009, 09:30 AM
It seems that the OP wants to project an "all or nothing" attitude on those advocating a return of serve and volley. As if to say we want "serve and volley" over baselining.

"Which one do you prefer?"

This "It's one or the other" premise is naive.

What is becoming clearer is that many of the "baselining only" advocates appear to be young guns and have some distorted recollection and/or "youtube" sense of history, that within their lifetime the tour consisted of a majority of serve and volleyers.

That didn't happen, at least not within the lifetimes of the loudest critics of serve and volley here.

When do the young guns think the tour last consisted of 50% devout or at least very competent serve and volleyers, I wonder?

Secondly almost every one of us advocating a return of serve and volley are doing so in the hopes of restoring a healthier and more entertaining mix of styles and diversity in the game.

Those arguing pro-baseline on the other hand seem to be advocating for it in totality to the exclusion of all else.

All it requires is to read up on the rankings through the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's to see just how diverse the game was from top to bottom.

Here's the year end rankings from the mid-90's, 1994 to be exact:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA) all-courter
2 Agassi, Andre (USA) pure ball striking/center court controlling baseliner
3 Becker, Boris (GER) serve and volleyer, who saw himself as an all-courter
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP) topspinning baseliner
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) serve and volleyer
6 Chang, Michael (USA) counter punching/retrieving baseliner
7 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) serve and volleyer
8 Berasategui, Alberto (ESP) topspinning basliner
9 Stich, Michael (GER) all-courter
10 Martin, Todd (USA) all-courter
11 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) pure ball striking baseline/all-courter
12 Ferreira, Wayne (RSA) pure ball striking, shotmaking baseliner
13 Courier, Jim (USA) big fh baseliner
14 Rosset, Marc (SUI) big serve/big fh baseliner
15 Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) counter punching baseliner
16 Muster, Thomas (AUT) topspinning baseliner
17 Krajicek, Richard (NED) serve and volleyer
18 Korda, Petr (CZE) pure ball striking, shotmaking baseliner
19 Larsson, Magnus (SWE) big serve/big fh baseliner
20 Stoltenberg, Jason (AUS) serve and volleyer


This is the reality. Where's the problem?

5

Oh yes. Variety, couldn't have said it better. I think the problem is in the past you had players serve and volleying on grass, and playing defensive counterpunching on clay. There was grass court tennis and clay court tennis. Now you don't really have that, there's hardcour tennis (mainly baseline bashing) played on grass and clay.

urban
01-14-2009, 09:39 AM
On the tennis channel webside, there is an interview with Ken Rosewall, who seems to agree with FiveO, when he is opting for more versatility in todays game.
www.tennischannel.com

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 09:52 AM
Nadal can attack at times, he has the ability, but his go-to-play is heavy topspin (often right down the middle of the court) so that his opponents cannot gain leverage in the point.



Which is playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

edmondsm
01-14-2009, 09:59 AM
If you were lamen like me in the 90's, you tuned into one or two matches a year, and one was most likely the Wimbledon final. There you would find Pete Sampras ,with some other big server usually, bombing aces and service winners for 2 or 3 hours. There was plenty of variety sure, but it wasn't finding its way into many living rooms. At least that's how I viewed it.

thejoe
01-14-2009, 10:03 AM
Which is playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

I'd never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.

edmondsm
01-14-2009, 10:05 AM
Which is playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

I can agree with that. I would say that your language might be a little loaded. A more diplomatic and clear way of saying it might be; Nadal looks to draw errors from his opponent rather then hit outright winners.

World Beater
01-14-2009, 10:09 AM
Which is playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

you could say the same about all counterpunchers. nadal is not a traditional counterpuncher but hewitt, chang etc played consistently and usually the opponent made the first move.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 10:10 AM
I can agree with that. I would say that your language might be a little loaded. A more diplomatic and clear way of saying it might be; Nadal looks to draw errors from his opponent rather then hit outright winners.

*shrug* It's the truth. Nadal looks to force you into errors or create unforced error opportunities. It's not like that's a bad thing. The majority of points won in tennis are derived from unforced errors and forced errors. I don't see why people get offended by this.



you could say the same about all counterpunchers. nadal is not a traditional counterpuncher but hewitt, chang etc played consistently and usually the opponent made the first move.


Nadal IS a traditional counter puncher. The difference is that he hits 5000 rpm forehands. Yes, he may use different tools, but his goal is the same. He draws forced and unforced errors from you, and wears you down physically and mentally. That pretty much sounds like Hewitt and Chang to me.

kelz
01-14-2009, 12:22 PM
The grass is greener on the other side.

GeorgeLucas
01-14-2009, 12:33 PM
Longer baseline rallies give players more time to put a trademark on their game - seeing a player slowly construct a point, and then exploit any weaknesses delights me. The game is no longer a mindless charge through the purgatory of No Man's Land to the sacred ground at the net.

Holly
01-14-2009, 01:24 PM
I think its important to distinguish between serve and volley during the wood era and serve and volley during the graphite era. They are not the same.

I find the serve and volley during the wood era to be really exciting....especially the contrast in styles of Borg and Mcenroe and Connors.

On the other hand serve and volley during the graphite era of Ivanesivic, Sampras etc etc.....I found to be a bit boring. Aces and crappy returns are not my idea of tennis.

Gorecki
01-14-2009, 01:51 PM
I think its important to distinguish between serve and volley during the wood era and serve and volley during the graphite era. They are not the same.

I find the serve and volley during the wood era to be really exciting....especially the contrast in styles of Borg and Mcenroe and Connors.

On the other hand serve and volley during the graphite era of Ivanesivic, Sampras etc etc.....I found to be a bit boring. Aces and crappy returns are not my idea of tennis.

yes. you made your point already 27380508234 times in your thread!

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 05:45 PM
I think its important to distinguish between serve and volley during the wood era and serve and volley during the graphite era. They are not the same.

I find the serve and volley during the wood era to be really exciting....especially the contrast in styles of Borg and Mcenroe and Connors.

On the other hand serve and volley during the graphite era of Ivanesivic, Sampras etc etc.....I found to be a bit boring. Aces and crappy returns are not my idea of tennis.



Because this is so much more exciting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o


Or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tc_u_K1L1M

JoshDragon
01-14-2009, 09:35 PM
Because this is so much more exciting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o


Or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tc_u_K1L1M

It's allot better than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQ58TnSdug

Variety can be a nice thing but this guy was dominating the sport back when there was 'variety' in the game. Would anyone really want to go back to these days?

oranges
01-14-2009, 09:38 PM
LOL, you can't pick Pete's slam dunks and ask if anyone likes them.

DarkSephiroth
01-14-2009, 10:49 PM
It's allot better than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQ58TnSdug

Variety can be a nice thing but this guy was dominating the sport back when there was 'variety' in the game. Would anyone really want to go back to these days?

LoL. That video was FAR more entertaining than most of the tennis played nowadays. So yes, someone would really want to go back to those days.

abmk
01-14-2009, 10:57 PM
Someone here finds pete's slam dunks boring !!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Blade0324
01-15-2009, 07:20 AM
^Actually yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blade0324
01-15-2009, 07:37 AM
I found the video of Pete's slam dunks to be completely distasteful, which is why I found Pete that way when he played. He came across as a someone that was showboating by hitting those slam dunks. In most cases he was hitting balls that would either have gone out or he could simply have taken a step or 2 deaper in the court and hit a normal volley or overhead. I would absolutely quit watching tennis altogether if I had to watch more of that crap.

drakulie
01-15-2009, 07:41 AM
I found the video of Pete's slam dunks to be completely distasteful, which is why I found Pete that way when he played. He came across as a someone that was showboating by hitting those slam dunks. In most cases he was hitting balls that would either have gone out or he could simply have taken a step or 2 deaper in the court and hit a normal volley or overhead. I would absolutely quit watching tennis altogether if I had to watch more of that crap.

You deserve one of these for writing that filth:

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z312/AmyAlways/Owned.gif

JoshDragon
01-15-2009, 07:45 AM
Someone here finds pete's slam dunks boring !!!!!!!!!!!!!?

It becomes repetitive and eventually boring. I used that video just to demonstrate how short the points could be if tennis returned to faster surfaces.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 07:49 AM
It becomes repetitive and eventually boring. I used that video just to demonstrate how short the points could be if tennis returned to faster surfaces.



Terrible example. You hand picked 10 points from 10 different matches. At least I showed points from the same match.



I assume you think this is boring too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxB8F7mybQ&feature=related


Also, that's 10 points from 10 different matches. Sampras rarely used his dunk slam in a match more than 3-4 times. Terrible example from baseline fines, once again.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 07:50 AM
I found the video of Pete's slam dunks to be completely distasteful, which is why I found Pete that way when he played. He came across as a someone that was showboating by hitting those slam dunks. In most cases he was hitting balls that would either have gone out or he could simply have taken a step or 2 deaper in the court and hit a normal volley or overhead. I would absolutely quit watching tennis altogether if I had to watch more of that crap.



It's not show boating. You do realize because he was dunk slamming it, Sampras had a better vertical component and could put more onto his overhead, making it deadly and nearly unstoppable every time he hit it. And he's one of the few guys athletic enough to do it.

JoshDragon
01-15-2009, 08:29 AM
Terrible example. You hand picked 10 points from 10 different matches. At least I showed points from the same match.



I assume you think this is boring too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxB8F7mybQ&feature=related


Also, that's 10 points from 10 different matches. Sampras rarely used his dunk slam in a match more than 3-4 times. Terrible example from baseline fines, once again.

Not boring but repetitive. I get tired of the constant 'attack the net' strategy.

Yes, I do find Sampras's jump smash repetitive and also somewhat annoying. I don't really like watching Borg and Lendl battle it out from the baseline but Becker vs Sampras is just as bad.

drakulie
01-15-2009, 08:32 AM
^^It is **VERY** obvious you have never even watched **ONE** full match of Sampras'. He rarely hit that shot. Very rarely.

I have dozens of his matches, and in many of them>> He didn't even get the chance to hit it once.

When he was given the chance to hit one, and nailed it>>> IT WAS AWESOME!

and now, you get one of these too:

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z312/AmyAlways/Owned.gif

thejoe
01-15-2009, 08:40 AM
To fully appreciate the smash-dunk thing, watch it courtside. Pure win!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf2RLog9d0I&feature=channel_page&fmt=18

drakulie
01-15-2009, 08:43 AM
^^^Is there any way you could edit out the first 30 seconds of the video??? I hate that MAN! :)

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 09:01 AM
^^^Is there any way you could edit out the first 30 seconds of the video??? I hate that MAN! :)
Who is he?

drakulie
01-15-2009, 09:05 AM
^^Mary Carillo.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 09:08 AM
^^Mary Carillo.
You got me there! I was actually trying to find the man's name!

drakulie
01-15-2009, 09:09 AM
^^^^Sorry. I refer to her as "he". Hence>>> "I hate that man." :)

Rabbit
01-15-2009, 09:11 AM
To fully appreciate the smash-dunk thing, watch it courtside. Pure win!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf2RLog9d0I&feature=channel_page&fmt=18


It is very true that Sampras did this only on occassion, usually when he was pretty much in the driver's seat. He also stopped doing this later in his career because he came down funny after one and actually injured himself. After that, he refrained from doing it.

danb
01-15-2009, 12:27 PM
Someone here finds pete's slam dunks boring !!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Go figure.
Being that athletic MUST be boring... Many guys posting today were in diapers when Pete won his first GS so they didn't live through those matches to have something to remember.
I know of a few occasions when Pete served so hard and with so much spin he actually broke the other guy's string (Rafter comes in mind amongst them). But then again, to serve over 130mph with an 85 sq inches racquet (strung at 75) you must be an animal - and that must be boring again.
Runnig forehand winners anybody? Well - watch Pete before dropping jaws when Nadal hits one (both are amazing in their own way).
Last but not least - give ANY of today's players a 85 sq inches racquet strung at 75 and ask them to serve and volley - let's see the skills.

Don't get me wrong - Rafa is very exciting - just don't trash Pete.

fastdunn
01-15-2009, 01:09 PM
^^It is **VERY** obvious you have never even watched **ONE** full match of Sampras'. He rarely hit that shot. Very rarely.

I have dozens of his matches, and in many of them>> He didn't even get the chance to hit it once.

When he was given the chance to hit one, and nailed it>>> IT WAS AWESOME!

and now, you get one of these too:

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z312/AmyAlways/Owned.gif

I have pretty much every televised matches of Sampras from 1989 (maybe over 100 vhs tapes). He dramatically cut down "air Sampras" overhead smash from 1999, around the age of 27 and the time he had herniated disc injury. He never really did full air smash after that. The "running forehand" also slowly became less extreme after that and eventually disappeared (since he started to play baseline game "more at the middle" (Agassi quote) and increasingly dependent on net game).

Gorecki
01-15-2009, 02:14 PM
Not boring but repetitive. I get tired of the constant 'attack the net' strategy.

Yes, I do find Sampras's jump smash repetitive and also somewhat annoying. I don't really like watching Borg and Lendl battle it out from the baseline but Becker vs Sampras is just as bad.

you mean repetitive like when Nadal hits 120438239 forehands in the same game to the oponents backhand?

as forthe air sampras, that example in not eventhe most beautiful!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQ58TnSdug (at 1:20)...

ps: very cheesy music

danb
01-15-2009, 02:32 PM
you mean repetitive like when Nadal hits 120438239 forehands in the same game to the oponents backhand?

as forthe air sampras, that example in not eventhe most beautiful!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQ58TnSdug (at 1:20)...

ps: very cheesy music

Dude - you forgot the beautiful 110 mph WTA style serve of Nadal. Yes, the guy is #1 today.
Plus pulling his pants out of his *(&% AND SHAKING HANDS AT THE END OF THE MATCH is so much more entertaining.
BTW - today Nadal is my preferred player. Really.

JoshDragon
01-15-2009, 03:20 PM
Dude - you forgot the beautiful 110 mph WTA style serve of Nadal. Yes, the guy is #1 today.
Plus pulling his pants out of his *(&% AND SHAKING HANDS AT THE END OF THE MATCH is so much more entertaining.
BTW - today Nadal is my preferred player. Really.

Dude, what's the point of dissing Nadal? There's nothing wrong with the way he plays. Besides he would beat Pete on any surface that wasn't fast.

danb
01-15-2009, 03:50 PM
Dude, what's the point of dissing Nadal? There's nothing wrong with the way he plays. Besides he would beat Pete on any surface that wasn't fast.

OK - my bad. You're right.
I actually like him - shouldn't talk like that about Nadal.
The whole thing with who beats who makes no sense UNLESS the players are in the same generation.
Nadal's got the biggest hart I have seen in a sportsman. Ever.
And he is down to earth guy. Plus his forehand is HUGE.
Now I feel better.

Plus, whatever you like respect the other opinions (this is for myself :twisted:).

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 04:45 PM
Dude, what's the point of dissing Nadal? There's nothing wrong with the way he plays. Besides he would beat Pete on any surface that wasn't fast.


You calling Pete Sampras' dunk smash boring is kind of hilarious, especially when it rarely happened. Sampras was never boring to watch, especially in matches where his opponents were actually good enough to give him a challenge. Those were some of the best matches, ever. Only Goran vs Sampras was really boring, but then again, that match-up would be boring if they played on red clay.



Thus why he made fun of Nadal.

Ripster
01-15-2009, 05:31 PM
I'd rather watch two baseline oriented players going at it HOWEVER the best matches are when a S&V player is playing a really good returner/baseline player.

Or just someone who is at least mixing it up see any Agassi/Sampras match, Tsonga/Nadal....Radek Stepanek or Roger Federer

Holly
01-15-2009, 11:21 PM
I'd rather watch two baseline oriented players going at it HOWEVER the best matches are when a S&V player is playing a really good returner/baseline player.

Or just someone who is at least mixing it up see any Agassi/Sampras match, Tsonga/Nadal....Radek Stepanek or Roger Federer

Thats true.....on the other hand the last two wimbledons were sort of interesting......no?

I think that Nadal and Federer have brought tennis to a new level.

edmondsm
01-15-2009, 11:30 PM
Thats true.....on the other hand the last two wimbledons were sort of interesting......no?

I think that Nadal and Federer have brought tennis to a new level.


There I fixed it. Honestly, what is with the colored fonts? Do you just like making people squint?

Holly
01-16-2009, 05:30 AM
There I fixed it. Honestly, what is with the colored fonts? Do you just like making people squint?

Thats my signature baby. :).

bladepdb
01-17-2009, 06:10 PM
Dude, what's the point of dissing Nadal? There's nothing wrong with the way he plays. Besides he would beat Pete on any surface that wasn't fast.

That's not the point. Nadal can beat virtually anyone on a slow surface, especially if it's clay. You can't just tag on handicaps when comparing two players.