PDA

View Full Version : Henri Leconte


David_86
06-20-2009, 07:27 AM
I was never a fan. He was a fantastic shotmaker, but I could never stand his claims that other tennis players were boring. I see Leconte as being a prototype of today's players ie a style of play that doesn't require any intelligence.

Worst question ever asked "Henri, would you prefer to win Davis Cup or a Grand Slam"

Worst answer ever "Davis Cup because you are part of a team"

The reason it is such a terrible question is that it is being asked of a player who has only won the Davis Cup, never a Grand Slam

Am I the only one who finds Leconte's answer very arrogant. Surely most players with any humility would say they were unable to answer because they had never won a Grand Slam.

BTURNER
06-20-2009, 07:56 AM
He was asked which he prefers TO win. He answered to what he preferred to play. its a subtle distinction even to native english speakers. He's not claiming that he has. He likes the team atmosphere, the electricity is different and the kind of pressure is different. I suspect he likes the broader support he gets from the coaches and other team members and of course the fans when in France. He is just saying Davis cup gets his adrenaline up and cushions his confidence lows better. I think you are making too much of it.

David_86
06-20-2009, 07:57 AM
How can you ask which one he prefers to win if he has not experienced winning a Grand Slam?

Do you prefer butter or margerine? Butter, but I've never tried margerine

BTURNER
06-20-2009, 08:00 AM
Read revised post. I would prefer to be on broadway to being in an opera. I have done neither.

David_86
06-20-2009, 08:12 AM
I'm sorry to be petty but you only "think" you would prefer to be in broadway rather than opera. Only by doing both would you know for sure. I'm afraid I'm coming across as having a huge chip on my shoulder, but really I don't. I think Leconte's an extremly talented player, and you could probably go through any player's comment and find something unreasonable. It's just that Leconte's comments sometimes make he seem a bit full of himself, like he was saving tennis from boring one-dimensional players like Lendl.

By the way, I don't think Lendl's one-dimesional

35ft6
06-20-2009, 10:44 AM
In the earliest days of the Senior Tour, I was amazed by how hard Johan Kreik and Leconte could hit their forehands.

A Grand Slam or Davis Cup? Who cares how he answered? Davis Cup is actually a big deal in some countries. Less than 1 percent of all pros will win a Grand Slam, why be fixated on it?

David_86
06-20-2009, 11:31 AM
A fine interview with Henri Leconte

"For us, the Davis Cup came before the Grand Slams in importance," says the man who never won a Grand Slam title.

"There are no personalities, the new generation is very disappointing."

"The players today don't realise that finally, it is only a game. They have forgotten how to enjoy playing, and that is not the way to play, my friend. You have to enjoy playing, that is what it is meant for." Oh, if only every player had the same attitude as Leconte, the world of tennis would be a much happier place. The quality of tennis would be s**t though.

"Earlier the game had character. Each player was a personality. Earlier, I could tell you who the top ten guys were, for any year. Today I can't." Fantastic characters like Hlasek, Carlsson, Mancini, Berger, Mayotte, Sanchez, Gilbert, Nystrom and Gomez, all top 10 players in the late 80s. Still, I'd probably take their personalities over Leconte's.


So what is the key to succeed on clay?

"You have to come to the net all the time. Kuerten is successful because he mixes it up all the time, he doesn't play just the one thing. On clay you have to be offensive, you must provoke, you can't stay back." Of course, attacking players have always thrived on clay.

They say left-handers have an edge when it comes to tennis...

"Yes, I think so. They have more touch." An unbiased opinion from the left-handed Leconte.

"Sampras is the last dominant player of our time, I doubt there will be another era of such dominance ever again." Brilliant

do you think your results justified your talent?

"My main goal was to win. I don't bother about records or history when I play. I play to win." Anyone else find this statement a bit odd.

What an idiot. I don't care now if I am insulting Leconte since he spent most of this interview criticising every player in the world today (the interview was a several years back, but it's still a whole generation he managed to write off)

35ft6
06-20-2009, 12:09 PM
A fine interview with Henri Leconte

"For us, the Davis Cup came before the Grand Slams in importance," says the man who never won a Grand Slam title.What's it matter if he won a Slam?"There are no personalities, the new generation is very disappointing." Novak and Murray are interesting guys, but ask me a few years ago and I would have agreed with him wholeheartedly. Too much love among the top pros, it's like they're all members of the same frat. They've been coached on how to interview since they were kids, which is good for keeping corporate sponsors happy, but not great for providing interesting human context for matches."Earlier the game had character. Each player was a personality. Earlier, I could tell you who the top ten guys were, for any year. Today I can't." It's hard to argue against there being more personalities in the game back in the 70's and 80's."My main goal was to win. I don't bother about records or history when I play. I play to win." Anyone else find this statement a bit odd.What's odd about it?

David_86
06-20-2009, 12:25 PM
Personally, I liked the era Leconte playing in. Lendl, Wilander, Connors, Mecir, Edberg, Becker, Cash, Noah, McEnroe.

But, for a guy to basically say "look how good my generation was" and "everyone should have an attitude like mine" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The reason I said that statement sounded a bit odd is that usually the people who play to win are the people who think about history and records. Maybe Leconte only enjoys tennis when he's winning.

Why didn't you reply against every insult I made?

Datacipher
06-20-2009, 02:14 PM
How can you ask which one he prefers to win if he has not experienced winning a Grand Slam?

Do you prefer butter or margerine? Butter, but I've never tried margerine


You're either trolling or unable to look at this objectively.

You can certainly ask the question "would you prefer to win Davis Cup or a Grand Slam", to ANY player, regardless of whether they have ever won either, and that player can most certainly answer.

One can certainly think that Leconte's extremely emotional and dramatic Davis cup win may bias his answer, but that does not mean it is a dishonest answer, nor an invalid one.

Datacipher
06-20-2009, 02:34 PM
A fine interview with Henri Leconte

"For us, the Davis Cup came before the Grand Slams in importance," says the man who never won a Grand Slam title.

"There are no personalities, the new generation is very disappointing."

"The players today don't realise that finally, it is only a game. They have forgotten how to enjoy playing, and that is not the way to play, my friend. You have to enjoy playing, that is what it is meant for." Oh, if only every player had the same attitude as Leconte, the world of tennis would be a much happier place. The quality of tennis would be s**t though.

"Earlier the game had character. Each player was a personality. Earlier, I could tell you who the top ten guys were, for any year. Today I can't." Fantastic characters like Hlasek, Carlsson, Mancini, Berger, Mayotte, Sanchez, Gilbert, Nystrom and Gomez, all top 10 players in the late 80s. Still, I'd probably take their personalities over Leconte's.


So what is the key to succeed on clay?

"You have to come to the net all the time. Kuerten is successful because he mixes it up all the time, he doesn't play just the one thing. On clay you have to be offensive, you must provoke, you can't stay back." Of course, attacking players have always thrived on clay.

They say left-handers have an edge when it comes to tennis...

"Yes, I think so. They have more touch." An unbiased opinion from the left-handed Leconte.

"Sampras is the last dominant player of our time, I doubt there will be another era of such dominance ever again." Brilliant

do you think your results justified your talent?

"My main goal was to win. I don't bother about records or history when I play. I play to win." Anyone else find this statement a bit odd.

What an idiot. I don't care now if I am insulting Leconte since he spent most of this interview criticising every player in the world today (the interview was a several years back, but it's still a whole generation he managed to write off)

This is ridiculous. It IS you who are coming across as the bitter idiot.

1.Hlasek, Carlsson, Mancini, Berger, Mayotte, Sanchez, Gilbert, Nystrom and Gomez DID have personality in terms of their games and image. (although you've tried to do your best to pick least charasmatic players of 2+ generations here). Gilbert had tons of personality and an VERY unique style of tennis. Mayotte only had an all-american, collegiate image, but had an interesting SV game, combined with flatish groundstrokes. Berger...was a helluva character, with racquets LITERALLY purchased by his father at Kmarts (he cleaned out the entire KMART stock in the region on roadtrips), one fugly service motion and braces all over his body. Mancini had one of the greatest topspin backhands of all time, and remains one of the hardest hitters I have ever seen. He was a bit of a Gonzalez of his era, but much more consistent, and smarter. Had laziness and injuries not cut his career VERY short, we would have heard far more about him. Carlsson also suffered from that. Gomez, is a GREAT tennis story. Unique style, awkward movement, big weapons, sometimes accused of being lazy, but in the end, had the last laugh, biding his time until his THIRTY'S when he finally saw his grand slam opportunity and seized it, with inspired play! Hlasek had little "personality" but his stunning, stereotypical "tennis pro" good looks, made him a fan favorite anyways, especially among women.

2.When he talks about the key to succeeding on clay, he is presumably talking about the key FOR HIM or for ATTACKING PLAYERS. I'd have to see the full interview/transcript and/or journalists notes to be sure of course.

3.MANY people think left-handers have an edge in tennis, THUS THE QUESTION. Their have been articles in national tennis publications going back over 40 years about this. He had TWO possible answers, but you jump all over his choice. He did not pick the question. Carillo, Mcenroe, Laver and many others have talked about this, I don't see you raging about them. Amazingly, your criticism is that he is left-handed, the very reason he was asked this question. Apparently, the only valid answer to you was for him to say "no". Of course, if that's the only answer you'll accept, it isn't even a question anymore.

4.Suggesting their will never be another dominant player has also been suggested by DOZENS of players, coaches and observers over the last 30 years. Among current players, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and quite a few others have said the same thing, before the emergence of Federer's dominance. If Nadal and Federer falter without a clear successor, you will hear the same thing again. Leconte was no more wrong that all these other people, yet in your mind, it makes him an "idiot".

5.No, I don't find the statement that he plays to "win" odd. In fact, it's perfectly normal. Rare is the player who plays for history, and even more rare are the ones who admit it. Sampras springs to mind as one of the few players candid enough to talk about it...BEFORE he actually won anything. In order to do it, you must:
1.have the ability to actually win grand slams
2.be honest and bold enough to say it in public
3.not really be thinking it during actual matches and not let your thinking about it affect actual matches

THAT would be the odd exception.

Let's pretend for one second they asked the same thing of Pioline or Rios or Safin. And they gave that answer. Would you be raging about it? No. You wouldn't. You really have some Leconte issues. ONE CAN ONLY WONDER WHERE THEY STEM FROM CONSIDERING YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH TENNIS THROUGH HIS ERA. SAD.

David_86
06-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Doesn't anybody else find his answers to be quite arrogant?

People act like I've commited a crime because I give Leconte some stick, but that it's quite alright for him to insult other players.

Just read the answers in the interview and tell me that if you were a top player around the period he's ****ging off you would not be a bit upset.

vive le beau jeu !
06-20-2009, 02:46 PM
leconte was a talented player, but expecting clever answers from him is asking a bit too much, i think...
well... that's what makes him entertaining too, in a sense ! :rolleyes:
(ca fait partie du personnage, comme on dit !)

David_86
06-20-2009, 02:59 PM
Are you seriously telling me that Laver had better touch than Rosewall? It's ridiculous to say being a lefty naturally gives you better touch.

Statements like "there will never be a player as dominant" deserve to be shot down.

I have seen matches from Leconte's era. Plenty. I really enjoy watching those matches. I certainly prefer it to modern tennis. Take a look at my posts. They're about Borg, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Cash.

Those tennis players I perhaps unfairly listed as lacking in charisma are all taken from the top 10 year-end rankings of a 4 year period. Also what's unfair about choosing the least charismatic players. That was kind of the point.

Have you actually understood the "play to win" statement. My point is that it is at odds with Leconte's "you should play entertaining tennis" and "tennis should be about enjoyment".

David_86
06-20-2009, 03:28 PM
Just checked. The interview was from May 2001. Just look at the players in top around that time. These are all the players in the year-end top 10 for 2000 and 2001

Kuerten
Safin
Sampras
Norman
Kafelnikov
Agassi
Corretja
Enqvist
Henman
Hewitt
Ferrero
Grosjean
Haas
Rafter

Forgive me for sounding smug, but I think this list speaks for itself.

jimbo333
06-20-2009, 03:33 PM
Does anyone else think this thread is really weird?

Leconte was/is an entertaining tennis personality, and aknowledged as being a bit crazy as well. I always really enjoyed watching him play, he was an excellent player with lots of talent. Lacked concentration at times, or I think he wouldn't have been that far behind say McEnroe? Yes, he was that talented, but like many players, not focused enough to win at the top level:)

jimbo333
06-20-2009, 03:35 PM
Just checked. The interview was from May 2001. Just look at the players in top around that time. These are all the players in the year-end top 10 for 2000 and 2001

Kuerten
Safin
Sampras
Norman
Kafelnikov
Agassi
Corretja
Enqvist
Henman
Hewitt
Ferrero
Grosjean
Haas
Rafter

Forgive me for sounding smug, but I think this list speaks for itself.

Well you've sounded smug for most of this thread mate:)

David_86
06-20-2009, 03:53 PM
I'm not sure what I'm arguing about anymore:)

I think I started this thread with the intention of making a comment about how arrogant I think Leconte is.

Now I'm getting into arguments about eras, the english language, having to check my facts, and who knows what?

Could I just summarise the argument. I think that in the interview I read Leconte comes across as an arrogant, ill-informed, idiot.

People obviously think I'm the arrogant, ill-informed idiot.

But will someone just say they think Leconte is arrogant. Anyone. Even if they don't mean it. I need this. :)

jimbo333
06-20-2009, 04:17 PM
Leconte is arrogant.

(In a good way though)

BTURNER
06-20-2009, 04:17 PM
Then get it from one of his ex girlfriends. I have read he is a rather sweet, drole, and old fashioned frenchman. Many of the french have an aura of the grandiose in their manner. Don't mistake that for a character attribute. Definitely do not judge a foreign speaker on distinctions in connotation and word use. so many personalites have been misjudged by Americans from Lendl to Borg or Edberg to Graf because bungled a second language interview and got labeled or saddled.

jimbo333
06-20-2009, 04:19 PM
Leconte is misunderstood.

David_86
06-20-2009, 04:25 PM
BTURNER said

"Many of the french have an aura of the grandiose in their manner. Don't mistake that for a character attribute."

WTF. Someone has to comment on this. I have no idea what it means. Please analyse it better than I did Leconte's statements.

gpt
06-20-2009, 05:42 PM
[QUOTE=jimbo333;3581724]Does anyone else think this thread is really weird?

QUOTE]
Yes Jimbo, I do. So what if Leconte is crazy or weird. Tennis is better for him having played.

35ft6
06-20-2009, 05:48 PM
The reason I said that statement sounded a bit odd is that usually the people who play to win are the people who think about history and records. Maybe Leconte only enjoys tennis when he's winning.Thinking about history? How many players really get a chance to play for history? Less than 1 percent of pros. The rest are simply trying to win.Why didn't you reply against every insult I made?I didn't care about some of them.

David_86
06-20-2009, 11:23 PM
Or maybe it's because some of my comments are justified. You could at least say so rather than just brush it all off.

35ft6
06-21-2009, 01:20 AM
Or maybe it's because some of my comments are justified. You could at least say so rather than just brush it all off.This is how message boards work, nobody has to respond to all of your comments. But since it seems to matter so much to you:
"The players today don't realise that finally, it is only a game. They have forgotten how to enjoy playing, and that is not the way to play, my friend. You have to enjoy playing, that is what it is meant for."Don't see what's objectionable about this. When Guga was playing, I remember how everybody talked about his smile. It was refreshing, he really seemed to love the game. That isn't common. Most guys look like they're being shipped off to prison."You have to come to the net all the time. Kuerten is successful because he mixes it up all the time, he doesn't play just the one thing. On clay you have to be offensive, you must provoke, you can't stay back." Of course, attacking players have always thrived on clay. Who cares? That's his opinion. You really think this is proof that Leconte deserves our scorn? This is a guy who obviously remembers Noah's improbable win against Wilander.They say left-handers have an edge when it comes to tennis...

"Yes, I think so. They have more touch." An unbiased opinion from the left-handed Leconte.You have an obsession with ad hominem posts. Regardless of whether or not he's left handed, does he have a point? Personally, I do think left handed players tend to play differently, and science does suggest that left handed people tend to THINK differently. "Sampras is the last dominant player of our time, I doubt there will be another era of such dominance ever again." Brilliant
Lot of people thought this. I remember tons of people saying 14 slams is a record that may never be topped. Nobody was saying "it's a record that will be broken in 8 years."

Happy?

galain
06-21-2009, 01:44 AM
Can't find anything to argue about with Leconte in his interview, at all.

And just as an aside, from a personal conversation with one of Pat Rafter's immediate family - he would have been more than happy to trade one of his US Opens for a Davis Cup. They didn't say both, but Davis Cup was a huge deal for Rafter - i don't see why it couldn't be for anyone else either.

Datacipher
06-21-2009, 01:53 AM
This is how message boards work, nobody has to respond to all of your comments. But since it seems to matter so much to you:Don't see what's objectionable about this. When Guga was playing, I remember how everybody talked about his smile. It was refreshing, he really seemed to love the game. That isn't common. Most guys look like they're being shipped off to prison. Who cares? That's his opinion. You really think this is proof that Leconte deserves our scorn? This is a guy who obviously remembers Noah's improbable win against Wilander.You have an obsession with ad hominem posts. Regardless of whether or not he's left handed, does he have a point? Personally, I do think left handed players tend to play differently, and science does suggest that left handed people tend to THINK differently. Lot of people thought this. I remember tons of people saying 14 slams is a record that may never be topped. Nobody was saying "it's a record that will be broken in 8 years."

Happy?

I covered most of these in my post as well 35. In addition, the comments, as I pointed out are hardly unique. In regards to the attitude of playing "for fun", this is a comment that has been said MANY times by almost every generation (5 or 6 by now, depending on how you define "generation) since the open era began. Many have felt that the spirit of sportsmanship, fun and camaraderie has been slowly eroding and they are likely right. Certainly, such an opinion, whether right or wrong is hardly unique or inappropriate.

As to the "left handed" player, as I pointed out, this has been a source of discussion for decades. I have in my collection articles from the 70's about it, as well as from the 2000's. Again, hardly something to get excited about, and in fact, they ASKED Leconte BECAUSE he was left-handed. He had 2 choices, it's ridiculous to go after him, because he wasn't allowed to answer "yes".

Leconte arrogant? He certainly wasn't in this interview. Do I agree with all his answers? Not particularly, but they are not offensive and not inappropriate.

David_86
06-21-2009, 01:58 AM
Leconte is saying that everyone should be like him. He spends a lot of the interview talking about how fantastic his own attitude is. And if you think that's right then I strongly disagree with you.

Rafter actually won 2 US Opens and never the Davis Cup so when he says he would trade one I believe him. Actually this is the opposite of Leconte. Rafter actually admits he would prefer to trade something he won for something he lost.

I was not saying that no player would prefer to win a Davis Cup, only that someone who has only won the Davis Cup, and who has a large ego, would say they prefer it.

Some people are looking at my comments and changing the context so that they can make a seemingly reasonable reply.

I know this is a message board so when someone disagrees with a point, but only answers half the argument, I think I'm entitled to push a bit further.

David_86
06-21-2009, 02:05 AM
Have you actually seen Borg and McEnroe play. They were great friends. How many times did you them f**k around in their matches. I hardly say they looked like they were having fun.

Borg and Gerulaitis were best friends, but that camaraderie never spilled out onto the court. Even in the French Open final, after thrashing Gerulaitis, all they give each other at the end is a brief handshake.

35ft6
06-21-2009, 02:07 AM
I know this is a message board so when someone disagrees with a point, but only answers half the argument, I think I'm entitled to push a bit further.You're giving yourself too much credit. You're not making anything remotely close to a cogent argument. I really have no idea what you're going on about. Anyway, have fun here.

35ft6
06-21-2009, 02:08 AM
Leconte arrogant? He certainly wasn't in this interview. Do I agree with all his answers? Not particularly, but they are not offensive and not inappropriate.Yeah, there's a lot of strange anger in this thread. :) *walks out of thread, closes door behind him*

Datacipher
06-21-2009, 02:09 AM
Are you seriously telling me that Laver had better touch than Rosewall? It's ridiculous to say being a lefty naturally gives you better touch.".


WHO SAID THIS? If you are replying to me, I said neither or the 2 things above. I pointed out that this has been a subject of debate for many decades which is why they asked Leconte. Apparently, any answer except "no" was unacceptable to you and reflective of "arrogance". As for the 2 things above, I haven't noticed anybody saying that (even though there are some who would advocate Lefties having different natural strengths, which is not implausible) Ridiculous and childish Straw man.



Statements like "there will never be a player as dominant" deserve to be shot down.".

Fine, again, take it up with Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and COUNTLESS other fans, players, and authorties. Quite some number have said the same thing, as I already mentioned, before the Federer era. They must all be very arrogant."


Those tennis players I perhaps unfairly listed as lacking in charisma are all taken from the top 10 year-end rankings of a 4 year period. Also what's unfair about choosing the least charismatic players. That was kind of the point.".

Besides the fact, that I already pointed out how the players you picked HAD character. YOU ARE MISREADING Leconte...AGAIN. He said there were no personalities now. (He probably didn't mean literally NONE, but no matter, that has nothing to do with the lowest common denominator. It has to do with the highest. I think you really have some logic and comprehension problems...or again...you're trying to troll. You keep making up straw men and/or misrepresenting both Leconte's and others statements)


Have you actually understood the "play to win" statement. My point is that it is at odds with Leconte's "you should play entertaining tennis" and "tennis should be about enjoyment".[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's YOU WHO DON'T APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND. Again, you are misquoting Leconte. He said that "you have to enjoy playing". He did not say the 2 statements you made above. "you have to enjoy playing" and "playing to win" are certainly not contradictory.

Additionally, to take 2 seperate statements with rather vague constructs like "playing for" and "play to" and then trying to find them contradictory on the basis of word definition, without taking into account subjectivity and context is, at best, a fool's errand.

PS. You are now making up/misrepresenting both Leconte's statements and my own. Perhaps it would help you to directly quote what you are replying to. Meanwhile you are berating other posters for not addressing every statement you make. Additionally, you are using a number of argumental/logical fallacies. It appears you are either trying to be argumentative for the sake of conflict, or you're just unable to discuss this rationally.

David_86
06-21-2009, 02:13 AM
I take it you're giving up.

I admit I might be wrong, but at least I think my view on Leconte throughout this thread has been pretty consistent

I think he's very arrogant. And I've tried to back up my statement with some evidence.

David_86
06-21-2009, 02:21 AM
Here's some questions for you Datacipher. I take it you've read the interview.

Is there anything in that interview that was clearly insulting to the top players circa 2001?

Is Leconte saying that every player should have the same "attitude" as him?

These are simple questions that can be answered from the interview. Just answer these two questions and I'll leave you alone.

Datacipher
06-21-2009, 02:11 PM
"I take it you're giving up" (this after 2 LENGTHY posts refuting every point you've made, and your failure to address ANY of my reply)

"Just answer these two questions and I'll leave you alone."

Leconte is not the arrogant one here. I have posted extensively in reply to you, obviously far more than was worth it, since you fail to acknowledge the points I've made or those of others. I have pointed out repeatedly the argumental fallacies and misrepresentations of others statements, and suggested you quote people directly if you wish serious discourse. Again, you're either too emotionally biased about Leconte to be rational, or you are purposely trolling.

jimbo333
06-21-2009, 03:15 PM
"I take it you're giving up" (this after 2 LENGTHY posts refuting every point you've made, and your failure to address ANY of my reply)

"Just answer these two questions and I'll leave you alone."

Leconte is not the arrogant one here. I have posted extensively in reply to you, obviously far more than was worth it, since you fail to acknowledge the points I've made or those of others. I have pointed out repeatedly the argumental fallacies and misrepresentations of others statements, and suggested you quote people directly if you wish serious discourse. Again, you're either too emotionally biased about Leconte to be rational, or you are purposely trolling.

I think he is sort of half trolling, that's what makes this thread so weird!!!

David_86
06-21-2009, 04:29 PM
To Datacipher

I asked you to answer two pretty simple questions that you could have gotten from the interview. It probably would have taken you a couple of minutes. You could have just said 'no' and 'no'. Still, you're probably the kind of person who likes to back up their answers with evidence, so I assume that you couldn't answer those questions properly.

I appreciate the length of your articles and I believe I have argued against some of your points. I think some of your points have been well made, even though I disagree with them. You seem to have anger-management issues with people who disagree with you. Your posts have exasperated me a bit too, especially since you seem to make better use of the english language than me (meaning I can't understand it, but I think you do it to cover up the fact that you can't answer my arguments properly)

I was disagreeing with you, but I have been perfectly willing to admit I could be wrong about the whole thing. I don't think I am, but I could be. Your opinions seem to allow no scope for this.

Thanks for insulting me again :) By the way, what's 'trolling'?

CyBorg
06-21-2009, 05:15 PM
I was never a fan. He was a fantastic shotmaker, but I could never stand his claims that other tennis players were boring. I see Leconte as being a prototype of today's players ie a style of play that doesn't require any intelligence.

Worst question ever asked "Henri, would you prefer to win Davis Cup or a Grand Slam"

Worst answer ever "Davis Cup because you are part of a team"

The reason it is such a terrible question is that it is being asked of a player who has only won the Davis Cup, never a Grand Slam

Am I the only one who finds Leconte's answer very arrogant. Surely most players with any humility would say they were unable to answer because they had never won a Grand Slam.

I pretty much agree about the style parts. Leconte was anti-nuance.

Inconsistent, erratic, not pleasant on the eyes.

Conversely, take someone like Wilander - smooth and steady like a current. The beauty is in how compact his style is. He never gets credit for the aesthetics of his game, but I liked it. Not a gorgeous game like Mecir's, but so crafty and multidimensional nonetheless.

I never liked players who go for too much. You get this impression that they'll tire themselves out before the match is through.

Datacipher
06-21-2009, 07:28 PM
I think he is sort of half trolling, that's what makes this thread so weird!!!

Indeed. That's what makes him hard to qualify. Idiot? Troll? An odd combination? Just playing a bit of both? Surely a waste of time in any case. However, as a troll, he's a bit a failure in that his original material and responses are so poor, they simply don't illicit interest! Oh well...

David_86
06-22-2009, 12:48 AM
Datacipher

Do you even read my posts? Answer the two questions. Just f*****g answer them. 20 word limit. That'll make things nice and clear. Otherwise don't post on this thread at all.

Datacipher
06-22-2009, 04:26 PM
Datacipher

Do you even read my posts? Answer the two questions. Just f*****g answer them. 20 word limit. That'll make things nice and clear. Otherwise don't post on this thread at all.

As everyone can see, I posted extensive replies, point by point, to your inane posts. Something which you have yet to do even once. You then tried to misrepresent my points and did the same to others. That is when the "conversation" ended.

I will post where I please, but thanks for exposing both your troll characteristics, and your childish attitude even more than before! Oops!

PS. Thread begins with completely ridiculous premise. Several posters point this out, troll shows inability to counter valid points and resorts to straw men....BUT, and this is key, the straw men are so transparent and weak that nobody bites or cares.....thread ends with a juevenile rant....

TROLL GRADE = D

David_86
06-22-2009, 05:02 PM
To Datacipher

You lost the argument. You've let your love of Leconte blind you to his faults. It's quite sweet really.

I don't hate Leconte. I'm calling him arrogant. Tennis history would be a poorer story without him.

For anyone else out there, I'll repeat my two questions:

Is there anything in that interview that was clearly insulting to the top players circa 2001?

Is Leconte saying that every player should have the same "attitude" as him?

Here's a link to the interview:

www.rediff.com/sports/2001/may/08henri.htm