PDA

View Full Version : Back when the sport favored the brave


Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 08:40 PM
Here is a taste of how the game was meant to be played for all you youngsters who don't know any better and have only been watching tennis during the slowest era in the history of the sport.

Safin vs Philippoussis Paris TMS Final 2000 on indoor carpet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKSzTGoZM3o

The match has everything, #1 rank on the line, players getting tagged with serves in the chest, points earned by hitting winners:idea:, net play, Safin diving on the carpet, bloody faces. No damn toweling off after every point, if your face is bleeding than you towel off, stepping up to the line and playing like a man.

This is how points are constructed when you are trying to hit winners, not pushing the ball around the court 20-30 strokes.

It's a shame the sport has been emasculated with the proliferation of slow courts.

gold soundz
06-15-2011, 08:50 PM
First of all, those are highlights so you're not seeing the full picture. Secondly, they look like they're rallying the ball quite slowly. Sure, they can hit the odd fast shot which wont be an unforced error, but who can't. Rallies in tennis now look faster to me than that anyway. And thirdly, the thing about pro tennis today and the top players is that the defense is by far at its best, the footwork, etc.

Sentinel
06-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Thanks for the clip. I notice someone immediately rated your thread Terrible, lol.
Some people obviously like emasculation !

Kaz00
06-15-2011, 09:16 PM
Thanks for the clip! I love the way the court sounds!

Antonio Puente
06-15-2011, 09:36 PM
First of all, those are highlights so you're not seeing the full picture. Secondly, they look like they're rallying the ball quite slowly. Sure, they can hit the odd fast shot which wont be an unforced error, but who can't. Rallies in tennis now look faster to me than that anyway. And thirdly, the thing about pro tennis today and the top players is that the defense is by far at its best, the footwork, etc.

It's amazing how much more flat-footed the tennis looked just a decade ago - not only this match, but virtually anything you see from this time period. It's not like watching a 70's match where they barely moved at all, but the footwork does pale in comparison to what you see from the top players today.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 09:42 PM
First of all, those are highlights so you're not seeing the full picture. Secondly, they look like they're rallying the ball quite slowly. Sure, they can hit the odd fast shot which wont be an unforced error, but who can't. Rallies in tennis now look faster to me than that anyway. And thirdly, the thing about pro tennis today and the top players is that the defense is by far at its best, the footwork, etc.

Highlights or not, you see more offense in 5 sets this match than an entire day of highlights from a slow court tournament now.

The only reason defense is better now is because the courts have been slowed, there is a reason the great defensive player Nadal avoids this particular Masters 1000.
You know why, because it is the only tournament the entire year that favors offense over defense.

The only major tournament left on tour with a fast court pace rating.

GOAT BAAH!!!
06-15-2011, 09:50 PM
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/1101/those-were-the-days-garage-band-rerun-demotivational-posters-1295049215.jpg

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 09:53 PM
It's amazing how much more flat-footed the tennis looked just a decade ago - not only this match, but virtually anything you see from this time period. It's not like watching a 70's match where they barely moved at all, but the footwork does pale in comparison to what you see from the top players today.

Is that right, ever hear of a player named Michael Chang?

Watch this and get back to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Yf1ZsWRQQ

Timbo's hopeless slice
06-15-2011, 10:16 PM
how can anyone watch that and call them 'flat footed'??

you have got to be kidding me!!!!!

(the first one, I meant, I don't need to watch Chang to know how brilliant he was)

namelessone
06-15-2011, 10:16 PM
Highlights or not, you see more offense in 5 sets this match than an entire day of highlights from a slow court tournament now.

The only reason defense is better now is because the courts have been slowed, there is a reason the great defensive player Nadal avoids this particular Masters 1000.
You know why, because it is the only tournament the entire year that favors offense over defense.

The only major tournament left on tour with a fast court pace rating.

Really? Not because it's the last masters of the year and is treated like the stepchild of the MS series by top players?

Cincy is pretty damn fast and I've rarely seen Nadal skip it.

BTW, great offensive player Roger federer didn't enter in Paris MS in 2004-2006, withdrew with back injury in 2008 QF and didn't even make semifinals in this event until 2011(where he lost to freaking Monfils). Are we to conclude that Fed is scared of the fastcourts in Paris :) ?

Or if you want to take another player, take Djoker.

His results there are, since 2007:

2R,3R,W,3R.

Is Djoko a bad fastcourt player?

Murray doesn't even have a SF in Paris out of like 4 participations.

Heck, Nadal has a final here. NADAL. And had he not played against a bad matchup while not being that good on HC he might have won the fastest tourney on tour. I hope the joke is not lost on you.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 10:20 PM
how can anyone watch that and call them 'flat footed'??

you have got to be kidding me!!!!!

(the first one, I meant, I don't need to watch Chang to know how brilliant he was)

Not to mention they were both physically two of the biggest players on tour at the time.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Really? Not because it's the last masters of the year and is treated like the stepchild of the MS series by top players?

Cincy is pretty damn fast and I've rarely seen Nadal skip it.

BTW, great offensive player Roger federer didn't enter in Paris MS in 2004-2006, withdrew with back injury in 2008 QF and didn't even make semifinals in this event until 2011(where he lost to freaking Monfils). Are we to conclude that Fed is scared of the fastcourts in Paris :) ?

Federer is a great fast court player, Nadal isn't too great on fast court.

Cincy is the tune up to the US Open, Nadal nor any other top player is going to skip it for that reason.

I guarantee if Bercy was a clay event, Nadal would have his *** there every year.

namelessone
06-15-2011, 10:33 PM
I guarantee if Bercy was a clay event, Nadal would have his *** there every year.

The surface doesn't matter all that much. It's the fact that it's already late in the season and most players JUST DON'T CARE at this point.

Roger Federer skipped this event three times in his prime. THREE TIMES. And his best result ON THE FASTEST SURFACE ON TOUR is SF in 2010.

Novak Djokovic had one win here in 2009 but in the other three participations he didn't make it past third round.

Nadal doesn't have a great record there but he made a FINAL in 2007, losing to a great Nalbandian that year.

Murray didn't even make SF from 4 participations.

Out of the top 5 players, the only ones that have won or made finals in Paris(FASTEST SURFACE AROUND, amirite?), are Soderling,Novak and Nadal.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 10:35 PM
Or if you want to take another player, take Djoker.

His results there are, since 2007:

2R,3R,W,3R.

Is Djoko a bad fastcourt player?


Not a bad fast court player but also not great, his best surface is slow HC, like Nadal his best weapon is his movement.


Heck, Nadal has a final here. NADAL. And had he not played against a bad matchup while not being that good on HC he might have won the fastest tourney on tour. I hope the joke is not lost on you.

There are different ways to win on surfaces but the best way usually wins more consistently in the end, kind of like Soderling winning on clay playing offensive tennis.

Antonio Puente
06-15-2011, 10:44 PM
how can anyone watch that and call them 'flat footed'??


Compared to a Djokovic/Nadal match from today, they appear as if they are wearing cement shoes.

The only reason defense is better now is because the courts have been slowed,

In watching a clay match from a decade ago, you see the same disparity. You simply have better athletes today, with significantly better footwork and movement.

ever hear of a player named Michael Chang?

Sure, he was the cricketer from Somerset.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 10:58 PM
Compared to a Djokovic/Nadal match from today, they appear as if they are wearing cement shoes.



In watching a clay match from a decade ago, you see the same disparity. You simply have better athletes today, with significantly better footwork and movement.



Sure, he was the cricketer from Somerset.

Michael Chang was a better mover than anyone currently playing the game, including Nadal and Djokovic right now.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 11:12 PM
Chang is not a better mover than Nadal. On hard courts they are equal and on clay and grass Nadal is far superior. Federer and Djokovic move better than Chang on natural surfaces in fact.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 11:25 PM
Chang is not a better mover than Nadal. On hard courts they are equal and on clay and grass Nadal is far superior. Federer and Djokovic move better than Chang on natural surfaces in fact.

I think Chang was faster than Nadal, I don't think Djokovic is that great of a mover on natural surfaces he is best on HC.

Antonio Puente
06-15-2011, 11:25 PM
Michael Chang was a better mover than anyone currently playing the game, including Nadal and Djokovic right now.

Simply for argument's sake, I'll accept that assertion and play along. Even if that were true, what would it prove? Would it prove the average player from that era was a better mover than the average player from this era? You would have to be blind to believe such a thing. Chang was the exception. That said, Chang wasn't Nadal or Djokovic. When any former player - McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras - is asked about the differences in the game today, they point to movement and footwork. Just recently, Sampras pointed to that reason as to why American players are falling behind. It's fairly obvious and common sense stuff.

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 11:32 PM
Simply for argument's sake, I'll accept that assertion and play along. Even if that were true, what would it prove? Would it prove the average player from that era was a better mover than the average player from this era? You would have to be blind to believe such a thing. Chang was the exception. That said, Chang wasn't Nadal or Djokovic. When any former player - McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras - is asked about the differences in the game today, they point to movement and footwork. Just recently, Sampras pointed to that reason as to why American players are falling behind. It's fairly obvious and common sense stuff.

You are discounting the fact that the game has been slowed down, if the game is slowed defense takes precedent over offense and of course movement becomes an even bigger weapon. Shot making has taken a backseat to movement and stamina in about 80% of the tournaments played now. Its fairly obvious and common sense stuff.

zagor
06-15-2011, 11:36 PM
Heck, Nadal has a final here. NADAL. And had he not played against a bad matchup while not being that good on HC he might have won the fastest tourney on tour. I hope the joke is not lost on you.

Eh,the year Nadal made the final Paris switched to slow HC,Nalbandian himself said before the F with Nadal that Madrid played quicker that year.Before 2007 Paris was played on carpet,then switched to slow HC and last year they seem to have sped it up again.

Antonio Puente
06-15-2011, 11:40 PM
You are discounting the fact that the game has been slowed down, if the game is slowed defense takes precedent over offense and of course movement becomes an even bigger weapon. Shot making has taken a backseat to movement and stamina in about 80% of the tournaments played now.

But again, you see the same disparity in movement on clay courts from a decade ago. The players of today are simply better athletes with significantly better footwork and movement.

Fed Kennedy
06-15-2011, 11:47 PM
This is a fast court and the quality is much higher. Everything, offense, defense footwork and bigger hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLB-LBy4McQ

namelessone
06-15-2011, 11:50 PM
This is a fast court and the quality is much higher. Everything, offense, defense footwork and bigger hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLB-LBy4McQ

It can't be a fastcourt. Nadal won on it the next year. :)

Fed Kennedy
06-15-2011, 11:52 PM
It can't be a fastcourt. Nadal won on it the next year. :)

Nadal is the GOAT of all surfaces

BreakPoint
06-15-2011, 11:53 PM
Also back when big, macho, hunky, real men played with racquets no bigger than 90 sq. in. :)

Lsmkenpo
06-15-2011, 11:54 PM
But again, you see the same disparity in movement on clay courts from a decade ago. The players of today are simply better athletes with significantly better footwork and movement.

We have 3 or 4 of the best movers the sport has ever seen at the top right now, take away those and the disparity is not nearly as evident as it would seem across the field now to ten years ago. There have been great movers in every era, Borg and Chang are right there with the players of today.

Fed Kennedy
06-15-2011, 11:57 PM
if you can move and play offense, you are a macho man.
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/savage2.jpg

Cesc Fabregas
06-15-2011, 11:57 PM
Nadal hit a backhand, forehand and service winner 0-40 down in the 4th set against Federer, obviously not brave enough for the OP.

Fed Kennedy
06-16-2011, 12:00 AM
Nadal hit a backhand, forehand and service winner 0-40 down in the 4th set against Federer, obviously not brave enough for the OP.

court was too slow, clay is for pansies who like running

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VQTSBF78L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Lsmkenpo
06-16-2011, 12:05 AM
Nadal hit a backhand, forehand and service winner 0-40 down in the 4th set against Federer, obviously not brave enough for the OP.

Nadal hit 3 winners in a row? :shock: That somehow proves the game hasn't been slowed?

JustBob
06-16-2011, 12:06 AM
The players of today are simply better athletes with significantly better footwork and movement.

True, but you are wasting your time with the OP, who will simply refuse to acknowledge that today's players are much better athletes than they were in previous eras despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (including the ever increasing ratio of time spent on physical training vs technique in player development programs in the past 20 years or so). I'm surprised he hasn't yet brought up irrelevant comparisons to other sports...

BreakPoint
06-16-2011, 12:12 AM
Oh, and also back when real men weren't afraid to serve and volley, return and volley, and just come to the net whenever they damn felt like it without being forced to by a drop shot!

Sentinel
06-16-2011, 12:22 AM
! So what if today's players are more athletic ? All that running is required to grind out each point, no ? !

Lsmkenpo
06-16-2011, 01:01 AM
There is a good book called On the Origin of Tennis Species in this book it is explained how tennis players evolved and adapted to the speed of the tennis courts in their eras.

The author had a theory that as court pace decreased players started to eschew net play, grew bigger racquets, an affinity to frequently toweling off, increased movement skills, decreased language skills, and allergic reactions to gluten.

Unfortunately the author is denounced by certain extremists who refuse to accept his theory.

Lsmkenpo
06-16-2011, 01:11 AM
True, but you are wasting your time with the OP, who will simply refuse to acknowledge that today's players are much better athletes than they were in previous eras despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (including the ever increasing ratio of time spent on physical training vs technique in player development programs in the past 20 years or so). I'm surprised he hasn't yet brought up irrelevant comparisons to other sports...

Yes, clearly the USTA player development program is churning out some incredible tennis players, much better now than 10 years ago in skill and athletic ability. They make Sampras and Agassi look like a couple of hacks down at the local parks. :)

zagor
06-16-2011, 01:15 AM
Yes, clearly the USTA player development program is churning out some incredible tennis players, much better now than 10 years ago in skill and athletic ability. They make Sampras and Agassi look like a couple of hacks down at the local parks. :)

Who is better,peak Fish or peak Sampras? I mean Pete may have had a bit more explosive first step but overall it's too hard to call,the game has evolved so much.

SoBad
06-16-2011, 01:24 AM
Tennis has steadily declined since inception. A hundred years ago guys used to hit the ball real hard, and now it's just about who's gonna outmoonball who - Nadal or Djokovic. Moonball groundies, moonball serves, moonball volleys, tennis is finished.

Lsmkenpo
06-16-2011, 01:44 AM
Who is better,peak Fish or peak Sampras? I mean Pete may have had a bit more explosive first step but overall it's too hard to call,the game has evolved so much.

Tough call, but I have heard they are developing a young African- American player named Donald Young with hands as good as McEnroe's and superior athletic skills from the increased physical training regimens now in place.

Lsmkenpo
06-16-2011, 01:47 AM
Tennis has steadily declined since inception. A hundred years ago guys used to hit the ball real hard, and now it's just about who's gonna outmoonball who - Nadal or Djokovic. Moonball groundies, moonball serves, moonball volleys, tennis is finished.

Yep, a hundred years ago they were tougher, men wore full length pants and a long sleeve shirt and never even thought of toweling off between points.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/centennial/april/photo/tilden.jpg
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/images/102/rene200.jpg

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:26 AM
Love the failed tweener :)

also, Philipousis (sp?) has a real slice. Not the floater you see Nadal swinging around.

salsainglesa
06-16-2011, 08:34 AM
and philli***** serves like a sissy

junk
06-16-2011, 12:00 PM
borrowed this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0 from this thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=384620 but the two dudes back in 1996 look pretty fast and athletic to me. actually Pistol Pete and Boom Boom look faster and more athletic than majority of the players today... this is how tennis is supposed to be played - all-court game, big serving, great returning, angles, volleys, power, speed, you name it - pleasure to watch

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 12:59 PM
borrowed this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0 from this thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=384620 but the two dudes back in 1996 look pretty fast and athletic to me. actually Pistol Pete and Boom Boom look faster and more athletic than majority of the players today... this is how tennis is supposed to be played - all-court game, big serving, great returning, angles, volleys, power, speed, you name it - pleasure to watch

1. no they don't.
2. says who?
3. where's the defense that you see today?

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 01:06 PM
1. no they don't.

You're right. They look more skilled...

2. says who?

Bill Tilden, Jack Kramer, I'm guessing, would say that.

3. where's the defense that you see today?


Look up a dude named Michael Chang if you want good defense.

and here's some good play, far better than what is on now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0&feature=player_detailpage#t=277s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0&feature=player_detailpage#t=469s

have you watched them before?

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 01:17 PM
You're right. They look more skilled...

that's not what he asked.


Bill Tilden, Jack Kramer, I'm guessing, would say that.

Kramer thinks Federer plays the best tennis ever. And Federer has been branded a "baseliner" by pretty much everyone endorsing nostalgiatennis. Do you see a contradiction here? The type of tennis one is supposed play is whatever that works; not what an armchair expert thinks should be the norm.


Look up a dude named Michael Chang if you want good defense.

and here's some good play, far better than what is on now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0&feature=player_detailpage#t=277s

have you watched them before?

Chang is good, but not nearly as good as the top guys today. And thanks asking (condescendingly), I've watched this match and these guys before. While it is good, I've seen much better ones in this decade.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 01:22 PM
that's not what he asked.

what who asked?


Kramer thinks Federer plays the best tennis ever. And Federer has been branded a "baseliner" by pretty much everyone endorsing nostalgiatennis. Do you see a contradiction here? The type of tennis one is supposed play is whatever that works; not what an armchair expert thinks should be the norm.

Fed's currently trying to get to net ASAP

Chang is good, but not nearly as good as the top guys today. And thanks asking (condescendingly), I've watched this match and these guys before. While it is good, I've seen much better ones in this decade.

So they aren't defenders. As good as the defense is, so long as the field is one-style-fits-all, it isn't as interesting as it used to be.

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 01:26 PM
what who asked?
i suggest you understand the context before butting in to reply to my posts. go read the post i responded to.



Fed's currently trying to get to net ASAP

Kramer made the comment a few years ago.


So they aren't defenders. As good as the defense is, so long as the field is one-style-fits-all, it isn't as interesting as it used to be.
good, you can stop watching tennis and spare us the nostalgic BS, because there are lot of us who find this brand of tennis wayyy more interesting than the servefests of the 90s.

junk
06-16-2011, 02:50 PM
1. no they don't.
2. says who?
3. where's the defense that you see today?

1. you are right that guys like monfils and verdasco are better athletes - the only problem they can't play tennis
2. say a lot of people who miss all court tennis not just baseline bashing
3. it's been discussed many times that on slower courts it does look like the defence is better today but would love to see the same defenders/retrievers on the fast courts like the one in 1996 masters final

BrooklynNY
06-16-2011, 02:52 PM
To me, "Defense" in tennis is a relatively new concept. To hear P-Mac say "Nadal is D-ing up" makes me think this is a basketball game.

Tennis is about creating and making plays, and the players who do so, deserve to be rewarded.

I prefer Pete Sampras to Rafael Nadal, but I really like Nadal, it's just a shame they have removed certain aspects of tennis, from tennis.

I agree with the poster who said that with the super slow courts, the rewarding element is movement and not 'missing', unfortunately it's led to a state of tennis where most players play to not lose, rather than to win.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 03:26 PM
i suggest you understand the context before butting in to reply to my posts. go read the post i responded to.

That post didn't look like it was responding to a question...



Kramer made the comment a few years ago.

And Federer was never a baseline basher.


good, you can stop watching tennis and spare us the nostalgic BS, because there are lot of us who find this brand of tennis wayyy more interesting than the servefests of the 90s.

So Nadal v. Verdasco, Djokovic v. Murray. That's what you call interesting?

BreakPoint
06-16-2011, 03:27 PM
1. no they don't.
2. says who?
3. where's the defense that you see today?
People want to see offense, not defense.

That's why people prefer to see a battle between two high-scoring offensive football teams with lots of passing than watch two boring defensive teams with no passing games and ends in a score of 7-3.

People want to see attacking tennis, not two guys running left and right on the baseline all day long like two chickens with their heads cut off. :shock:

TenFanLA
06-16-2011, 03:37 PM
and philli***** serves like a sissy

It's a little known fact but had the String Thing been around in the 90's, Phillipousis would be a GOAT contender. :shock:

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 05:00 PM
That post didn't look like it was responding to a question...
And Federer was never a baseline basher.
So Nadal v. Verdasco, Djokovic v. Murray. That's what you call interesting?

1. ok, but i was responding to his post.
2. to me, that's wayy more interesting than a Sampras vs. Ivanisevic match at wimbledon.

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 05:02 PM
To me, "Defense" in tennis is a relatively new concept. To hear P-Mac say "Nadal is D-ing up" makes me think this is a basketball game.

Tennis is about creating and making plays, and the players who do so, deserve to be rewarded.

I prefer Pete Sampras to Rafael Nadal, but I really like Nadal, it's just a shame they have removed certain aspects of tennis, from tennis.

I agree with the poster who said that with the super slow courts, the rewarding element is movement and not 'missing', unfortunately it's led to a state of tennis where most players play to not lose, rather than to win.

no they don't. the only ones who deserve to be rewarded are the ones who win the points. If you want those who create plays to have an advantage, change the rules of tennis. A point won is a point won, doesn't matter if you do it through an opponent's error or through a winner that you hit. And I say this as a die-hard Federer fan.

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 05:03 PM
People want to see offense, not defense.

That's why people prefer to see a battle between two high-scoring offensive football teams with lots of passing than watch two boring defensive teams with no passing games and ends in a score of 7-3.

People want to see attacking tennis, not two guys running left and right on the baseline all day long like two chickens with their heads cut off. :shock:

I'm not sure about that. Contrasting styles is even better -- offensive play vs defensive play. IMO, that's even better.

offensive vs offensive is as boring as defensive vs defensive

Anyways, i was responding to the part of the post that claimed that those guys displayed everything ("you name it" was the exact phrase..)

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 05:09 PM
1. you are right that guys like monfils and verdasco are better athletes - the only problem they can't play tennis
2. say a lot of people who miss all court tennis not just baseline bashing
3. it's been discussed many times that on slower courts it does look like the defence is better today but would love to see the same defenders/retrievers on the fast courts like the one in 1996 masters final

1. now you're changing your tune. you claimed those guys look more athletic than most in the top 100 today.

2. plain BS. The 90s grass matches were boring serve fests. ever wonder why they changed the balls at wimbledon and slowed down the surfaces? even USO did that.

3. turn it around and ask yourself how these aggressive "all courters" would fare against the defenders of today on slower surfaces. it goes both ways. you can't claim faster surfaces of the 90s to be the "genuine" ones.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 05:26 PM
3. turn it around and ask yourself how these aggressive "all courters" would fare against the defenders of today on slower surfaces. it goes both ways. you can't claim faster surfaces of the 90s to be the "genuine" ones.

The surfaces of the 90s were the same ones as the tourneys held for ages.

And by the by, if all the courts were slowing down, why did RG speed up? I doubt that was too fast a surface...

Timbo's hopeless slice
06-16-2011, 05:42 PM
I just find it mind boggling that folks could genuinely believe the standard of the ATP has taken a quantum leap forward since the 90s.

I am a 44 year old teaching pro still playing open tournaments, so I speak from the perspective of someone who has seen a LOT of tennis. I remember seeing Philippousis as a junior and I have still not seen anyone hit harder.

Don't fool yourselves, pro tennis has been at an incredibly high standard across the board for 20 years and at the top level (top 20 or so) for 30 +

I am not knocking the current players, far from it, but they are no better than the best of the 90s, don't imagine for a moment that they are...

JustBob
06-16-2011, 06:21 PM
Whether tennis is more/less interesting or players are "better" (or not) in terms of raw tennis skills is completely irrelevant to the fact that players are generally far more athletic today than they were 20 years ago.

One of the biggest fallacies on this forum is when people make threads about potential matchups between players from different eras and ONLY use rackets/strings as the ultimate equalizer. That's just silly. There's far more involved in sports development (advances in sports physiology, biomechanics, training programs,...) than just equipment.

Timbo's hopeless slice
06-16-2011, 06:25 PM
Whether tennis is more/less interesting or players are "better" (or not) in terms of raw tennis skills is completely irrelevant to the fact that players are generally far more athletic today than they were 20 years ago.

based on?

I am not being critical, I am just interested to know what you base this statement on.

JustBob
06-16-2011, 06:35 PM
based on?

I am not being critical, I am just interested to know what you base this statement on.

See the second part of my previous post, which wasn't there when you responded.

Furthermore, the (relative) uniformization of surfaces has lead to putting a premium on defensive skills which require more athletic ability. I've said this numerous times but in the 70's, you could have a decent tennis career based on technical skills alone (1). That's no longer the case. If you look at the ratio of technical training vs physical training in player development programs throughout the years, it has gone from roughly 75/25 to 50/50 today.

(1) Note that I'm not saying that players in the 70's or 80's weren't "fit". But there's a big difference between generic fitness and tennis specific fitness.

Ripster
06-16-2011, 07:12 PM
I'm not sure about that. Contrasting styles is even better -- offensive play vs defensive play. IMO, that's even better.

offensive vs offensive is as boring as defensive vs defensive

Anyways, i was responding to the part of the post that claimed that those guys displayed everything ("you name it" was the exact phrase..)

Offense vs. Offense has produced some of the best matches of all time. Look at Agassi vs Sampras. They're both offensive players but in different ways. Two serve and volleyers are pretty boring but take a great serve and volleyer with a great returner/baseliner and you usually have an interesting match.

JeMar
06-16-2011, 07:19 PM
I demand five-set MS finals back.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:27 PM
I'm not sure about that. Contrasting styles is even better -- offensive play vs defensive play. IMO, that's even better.

offensive vs offensive is as boring as defensive vs defensive

A} So then why do you like this era so much?

B} Then why are the 90s so bad as "offense vs. offense" if the 2000s are great with "defensive vs. defensive"?

Arafel
06-16-2011, 09:46 PM
This is just silly. People seem to think that in the last 5 (yes 5) years, tennis has changed that dramatically? Keep in mind the original video is Safin, who beat prime Federer in the Australian Open semis. That same year (2005), a 35 year old Agassi took Federer to 4 sets in the U.S. Open final.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself that the best players of the 90s couldn't stand a chance against the mighty Nad-erer-okovic. Whatever floats your boat (but you are wrong). Tennis hasn't changed nearly as much as some people on this forum seem to think it has.

NamRanger
06-16-2011, 09:49 PM
People want to see offense, not defense.

That's why people prefer to see a battle between two high-scoring offensive football teams with lots of passing than watch two boring defensive teams with no passing games and ends in a score of 7-3.

People want to see attacking tennis, not two guys running left and right on the baseline all day long like two chickens with their heads cut off. :shock:


I think people want to see creative offense, not 1 shot tennis like Karlovic.

BreakPoint
06-16-2011, 10:11 PM
I think people want to see creative offense, not 1 shot tennis like Karlovic.
Personally, I like seeing a great server pound ace after ace. It's cool and not easy to do so I can appreciate it. Even when I play tennis, I love pounding aces. It makes me feel good. :)

junk
06-16-2011, 11:09 PM
1. now you're changing your tune. you claimed those guys look more athletic than most in the top 100 today.

2. plain BS. The 90s grass matches were boring serve fests. ever wonder why they changed the balls at wimbledon and slowed down the surfaces? even USO did that.

3. turn it around and ask yourself how these aggressive "all courters" would fare against the defenders of today on slower surfaces. it goes both ways. you can't claim faster surfaces of the 90s to be the "genuine" ones.

dude, the video showed Pete Sampras vs Boris Becker. Since when these two became a generalisation of the 90s tennis vs 2011 tennis? but if you want to generalise, yes, Nadal vs Ferrer or Soderling vs Verdasco matches I find extremely boring - even though you call it a great defensive tennis. but you have to agree that the particular match i.e. 1996 masters final was great, it had more highlights than many of today's baseliners have in their whole careers

but i stand to my statements that:
1. pete sampras was by far more athletic than most of the players today. if you disagree, your definition of athleticism is flawed. and i said "most" not "atp 100" - it might have the same or similar meaning but please don't re-phrase
2. wimbledon grass was slowed because it was replaced with more durable one which happened to be slower. but i agree with you that ivanisevic vs krajicek matches were boring, as boring as chela vs almagro, but we are talking about two extremes
3. my post talked about the all-court tennis - i (and a lot of other people) are nostalgic for all-court skills. you, however, highlight the defence as the best thing that tennis has got since probably the invention of the tennis itself. defence might be a great skill but it's by far not the reason why people love to play and watch tennis. it's not about who would win against who but about competition and beauty of the sports. that's why basketball has shot clock, and soccer doesn't have any time outs, and substitutions in ice hockey are done without a clock stoppage, and there are time limits in between tennis serves so the sports are not only competitive but also fair and entertaining

Gorecki
06-16-2011, 11:28 PM
This is the only sport i know and follow where a few morons would rather watch defensive game rather than ofensive!!!

why, one can only ask??????

Sentinel
06-16-2011, 11:41 PM
I demand five-set MS finals back.
Hey, the #1 player is already extremely tired and it's barely June. Have a heart. I think the final should just be a 10 point super tie break esp if Nadal is playing.

3 sets is just too much for today's athletic players.

JustBob
06-17-2011, 12:40 PM
This is just silly. People seem to think that in the last 5 (yes 5) years, tennis has changed that dramatically? Keep in mind the original video is Safin, who beat prime Federer in the Australian Open semis. That same year (2005), a 35 year old Agassi took Federer to 4 sets in the U.S. Open final.


The same Safin, who retired just 2 years ago, who recently said that he could not see himself being able to keep up with the physicality of today's game.


But go ahead, keep telling yourself that the best players of the 90s couldn't stand a chance against the mighty Nad-erer-okovic. Whatever floats your boat (but you are wrong). Tennis hasn't changed nearly as much as some people on this forum seem to think it has.

Yeah, and in nostalgialand, I bet that most records set in individual sports 20 years ago would still stand today. Unless one argues that the only sport where time stands still is tennis...

BrooklynNY
06-17-2011, 12:48 PM
Yeah, thats the same Marat Safin, who when I saw play Sampras in an exhibition last year, told the crowd that he loves being retired because now he can smoke cigarettes and not have to worry about training all the time.

Arafel
06-17-2011, 01:15 PM
The same Safin, who retired just 2 years ago, who recently said that he could not see himself being able to keep up with the physicality of today's game.



Yeah, and in nostalgialand, I bet that most records set in individual sports 20 years ago would still stand today. Unless one argues that the only sport where time stands still is tennis...

Um, OK, try to follow. Safin won the AO in 2005. He beat Federer and Hewitt back to back. That was the same year that Nadal won his first French Open. Fed was in his prime. He was also taken to four sets in the U.S. Open final by Agassi, who was 35 and retired with a trashed back a year later.

Fed just played the FO final and lost in 4 to Nadal. Five of the last six slams have been won by Fed or Nadal, and one of the two have been in the finals of every Slam except the AO.

So what you are saying is in five years, Fed and Nadal have improved that much? Fed, for one, is a lesser player than he was in 2005, when he LOST to Safin.

I have no doubt that Safin, who is in his 30s now, couldn't handle the day-to-day grind of the tour AT HIS CURRENT AGE, nor would he want to. But to say prime (2000) Safin wouldn't is just stupid.

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Yeah, and in nostalgialand, I bet that most records set in individual sports 20 years ago would still stand today. Unless one argues that the only sport where time stands still is tennis...

Yes, I am sure most of these individual records that have stood for years and years will soon be crushed by the superior athletes of today :)

Wayne Gretzky - 92 goals in one season

Wilt Chamberlain- 100 point game

Joe Dimaggio - 56 game hitting streak

Derrick Thomas - 7 sacks in one game

Cal Ripken, Jr.'s -consecutive game streak of 2,632

Cy Young - 516 Career wins

Nolan Ryan- 5714 strikeouts and 7 no-hitters

Byron Nelson 11 PGA tour wins in a row

Ty Cobb's lifetime .366 batting avg

Eddy Merckx - 1969 Tour de France. Only cyclist ever to win the GC (yellow jersey), the sprint (green jersey) and the King of the mountains (polka dot jersey).

Don Bradman - Cricket batting average 99.94

Just Fontaine- 13 worldcup goals 1958

Alexander Karelin- greco-roman wrestler 13 years undefeated

Lance Armstrong- 7 Tour de France

Pele 92 hat tricks, 97 international goals.

Jack Nicklaus- 18 majors

Mike Powell's long jump of 29-4˝

Edwin Moses' 122 consecutive victories in the 400-meter hurdles

JustBob
06-17-2011, 03:23 PM
It's hilarious how people come up with anecdotal evidence (well some guy beat that buy in year X) or come up with exceptions (records that have not been broken) and by god knows what sort of twisted logic, manage to deduce that this applies to an entire field of athletes or sport (not to mention yet again, the silly comparisons between team sports and individual sports).

Once again, more proof that trying to win an argument against nostalgia is an exercise in futility.

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 04:20 PM
It's hilarious how people come up with anecdotal evidence (well some guy beat that buy in year X) or come up with exceptions (records that have not been broken) and by god knows what sort of twisted logic, manage to deduce that this applies to an entire field of athletes or sport (not to mention yet again, the silly comparisons between team sports and individual sports).

Once again, more proof that trying to win an argument against nostalgia is an exercise in futility.


What evidence do you have to support your claim that athletes have become vastly superior in tennis in such a short time. Some examples or evidence please. To win an argument usually requires more than an opinion with no backing. Name these superior tennis athletes, who?

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:04 PM
Federer is a great fast court player, Nadal isn't too great on fast court.

Cincy is the tune up to the US Open, Nadal nor any other top player is going to skip it for that reason.

I guarantee if Bercy was a clay event, Nadal would have his *** there every year.

2 Wimbledon titles and 1 US Open title say otherwise

SoBad
06-17-2011, 05:11 PM
Yep, a hundred years ago they were tougher, men wore full length pants and a long sleeve shirt and never even thought of toweling off between points.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/centennial/april/photo/tilden.jpg
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/images/102/rene200.jpg

Great photos. Tennis today = fail. Any of those long pant gentlemen would triple bagel Nadal in a slam today without even stretching their long pants, cetainly in their prime and even at their current age/grave.

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:14 PM
Back in those days REAL men had to generate power from their own BODY not from their strings and huge head sizes.

SoBad
06-17-2011, 05:20 PM
Back in those days REAL men had to generate power from their own BODY not from their strings and huge head sizes.

I bet 500 years ago the tennis men were even more real, since they didn't even have racquets or strings, it was just pure strength, ultimate skill, and the power of will. I think we are really getting somewhere now...

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:22 PM
Federer is the only brave player these days

SoBad
06-17-2011, 05:29 PM
Federer is the only brave player these days

I admire him too - brave to refuse to retire while it's obvious to everyone else that the free-pile-of-slams-for-anyone-era is over and there is competition now to win slams.

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:34 PM
But soderling could be the bravest player of all time because he won 1 masters title against monfils.

SoBad
06-17-2011, 05:40 PM
But soderling could be the bravest player of all time because he won 1 masters title against monfils.

Yes, but let's face it both Soderling and Monfils are two pathetic moonballers in the big scheme if you consider tennis history and those vicious men in long white pants that the OP is on about.

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 05:45 PM
Yes, but let's face it both Soderling and Monfils are two pathetic moonballers in the big scheme if you consider tennis history and those vicious men in long white pants that the OP is on about.

That first picture was Big Bill Tilden rumored to have had a 164mph serve, the second is René Lacoste people still wear his name on their clothes 60 years later.

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:48 PM
That first picture was Big Bill Tilden rumored to have had a 164mph serve, the second is René Lacoste people still wear his name on their clothes 60 years later.

A clothing designer!

He must be a real man!!!!

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 05:57 PM
A clothing designer!

He must be a real man!!!!

Yep, here is what he keeps for a pet.

http://solarisvintage.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/rene-lacoste.jpg

SoBad
06-17-2011, 05:57 PM
That first picture was Big Bill Tilden rumored to have had a 164mph serve, the second is René Lacoste people still wear his name on their clothes 60 years later.

I bet there were some real players in the BC that served in the 200-300mph range, can we stop talking about the 20/21cent pushers and talk about the real players in history for a change?

BigT
06-17-2011, 06:11 PM
[QUOTE=namelessone;5749022]

Cincy is pretty damn fast and I've rarely seen Nadal skip it.

QUOTE]

Yes, but it's played in 90% humidity.

TenFanLA
06-17-2011, 06:19 PM
A clothing designer!

He must be a real man!!!!

That designer would have bageled you in 3 straight sets with a wooden racket in one hand and tape measure in the other.

TenFanLA
06-17-2011, 06:20 PM
Yep, here is what he keeps for a pet.

http://solarisvintage.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/rene-lacoste.jpg

HAHAHHAHAH!!! I don't know where you get these pics man but this one's hilarious.

aceX
06-17-2011, 06:29 PM
That designer would have bageled you in 3 straight sets with a wooden racket in one hand and tape measure in the other.

Yes he would have won 72 straight points even if I cut off both his legs and arms and he had the racquet in his mouth.

TenFanLA
06-17-2011, 06:42 PM
Yes he would have won 72 straight points even if I cut off both his legs and arms and he had the racquet in his mouth.

Well I wouldn't go that far. But you know who Rene Lacoste is, right? One of the French Davis Cup Musketeers?

Devilito
06-17-2011, 06:46 PM
anyone else come in this thread expecting this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0

SoBad
06-17-2011, 06:59 PM
anyone else come in this thread expecting this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0

Yes, I trust most of us have come to expect random youtube links in threads of this sort, among other things.

BreakPoint
06-17-2011, 07:42 PM
2 Wimbledon titles and 1 US Open title say otherwise
6 Wimbledon titles and 5 US Open titles for Federer say otherwise.

pug
06-17-2011, 07:44 PM
Such a shame no one comes to the net any more like the old days........oh wait!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2d70b28y6E

JustBob
06-17-2011, 09:28 PM
What evidence do you have to support your claim that athletes have become vastly superior in tennis in such a short time. Some examples or evidence please. To win an argument usually requires more than an opinion with no backing. Name these superior tennis athletes, who?

20 years (note that the 90's were mentioned) is not "such a short time" in any sport.

JustBob
06-17-2011, 09:33 PM
Back in those days REAL men had to generate power from their own BODY not from their strings and huge head sizes.

Well, they wore hats back in those days so it's difficult to conclude that players had significantly smaller heads than today's players.

aceX
06-17-2011, 10:10 PM
6 Wimbledon titles and 5 US Open titles for Federer say otherwise.

Wow I just lost a lot of respect for you, BP.
Someone said Nadal was a bad fast court player.
I said he's a good fast court player because he has 2W + 1USO.
You said that I'm wrong because Fed has 6W + 5USO.


That's like me saying Fed is a bad clay court player because he only has 1FO and Nadal has 6FO.


I'm guessing you're just trolling me because your argument is completely invalid.

Chopin
06-17-2011, 10:27 PM
I remember when everyone was concerned with how fast the game was getting--there was talk of making larger balls--limiting racquet headsize, ect. Well, the response was to slow down the courts and make the balls slower, but that lead to tennis that is somewhat less exciting, in my opinion. It's less exciting in the sense that it's homogeneous now, which is sad.

It's fine to slow down some tournaments, but I wish Wimbledon played like it did in 2001 and before, and I wish there were more carpet tournaments (and grass). As much as it messes with tennis tradition, I wonder it wouldn't be nice to have a true grass court season, with a true masters series event leading up to Wimbledon...

Fedex
06-17-2011, 11:13 PM
Here is a taste of how the game was meant to be played for all you youngsters who don't know any better and have only been watching tennis during the slowest era in the history of the sport.

Safin vs Philippoussis Paris TMS Final 2000 on indoor carpet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKSzTGoZM3o

The match has everything, #1 rank on the line, players getting tagged with serves in the chest, points earned by hitting winners:idea:, net play, Safin diving on the carpet, bloody faces. No damn toweling off after every point, if your face is bleeding than you towel off, stepping up to the line and playing like a man.

This is how points are constructed when you are trying to hit winners, not pushing the ball around the court 20-30 strokes.

It's a shame the sport has been emasculated with the proliferation of slow courts.

Thanks for the link.
Enough highlights to show this was a fantastic match.
Phillippoussis had a great ground game for a big man.
Great shame he got injured in that Wimbledon match in '99 when he was beating prime Sampras who went on to win the tournament.
Phillippoussis was looking unbeatable that year.

TennisandMusic
06-17-2011, 11:15 PM
I remember when everyone was concerned with how fast the game was getting--there was talk of making larger balls--limiting racquet headsize, ect. Well, the response was to slow down the courts and make the balls slower, but that lead to tennis that is somewhat less exciting, in my opinion. It's less exciting in the sense that it's homogeneous now, which is sad.

It's fine to slow down some tournaments, but I wish Wimbledon played like it did in 2001 and before, and I wish there were more carpet tournaments (and grass). As much as it messes with tennis tradition, I wonder it wouldn't be nice to have a true grass court season, with a true masters series event leading up to Wimbledon...

Wimbledon's courts in 2001 are exactly the same as they are today, straight from their own mouths.

BreakPoint
06-17-2011, 11:41 PM
Wow I just lost a lot of respect for you, BP.
Someone said Nadal was a bad fast court player.
I said he's a good fast court player because he has 2W + 1USO.
You said that I'm wrong because Fed has 6W + 5USO.


That's like me saying Fed is a bad clay court player because he only has 1FO and Nadal has 6FO.


I'm guessing you're just trolling me because your argument is completely invalid.
I'm not trolling.

Compared to Federer, Nadal is a bad fast court player. (How many WTF's or Cincy Masters has Nadal won?).

Compared to Nadal, Federer is a bad clay court player. (How many Monte Carlos or Rome Masters has Federer won?)

That's just the way it is.

BreakPoint
06-17-2011, 11:46 PM
Wimbledon's courts in 2001 are exactly the same as they are today, straight from their own mouths.
And you believe them? According to Wimbledon, they haven't changed the speed of the courts in 130 years. And we all know that isn't true.

The ATP even used Shot Spot to measure ball trajectories and speeds to prove that the courts today are slower and higher bouncing than they used to be.

Nadalfan89
06-18-2011, 04:43 AM
*Yawn* Old geezers being nostalgic about the 90's serving competitions? Nothing new here.

Xemi666
06-18-2011, 05:33 AM
And you believe them? According to Wimbledon, they haven't changed the speed of the courts in 130 years. And we all know that isn't true.

The ATP even used Shot Spot to measure ball trajectories and speeds to prove that the courts today are slower and higher bouncing than they used to be.

Link to your sources please, kthxbye.

Chopin
06-18-2011, 08:44 AM
Wimbledon's courts in 2001 are exactly the same as they are today, straight from their own mouths.

Sorry, before 2001 was what I meant.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/sports/tennis/04grass.html

Everyone knows the grass plays differently now than it did when Sampras played at Wimbledon.

tennis_fan_182
06-18-2011, 09:09 AM
Is that right, ever hear of a player named Michael Chang?

Watch this and get back to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Yf1ZsWRQQ

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to bring up MICHAEL FLIPPIN' CHANG to try to prove how fast tennis players were back then compared to how fast they are now??

I watched the video and Michael Chang is just embarrassed by Nadal, Monfils and even Djokovic in terms of overall court coverage. Even moreso in terms of pure speed. He may look like he's moving fast as his tiny legs give that impression. A 5ft 9in tennis player, lol - only in the 90s!!

BreakPoint
06-18-2011, 09:47 AM
Do you realize how ridiculous it is to bring up MICHAEL FLIPPIN' CHANG to try to prove how fast tennis players were back then compared to how fast they are now??

I watched the video and Michael Chang is just embarrassed by Nadal, Monfils and even Djokovic in terms of overall court coverage. Even moreso in terms of pure speed. He may look like he's moving fast as his tiny legs give that impression. A 5ft 9in tennis player, lol - only in the 90s!!
Tell that to David Ferrer - currently #6 in the world and a pretty consistent Top 10 player over the past 4 years or so (as high as #4 in the world).

aceX
06-18-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm not trolling.

Compared to Federer, Nadal is a bad fast court player. (How many WTF's or Cincy Masters has Nadal won?).

Compared to Nadal, Federer is a bad clay court player. (How many Monte Carlos or Rome Masters has Federer won?)

That's just the way it is.

Nobody was comparing Nadal to Federer until you came along.

Nadal is a great fast court player.
Federer is a great clay court player.

BreakPoint
06-18-2011, 07:38 PM
Nobody was comparing Nadal to Federer until you came along.

Nadal is a great fast court player.
Federer is a great clay court player.
Those are all relative.

Compared to Roddick, Federer is a great clay court player. But not when compared to Nadal.

Compared to Almagro, Nadal is a great fast court player. But not when compared to Federer.

egn
06-18-2011, 08:01 PM
.......wow this thread just made me die in laughter.

All I know is by page 1 when I saw Marat Safin is flat footed, couldn't hit the ball hard and is greatly inferior to everything in men's tennis today made me just crack up. Australian Open 2005 guys, watch it.

Oh and the comment on HEIGHT!!! David Ferrer, Nikolay Davydenko....quick guys with great footwork and strong strokes who were small. Michael Chang would have been fine today and probably fared just like he did in the 90s...

Mustard
06-18-2011, 08:16 PM
That Safin win over Philippoussis in the 2000 Paris Indoor final took Safin to world number 1 for the first time. It was a fantastic match.

My most vivid memory of the match is Safin diving for a ball and hitting himself in the face with his racquet, drawing blood. The fifth set went to a tiebreak and Safin blew 5 championship points, before finally winning on his 6th CP. A Safin match is always very entertaining and very frustrating.

Mustard
06-18-2011, 08:32 PM
*Yawn* Old geezers being nostalgic about the 90's serving competitions? Nothing new here.

It's funny, because in the 1990s, some people used to complain about grass and call it a "terrible surface", saying that were just big serves and maybe a volley and that's it. Complaints about the lack of rallies at Wimbledon were very common place in the 1990s, and I remember John Lloyd saying on the BBC that the All England Club should get rid of grass altogether so that there would be rallies for people to see. It's ironic that some people now moan about the fact that the old grass has gone and actually complain about the fact that there are now a lot of rallies at Wimbledon. Some people just love to moan, as simple as that.

MichaelNadal
06-18-2011, 08:40 PM
Those are all relative.

Compared to Roddick, Federer is a great clay court player. But not when compared to Nadal.

Compared to Almagro, Nadal is a great fast court player. But not when compared to Federer.

That's a horrible comparison. Federer is a great clay court player no doubt about it and Nadal is a great fast court player, no doubt about it.

Chopin
06-18-2011, 08:45 PM
Those are all relative.

Compared to Roddick, Federer is a great clay court player. But not when compared to Nadal.

Compared to Almagro, Nadal is a great fast court player. But not when compared to Federer.

I think it's fair to say that Federer is a very good clay court player, while Nadal is a very good fast court player, though neither excels on the given surfaces.

BreakPoint
06-18-2011, 09:14 PM
That's a horrible comparison. Federer is a great clay court player no doubt about it and Nadal is a great fast court player, no doubt about it.
Um...if Federer were a "great" clay court player, he'd have 6 French Open titles, not just one.

If Nadal were a "great" fast court player, he'd have 5 US Open titles, not just one.

fed_rulz
06-18-2011, 09:17 PM
Um...if Federer were a "great" clay court player, he'd have 6 French Open titles, not just one.

If Nadal were a "great" fast court player, he'd have 5 US Open titles, not just one.

Nadal being "greater" on clay has nothing to do with it, i suppose....

egn
06-18-2011, 09:35 PM
I think it's fair to say that Federer is a very good clay court player, while Nadal is a very good fast court player, though neither excels on the given surfaces.

I don't know each has won a major and a couple master series on said surface...I'd say thats excelling..

BigT
06-18-2011, 09:46 PM
On the homepage of my site, a match with Davy vs. Nalb. has some of the best tennis ever played. Pure shotmaking.

tacou
06-18-2011, 10:02 PM
some good tennis in that clip but doesn't look at all faster, not the court or their strokes or anything...strange clip to bring up in defense of a "faster" generation of courts

ttbrowne
06-19-2011, 04:12 AM
Is that right, ever hear of a player named Michael Chang?

Watch this and get back to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Yf1ZsWRQQ

This era is (as you said) the "slowest era"??? Yes, that underhanded serve of Chang's hit at least 40mph. Oooh. I'd hate to be on the recieving end of that.