Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by CyBorg, Dec 29, 2007.
Borg almost excusively volleying in these clips.
absolutely terrible tennis, Nastase had an awful backhand, he used a strong eastern forehand grip on it.He admitted himself that his backhand was a mistake.Borg wasn't hitting with that much topspin either, just aiming the ball very high over the net, he had to hit the ball very slowly to give the topsin time to bring the ball down.Almost like a small topspin lob.
I loved Dan Maskell! "Volleying like a king"
On the contrary, a strong eastern forehand grip would be like that of Sampras.
Nastase had essentially a continental forehand grip -- a version that was sometimes called "modified continental" or "Australian".
If the hand is behind the handle then it is an eastern forehand grip, the wrist is free to lay back, to call it a continental grip or a form of continental grip is incorrect.
Trying to find a video to support my claims, the video must have been removed, but Nastase did use an "Australian", or modified Continental, grip.
a continental grip is a backhand grip, it is the mildest possible version of a backhand grip.
A backhand grip is any type of grip which does not allow you to lay your wrist back while striking the ball.This leads to the characteristic ''shovel forehand'' of true continental grip users on the forehand, #
well known examples are: McEnroe, Edberg.
The eastern grip, while not that far off from the continental grip in terms of placement of the hand on the handle, is in fact where the backhand grip ends and the forehand grip begins, so to describe it as a continental grip is incorrect.
what do you understand Australian grip to mean Jonny S&V?
Can you describe it using the bevel system of identifying the positions of the hand?
I've been told by a teaching pro that my grip is an Australian. The difference, from what I understand, is the placment of the heel of the palm. The knuckle of the index finger is in the same position as a Continental, but the palm is rotated more toward an Eastern. If that makes any sense.
Rabbit, could you hit a few forehands, and then, without moving your hand, tell me where the heel of your positioned, and where the base of your index knuckle is positioned?
eg, heel= bevel 2 and a 1/2
base knuckle= bevel 3
here is a diagram describing how to identify these parts of your hand
this method of identifying grips will eventually become the standard model.It's brilliant, it tells you exactly where the hand is on the racquet.Credit to John Yandell of TennisPlayer.net for inventing it.
Well, just looking here, it appears that the base knuckle of the index finger is on the ridge between 8 and 1. The heel of my hand is flush on 8.
I can see the knuckle moving down to be flush on 8 as well as the heel of my hand, but pretty much never lower than that.
Oh, I'm a leftie if this doesn't sound right.
Just to add, this is the basic grip I use on everything, serves, volleys, groundstrokes, throwing rackets, etc.
ahh, I just love that diagram, makes it so much easier, I learned on A, B, C...
Just to make sure we understand what the other is talking about, here is a lefty version of the diagram.To ensure you're accurately descriing your actual grip, just take a few practice swings and check the position of your hand on the handle.
"Nastase had an awful backhand, he used a strong eastern forehand grip on it"
For a guy that had an "awful backhand" he was able to hit crosscourt topspin passing shots with it that no one else could do. Amazing stuff.
Nastase himself admited he had a terrible backhand, he dumped, even in that video, his backhand into the net the majority of the time.
Nasty was once asked which grips he uses. He did not know.
Back then, we were all taught the continental. We just varied a little with the palm, but usually just the heel of the hand a hair here and there. A little to the rt for the higher FHs (eastern), a little to the left for the topspin BHs (something between a continental and a little bit of an eastern BH grip). Back to continental for slices, volleys and approaches. Pretty fluid and subconscious, I think, which is why it's tough to get a pure technical answer from a player (esp. like Ilie Nastase).
Terrible tennis ? nah, I remember watching that match, it was entertaining. That was the wood age and with those courts being much faster than today, it was a more difficult game. I think Nastase's bkhnd was ok + he was so graceful on the court unlike the baseline bashers of today = boring.
yeah, and what used to happen back in the days of the 'one grip for everything' era was people either used a very mild forehand grip and so had a crap backhand or vica versa.
no, people just had crap technique and strokes in the 70's, zero racquet head speed, noyhing to do with the racquets.
If you don't believe me, watch this video of Laver versus ashe in 1969:
they hit the ball as hard as anyone today ecause they werent afraid to swing the racquet fast
Crap technique ? I suppose you've revolutionized the game & brought tennis to a new level. Show us how it's done, any video ? + your videos show me *0* the technique couldn't be the same with those sticks. How far back does your tennis go my man - I hope I'm not debating a 12 yr old.
your post is confused and garbled, did you see laver and ashe playing tennis in 1969 or not?
just to add.... ive recently discovered how versatile the continetal grip is.. even on the forehand... most players hit with so much topsin these days that balls end up shoulder height after the bounce... with the continetal. i take the racquet back... stand close to, on, inside the baseline and drive the ball right back at them ... sorta like an extended volley but from the baseline. with the lack of time they have to set up the next shot,,, they find it hard to get set for another topspin loopy shot with their extreme grip...
basically, i find the continetal very useful for the high bouncing balls nowadays.
just take back and drive thru
I don't know why you're using that clip so aggressively. It's one thing to study such clips and make comparisons, looking at things in a complex way, taking many factors into account, studying context, etc. But I'm not sure you realize how your posts look to those who read them. To me they are simply taking one clip, not to compare and contrast, but to say: I like these players (or this technique) better, look at how much better it is than this very different, crappy stuff. This stuff rules, the rest is crap.
Frankly it's a childish way of looking at anything, to take something as a way of putting down what is different.
You may have other things to say, and I am not trying to insult you in any way -- I'm telling you simply what your posts sound like. You can make them a hundred times better in the easiest way possible, simply by trying to understand or give credit to those players or techniques that are different from what you like and understand.
You've become fond of asking people if they've seen the clip. Let me ask you, so we can be clear, have you seen Laver-Ashe in its entirety? What other Laver matches have you seen? How much of the 1980 Borg-McEnroe final have you seen?
Sure, if that's how you remember it. I think to a degree you are absolutely correct .... at the recreational levels.
But it was different at a good level of junior and college tennis.
My crowd and I were taught the continental and, basically, you shift from that for both. We all developed solid one-handed BHs with a very slight eastern. Same on the other side. Not either or, to be honest.
At the top levels, most players could whip a topspin off both sides. In fact, Manolo Santana was known for a topspin BH lob with tremendous disguise. I think you can put Hoad, Laver and Nastase in that class.
Unrelated: Nastase fondly recalls the first time he met Santana. Kind of an inspiration for him.
Then in the late 70s and 80s I think the more radical grip changes proliferated. Also the 2hander. ANd with those two changes, a little bit more strength from the baseline, but also less dimension to the game overall.
Me, I think the players of the 70s were absolutely awesome, but of course, I am biased.
I guess I'm just saying, let's have some respect for the artform that was tennis back then.
The last guy I played who used basically one grip for both groundstrokes was a man who played the circuit alongside Hoad and Rosewall. Gorgeous bh drive. Any spin he wanted off just about any shot. Into his 50s, he was still hanging with Open players.
Yeah, there were guys who changed 1 bevel each way, and those guys were alright, but a lot of people didn't.The most recent example I can think of is Brad gilbert, he used a mild forehand grip for everything.
I think it's important to distinguish between a good match and good tennis.I remember watching that Borg/ McEnroe final all those years ago and being enthralled by it, it was unbelievably exciting.
Sampras often performed tennis clinics, but he was a evry boring player to watch.He would only give as much as he had to.It's a lot more exciting and entertaining to watch a person win a match through a variety of different shot patterns and different touch shots than to watch a person use the same stroke ad nauseum, eg: agassi.
Another thing that Borg/McEnroe and Connors had were personalites, My favourite player of all time to watch is Goran Ivanisevic, definitely not for his tennis, (the standard of which fluctuated wildly), but because through his comments, in-jokes and exchanges with the crowd he made me like him, and it became important to me that he won.
The Patrick Rafter/Goran Ivanisevic match wasn't a evry high quality tennis match either, it's definitely the best game of tennis I've ever watched though.
I'm not trying to insult anyone or their idols here, I'm just saying that the standard of tennis post Laver-Pre Lendl dominance, was probably the worst standard of TENNIS of all time.Players hit the ball with absolutely apalling technique, they were afraid to hit the ball, the babied the ball over the net.
Just a word on McEnroe's amazing touch volleys here:
1)Mcenroe served very slowly
2) Borg recieved serve about 10 feet behind the baseline.
3)Borg returned the ball very very very slowly
= McEnroe had LOTS of time to get right on top of the net
4)Borg returned the ball very high over the net
5)Most of the time, Borg hit the ball to McEnroe
=McEnroe had the whole court open to him, he wasn't going to hit the net or hit the ball long, those volleys were easy for a player of his volleying abilities to hit.
Yes, and I'd be willing to bet both Laver and Nastase would kick your behind today & yes, with their so called awful strokes.
thats not really fair... they are worldclass athletes... they could probably beat us all at bowling or hopscotch much less the sport that they basically mastered
That's my point.............
OK, same thing only different numbers. My knuckle is on the ridge between 1 & 2. The heel of my hand is flush on 2.
And, as to the OP, I've got Borg/Nastase 1976 on DVD (purchased right here at TW). I remember watching it in '76 and when I watched it lately, I was reminded of why I was such a Nastase fan. The guy was incredible.
Separate names with a comma.