Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Safin unfortunately did not fulfill his potential (though that is nothing new in any era). But it's ironic you bring him up, because he and Nadal took majors from Federer in '05. Nadal, on clay, was the only one who took majors from Federer in '06 and '07.

    So that's what prevented Federer from winning calendar Grand Slams in '05, '06 and '07: Safin's alltime great performance at the '05 AO, and Nadal's great claycourt tennis. Safin at other times underperformed, but when you're talking about Safin at the '05 AO, and Nadal at the French, you're talking about some of the best tennis ever played. That's what it took to stop Federer from claiming three calendar Grand Slams.

    No more kilometrics from me :)
     
  2. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    Yes, put JMac playing in this era with his style and let he would dominate Nole or Murray. :rolleyes:

    And we would expect Lendl(baseliner) to beat them too, even though Lendl have said "the players today are WAY better than us." :)
     
  3. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Hoodjem did not specifically mention any player's name. He was simply stating that if a player has a greater amount of arrows in his repertoire that player probably has an advantage over another player who does not. This is just simple logic. A more skilled player, everything being equal wins.

    But since you brought up McEnroe, if he had his old skills and had the skills of the top baseliner I would think that would be pretty good.
     
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    But it depends on what condition you're playing in. You guys keep harping on how complete Laver is, but his completeness is not enough against the modern player who doesn't use all of his repertoire.

    It also doesn't means it was harder to master the game in the 60s than it is today. I think today is more demanding to be a pro player, because there's so many players are competing to make the tour. They have to work harder, stay more fit, and always find ways to improved. Not to mention there's more natural gifted players around which is unfortunate many talented players can't play since there's limited numbers of players that the ATP can accommodate.
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    As I mentioned in my post, Safin was to be the only all round year threat for Federer, since Nadal was not yet strong outside clay and Hewitt was declining.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I had the whole ATP computer list at the end of 1979.There were around 2000 players listed there, so it is very likely that tennis pool has not increased too much...
     
  7. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    You have a right to your opinion.
     
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Why are you bringing Laver up? Who mentioned Laver here? Again if a player masters more skills overall he is simply better. Your hero Federer has mastered more skills than most players and that helps him tremendously in winning. Andy Murray is more skilled than most and that helps him win.

    Now of course we have exceptions. If a player has a super great strength in serve for example it may overcome some skill limitations. Stan Smith was a excellent player but some players were more skilled than him overall but Smith was a better player than most of them because of his overpowering serve.

    By the way how tough can these players be if guys like Djokovic and Nadal complain about blue clay? It's is not necessarily true that it's tougher today.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  9. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I know that threads in Former Pro Player Talk rarely stay on topic, but this thread is about Rod Laver! To be more specific, about an article on Laver. ;) Also, it seems pretty clear than he is referring to the posts in this forum in general.

    Don't be so simplistic. It isn't always beneficial to spend time improving skills when they are superfluous. Being the best volleyer in today's game isn't going to net you anything unless you are an ace off the ground. It may be that spending less time on volleying and more time on other skills will be a better investment.

    You obviously want to be the best you can be in all areas, but there are concessions that must be made so that you can win in the era you were born into. Today's players aren't looking to impress people who grew up watching a different style, they are looking to win. Being the most complete player as voted by the TT community isn't worth anything.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  10. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    But the point is that everything being equal it is nice to have a better repertoire. Sometimes things can be simplistic. Key words, everything being equal.
     
  11. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    That argument works for all the things you hate, as well. All things being equal, being taller is better. It doesn't work like that, of course, and there are always trade offs. Don't get me wrong, I prefer variety and to see contrasting styles on the court, but it just isn't happening anymore. It is not the fault of the players, they do what it takes to be successful.

    I would argue that as long as you can put away an easy volley for a winner, a great volleyer has almost no advantage over you in today's game. In fact, it could very well be the opposite. A great volleyer may have too much confidence and proceed to hit a good approach shot only to look like a fool as one of the top guys passes him easily. You put away the volleys that you earn through point construction, and you generally stay away from the net if you are behind in the point, if you want to be a slam winner.
     
  12. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    I don't hate that stuff. If everything is equal taller is better. You assume that I think that but I don't.

    You making a simple discussion too complicated. More in this case is better. We're not just talking about volleys but variety of shots. Federer has more shots and variety than most players today. Doesn't that help him win? I believe so. If you apply this to money, $5 is better than $1. More is better. Greed in this case is good to paraphrase Michael Douglas in Wall Street. You may argue $1 is better than $5 but in general I think most would prefer $5.

    If you know when to use the better variety of shots it will make you a better player.
     
  13. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Of course, pc1. If everything is equal, then of course being taller, a better volleyer, faster, etc. is better. I am only questioning the relevance of this to reality.

    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

    I think it does help him win. I would prefer that he was simply good enough again to hit through anyone and not have to work so hard for victories, but that is just me missing days long gone (not that long, I suppose).

    All I'm saying is that the exact same Djokovic or Nadal (all else being equal, of course) aren't going to improve very much by gaining the volleying skills of McEnroe overnight. They are still going to get passed with no play on the ball against the only players capable of beating them if they don't set the point up so that the opposing player has almost no play on the ball. Apples and oranges, right?

    Would they be "better?" Sure, as long as their skills were increased by some type of magic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  14. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    I think we should agree to disagree.
     
  15. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    The players may very well be doing what it takes to be successful. But that does not necessarily mean that they're playing tennis at the highest level that it can be played under the circumstances. They might simply be doing what is popular and what is thought to be the best.

    The juniors are certainly picking the style that "it takes to be successful," that is, a baseline style. That brings quick success. That puts them right in the game, so to speak. So everybody does it. And then everybody tries to perfect that style, because everyone else is doing it. Finding a way to counteract that style -- to get ahead of your peers -- with a net playing style is inherently more difficult, because it takes more time. It always did. It's not just because courts are slower today. The SV style always took longer to develop. But in past eras players were more willing to go down that route -- particularly since "everyone else" was doing it. What the crowd does has an enormous effect on the individual.

    Today, with the pressures to get quickly up the junior rankings and the pro rankings, and to start making money, it's completely natural for players to go the baseline grinding route. That's the style that has becomes popularized ever since Bolletieri in the 1980s, arguably even earlier -- long before the slowing down of courts, which is more recent.

    None of that means that players today are playing the highest possible level of tennis. The champions today might simply be picking the quickest route to being the best baseliners in a universe of baseliners.

    But if players, right from their junior days, were willing to take more time to develop more than baseline skills, they probably would develop the kind of game that could succeed at net. They would develop the kind of groundstrokes that would not just win long rallies, but which would successfully throw the other player off balance, so they can get into net and put away the volley. But that takes some time, and it's not simple -- it never was. It's not just about trying to wallop the biggest forehand you can and rushing in to put away whatever you hope to put away. Anyone can do that -- and anyone can get passed that way.

    To play the net right ALWAYS required putting in years of training toward that skill set (and mind set), with coaches and academies teaching you everything you needed to know, every step of the way. On top of that, there were champions performing this style, so youngsters had idols to emulate (inspiration). But without the patience, and the coaching, and the idols to copy, there's not much chance that you're going to see great net players.

    So I just don't think that merely because everyone is playing a certain way today, that nothing else can be done successfully. It's just always been true in tennis that baselining skills can mature more quickly, and that SV skills took longer to develop. No one today is even trying.

    I always think Federer's slice backhand, and his drop shots, are a good way to illustrate this. In a baseline-bashing era, who would have thought that the slice backhand would have any success? It would be the easiest thing to say, "Come on, with the power of today's racquets, a slice backhand will get walloped from the other side; it's an archaic stroke from a gentler era; no way is it an asset today." But Federer proves that wrong -- as he does with his terrific drop shots.

    But even he took some time to come around to drop shots. I think several years ago he even resisted the idea of using them. But when his game is clicking and his touch is in place, he carries them off, and they are an asset.

    You can see the basic logic for why a drop shot would work in a baselining era: very often your opponent is locked back there in a left-right pattern, sometimes even standing yards behind the baseline: there are rich opportunities for dropping the ball short, beyond your opponent's reach.

    And that's a MAJOR component of net play: dropping the ball out of the defender's reach, with touch, or with angles. It could be done from that part of the court -- but that sort of skill set is not being developed today.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    davydenko won the YEC beating federer, nadal and del potro ......won multiple masters and made several good runs at slams - mainly stopped by federer ...

    much better player than the guys like drysdale and ralston that you keep on hyping ..... LOL !!!

    agassi was old ?????

    well when gonzales was MUCH older he could still beat your crush Laver ......
     
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, laver was real lucky that rosewall was totally off-colour in RG 69 ..... 69 was probably rosewall's worst year since the late 50s , hell he was better even in the later years .....

    again, as your clueless self seems to ignore time and again, rosewall beat laver @ RG in 68 .... no reason why there isn't a decent chance of the same happening in 67 if it were open era at that time ...... also the possibility of an upset like drysdale in USO 68 ....

    hence no the pro slam in 67 isn't close to an actual slam ....
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    it wasn't weak ... Just that federer was that much superior to the rest of them ( except nadal on clay )

    as far as hewitt and roddick are concerned, they are by some distance better and have less shortcomings than your crush Kodes ......

    your only problem with roddick/hewitt is that they couldn't beat federer at majors ........that's it .... :)
     
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    it may be true in many cases, doesn't always work that way ....

    two things :

    1. if there are two players A and B equally skilled from the baseline, but player A is a better volleyer by some distance ....

    A comes to the net more, but he gets passed quite a bit and his overall success may actually be lesser than if he stayed at the baseline ....

    2. at crunch time, having less options may actually help the player in staying focused ....
     
  20. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Players are always looking for ways to be the best and if there are other styles that will work as well or better than the current one, you can rest assured that eventually they are going to surface.

    Young players are always taught in a way to succeed in the current game, yet somehow the style of play has changed drastically over the years. Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago when you had people winning majors who would often serve and volley. The players as a group didn't vote to cut this out, instead a group of players came along with a different style and took over the game.

    There is no way to prove what style would produce the "highest level" of tennis. I'm only saying that if there are cracks in the modern game, eventually someone will find them. Never underestimate the will to win or to survive. In addition, I was giving my opinion that I don't think the current conditions are conducive to much other than baseline play (slices are not excluded) with the occasional foray into the net. Even today, some players will come to the net more during a match than usual, but never with the same frequency as in the past.

    To answer your question about slices and drop shots, I would have thought they would be successful against baseline bashing. I think many other people would have thought the same thing. There are many uses for them and even the most extreme grinder has them in their arsenal.

    I often hit with the local juniors and students here at the university, and I don't find that they are useless at the net or lack variety. The best ones are capable of hitting any shot in addition to being great at baseline bashing, and most of them aren't going to make it in the pros, of course.

    Just to make sure I am being clear: I am not suggesting that any of this is proof that the current style is the best to play under the conditions they play in. Perhaps everyone just wants to annoy the posters of FPPT.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
  21. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    I do want to point out that everyone seems to be talking about volleying. I meant a greater shot variety overall not only volley. In fact I was thinking of other shots before I thought of volleys. Example-Federer-he has that little soft crosscourt heavily sliced backhand that is very effective for him versus most opponents. Changes of pace, a better lob doesn't hurt a player. It helps.

    I also wanted to point out that I also meant in volleying that you have to know when to approach the net. Example-Andy Roddick against Federer or some other player. I've seen Roddick put Federer in defensive positions in which Federer had to do his famous lacrosse forehand just to float the ball back. The ball floats fairly high over the net just waiting to be put away by a strong volley but Roddick just lets the ball bounce softly deep on the baseline. At this time it almost seems inevitable that Federer will win the point. I have seen Djokovic volley the lacrosse forehand of Federer for winners recently. Yes I have also seem Federer pass players at the net with his between the legs shot but percentages usually dictate if a player has to do the between the legs shot he is in trouble in the rally.

    Don't you guys think if Roddick didn't miss that easy volley in the second set against Federer at Wimbledon 2009 that he would have had a great chance to win the match?

    If you know when to volley having a better volley can't hurt. I cannot believe that many of you are fighting for the position that less skilled is better because you have fewer choices.

    Look at Federer in the last few years. The man added a drop shot that enhances his chances of winning. Opponents have to be aware of him drop shotting so they are less sure of when he will place the ball. That is shot variety which many do not have today.

    A perfect example of a player with zero or very little shot variety is Maria Sharapova. All she seems to do is belt the ball with tremendous force. She really can't volley well, has very little variety of spin and doesn't seem to drop shot. If her game is off she has NOTHING to fall back on. Yes Sharapova is super successful but I've also seen her miss so many easy volleys that a half decent volleyer would not miss.

    If you look at the all time greats in tennis history, most of them has an excellent variety of skills and shots in their repertoire that other players in their eras did not have. Look at Tilden, Budge, Laver, Nastase, McEnroe, Sampras, Borg, Gonzalez, Riggs, Ashe, Segura, Connors, Hoad, Federer among others. Nadal has added a lot to his shot variety as has Djokovic. Murray has improved in that aspect also and look at his recent results.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
  22. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    "I can play only one way, therefore it helps to stay focused on playing that one way." That's certainly one way to view it.

    "I have only one leg, therefore I only have to focus on hopping around on that one leg. If I had two legs then maybe I could run, but I would be less focused. So no thanks to the option of having two legs."

    I might not say "staying focused." I might offer that if one has no other options to consider, thus one has only Plan A.

    I guess if Plan A is play from the baseline, and one gets out-played from the baseline, then Plan B is concede.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ...which speakes volume about Pancho huge class
    Davidenko is a qualified second stringer but not a champ.he reminds me of Another YEC winner : Alex Corretja
     
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes and that is the reason Kodes has as many slammies as Hewitt and Roddick...TOGETHER!!! live with real facts, clueless
     
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    But the conditions in those days allow them to look great in their repertoire. If you have them train vigorously the same way in this era, many of those repertoire wouldn't be that successful, and may not use often because it's bound to fail. Federer, nadal and nole play a different game than the ex-players you mentioned above, because that's what it takes to be a champion, not play like pancho laver because you feel their game are complete. If you believe the best players today should train/develop and employ all varieties like they did in the '60 will help them play peak level, then you're mistaken. Today's players have their own challenge to be a pro, just like the players in previous era, but in a different direction. I don't expect a complete player in the '60 would beat a solid baseliner in this era. You just can't assumed a player has more varieties in the '60 equate a better player than a modern player. Apples and oranges, however you can debate which era is tougher to master the game in oder to be one of the best.


    And since this is all debatable but i will say this(which is NOT debatable)...

    Federer and his peers should get more prop over the previous generation because they are competing in a more global sport with many more athletes. Fed and Laver can train all they want, but the different is Roger had a bigger pool to deal with, it's more difficult for him to beat his playing field than Laver. If Laver had 7 billion people living in the 60s, maybe it will push him to improve(eg Nadal/Murray/Nole have said they must to improve), more talented player(s) will challenge him.
     
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Are you reading anything I wrote? It has nothing to do with history. I just used examples from history including Federer by the way. It pertains to the present also. More is better. Why don't you take away Federer's good volley and make it bad and take away his heavy sliced backhand and take away his drop shot. Does that make him better with less shots? Of course not.
     
  27. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    sure, I would agree with the way you put it: in time someone will emerge who will find a better way to win. That's what makes a champion, after all.

    I always think of borg as a great example of this, because he broke so many rules about what "should" be done. He found a radically different style, and he made it work. He pulled off 5 Wimbledons with it -- against all expectations -- and arguably achieved a higher level of claycourt tennis than had ever been achieved. All because he was willing to flout convention about how the game "should" be played.

    So if what you mean is that at any point in history we can trust that the players are doing all that is possible, then I can't agree. Then there's no room for a champion to burst onto the scene with innovations, or improvements, or whatever you wish to call his contributions to the game.

    Borg came at a time when the SV had become the "textbook" way to play. What Jack Kramer called "The Big Game" was regarded as the superior way to play -- which you can tell just from the words "big game." Defense was out of vogue.

    It was not just fans on the sidelines (there were no internet boards in those days, but imagine hackers arguing at the local pub, if you like) who were criticizing the Big Game convention. Experts were part of this debate too. Ellsworth Vines, maybe, was the most notable expert saying in the 70s that young players were neglecting how to develop their groundstrokes, and were depending too much on the conventional rules about getting to net at all costs.

    Borg and some other champions broke all that open. Defense, which for decades had been depreciated as inferior to The Big Game, flourished -- and the sport found out how defense could be varied and powerful.

    To me it seems like a mirror situation today. As if the circle has come around. Today the baseline game is ascendant, and people talk about it the way that people used to talk about The Big Game: they say baseline power is simply too overwhelming for other styles. And those styles, like defense used to be, are depreciated as inferior -- or branded as big risks.

    But really all it takes is for some champions to come along with innovation -- provided they are willing to flout convention.

    Yes, I agree there's no way to prove that superior styles are possible today. I can't prove it; it's just my opinion.
     
  28. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    I think some commentators felt that Federer's volleying skills degraded during his time as #1 and that this was not a problem, except against Nadal. In other words he was left with fewer options with which to beat Nadal. He's a better baseliner than everyone else, but baseline-to-baseline, Nadal wins a majority of points -- which then makes you wish he had always kept coming forward, the way he did in his early years, so that when Nadal came forward as a challenge, Federer's net game would still be as strong as ever. But because he didn't really need it to get to #1, and didn't really need it to defeat virtually everybody, he went back to the baseline -- you can see it in his net stats at Wimbledon; with every year that passed he came in less and less. But then Nadal, by '07, was able to beat him in baseline exchanges even on grass; in their Wimbledon final that year Nadal took a majority of the baseline rallies. But by then it had been a long time since Federer had come in to net with the frequency that he did against Sampras in '01, for example.

    So yeah, I agree with the way you put it: take away Federer's good volley, and that's a disadvantage for him; ditto if you take away his slice backhand, and his drop shots.
     
  29. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    As I am in general agreement with the rest of your post, I will only respond to the bold part.

    I agree that players who have "made it" but have not become multiple slam winning champions are usually unwilling to take on the risky proposition of fundamentally changing their games. I would suggest that the driving force behind the evolution in styles is the young players who are trying to break though.

    Perhaps I was unclear in my previous posts, but I include the up and coming players when I speak of the players as a group, as I believe that change is difficult, and that is why old players going out and new ones coming in is a good thing.

    I do believe that major changes in style tend to result from changes in technology and/or court conditions. When the technology and conditions stay fairly constant, then you have more of an optimization of the dominant style.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    all 3 slam are weak fields ones ... hewitt/roddick would have won atleast 5 slams given such opportunities ........

    there is a reason Kodes has only 8 titles .... he wasn't that good .... he just took advantage of the weakened fields at those slams ...
     
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    notice that I mentioned crunch time, not all the time ....If you have to actually keep thinking about what option to use during crunch time, that may be a disadvantage ....
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
  32. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    having variety helps on many occasions, but not always ... that was my point ...

    As far as roddick missing that volley in the breaker , he did volley very well in that match in general .... something that many miss thinking only about that missed volley.

    roddick's volleys in themselves are ok. Its his approach shots that are bad ...

    Murray has improved zero as far as variety goes .... He always had the variety from the beginning. What he has improved his FH and his mental strength .....

    as far as federer and the drop shot is concerned, that's a misconception that he added it to his repertoire recently. He always had a very good drop shot, just that he didn't use it much before the CC season in 2009
     
  33. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Not necessarily. Borg grew up with a wooden racquet, as did Chris Evert.

    And as I said above, the baseline "revolution" in tennis occurred long before the slowing down of the courts that we're always pointing to.

    I don't deny that the courts have been slowed; I just think we need to take a longer view.
     
  34. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    It's true, I forget where I read it, but some tennis writer was talking about this issue recently, and he said that at crunch time, players with great variety can be indecisive about what to do, while players who focus on one major weapon (like a big topspin forehand) know exactly what they will do at crunch time. They don't have to think about it: they don't over-think or hesitate; they just go to their bread-and-butter and execute.
     
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    If that was true, then Kodes would have a very special talent which maked him unique...if you win 8 and 3 are majors, there should be a reas.and why of all players had to ne ALWAAYYS him the winner?
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    See Mandlikova,Nastase or Cawley
     
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Jack Kramer was one of the people who believed in this but he put it in a different way.

    Thing is that I believe the key words are PERCENTAGE TENNIS. A good example of this was Rod Laver as an amateur as opposed to Rod Laver as a Pro. Laver was destroyed by Rosewall and Hoad in the beginning. Laver according to I believe himself and others learned not to play as many risky shots and I believe improved his second serve.

    Pancho Gonzalez was beaten badly by Jack Kramer on tour but he learned from Kramer how to play percentage tennis.

    So yes there are factors that are negative in too much versatility but I believe that if a person learns the percentages on which shots to use that versatility cannot hurt. Sometimes the shot which may be low percentage for some may be high percentage for that particular player. Very few in the history of tennis could drop shot the way John McEnroe could. For most players, even the great ones, the drop shot, if used so much is not a great percentage play but John McEnroe combined it with his other great skills to make it a percentage play in his favor. Many of Laver's shots were perhaps not the highest percentage plays like his full swing backhand topspin drive after a person lobbed him into Laver's backhand corner. However Laver did it so well that often players would try use shots so they could avoid that particular shot of Laver's. Bill Tilden come out of the hospital for one Wimbledon final and was down two sets to none so he resorted to drop shots and eventually won the match. Edberg used to hit the most ridiculous angles on some of his volleys but for him it was a very good percentage play.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    The Murray point I can understand. What I meant with Murray was that he improved his forehand offensively under the coaching of Lendl. But if you argue that he always could have attacked with the forehand I cannot disagree.

    As far as Federer's drop shot is concerned it still validates my point, now that he uses the shot it helps his game. You may have a great drop shot in practice but if you don't use it, well it's really not a part of your repertoire. I understand Rosewall had a great topspin backhand in practice but he never used it in tournament play so it really wasn't a part of his game.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Now that you mentioned the Tilden story of the hospital, I remember that Pat Cash reached the Wimbledon quarters ( and beat Wilander all the way through) 3 weeks after having an apendicitis operation.I still remember the very funny and ironic BBC commentator with the headlines: " Three weeks ago, Pat Cash was at the operations table.Today, he is at the Wimbledon quarterfinals".Classy
     
  40. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    That's a good point, versatility should not hurt if your choice of shot is guided by the percentages.
     
  41. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Okay.

    Less is more.






    (I do think that Fed is better specifically because he has more options, not fewer.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  42. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    So I guess the logic is now that the shorter you are the better you are. :confused:

    Just kidding.
     
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    Fed has more options makes him more successful, Laver had many options which makes him successful. Of course this is respective to their era and condition.

    Laver may have more options than Federer, but if he's playing in this era, Laver wouldn't use many of his options because the different conditions doesn't allow him to. If he try to use all of his options, he's doom to fail.

    About shorter players(not an ideal size tennis player), it's a huge disadvantage today and it has nothing to do with talent/skill. I don't want to explain it again.
     
  44. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Again, what does Laver have to do with this discussion? The discussion was whether versatility helps in tennis? Do you get extra money for mentioning Laver's name?

    I say versatility, if used properly helps. Some say no.

    You should be happy I'm in favor of this because versatility is a huge plus for Federer.
     
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    Laver is a good example, although I could use another player but this thread is about laver.

    The bolded part is true. However I just wanted to make it clear that a player X doesn't necessary beat any player from another era just because he's more versatile. Players don't decide what style they want to play, but technology/condition dictate that.
     
  46. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    The thread is about an article about Laver but the discussion moved to this point. I understand that you want to knock Laver down to make Federer look good but there is no need to do that. Federer doesn't need your help to look good. Could you please discuss what the posters were discussing without going to your same theory of present is always superior to the past? It would be nice for once.

    We could be discussing the debates recently with Obama against Romney and you would write, Yes but Obama is clearly far superior to Abe Lincoln because the present is superior. That's why Laver wouldn't do well today.
    And frankly I'm not exaggerating by much.

    Point was that I believe everything being equal versatility, used the correct way is better. If you don't believe that, then it would a negative against Federer since he is very versatile compared to everyone else today.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
  47. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Heh heh!

    Then you don't have to worry about hitting the big serve.:wink:
     
  48. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    ??????????????????????????????



    No free will? Determinism. (What would my philosophy professors do with that one?)
     
  49. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    There is certainly no need to put down Laver. There is also no need to make up strawmen and knock them down. If you disagree with what TMF says about modern players, then alright, but argue against that. Versatility is a great thing if you are able to make the right choices. No one is denying that. A few players can put it all together.

    Your philosophy professors are likely clueless about free will. Probability distributions (even though you dislike them) don't leave any room for free will any more than a classical universe does. That is just my arrogant, holier than thou opinion, of course. I take it further than some of my colleagues and put a lot of "faith" in superdeterminism, although even I won't bring that up too often.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
  50. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, like I've said , the reason is he was damn lucky with those weak fields in those 3 majors ..........

    he would have won more titles if he was that good a player .... He just wasn't ...
     

Share This Page