Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Dec 19, 2009.
Becker in Tier four??? :shock:
There are very subtle details that separate players from one tier to the next one.Becker was steady and at times flashy but, fi, a third tier guy like Vitas Gerulaitis could do a bit more things with the volley and could play half volley and touch volleys very well.
Newcombe and Roche could beat you with a first angled volley, Becker volley never had that much penetration.That does not mean he was not a very capable volleyer, but when you make a tier structure there must be apoint where you make a cut.
I think there are some others like Mc Laughlin or Borotra that should be included, but there is no footage here.
Segura??? isn´t that another name intended instead?
Sorry, I woke up late but that is an alarm¡¡¡
I guess I am open to hearing arguments on the allocation of #4 and 5 between Kafelnikov and Sampras. The way I see it, Kafelnikov’s volleys were slightly inferior to Sampras’s on grass, roughly even on hardcourts, and far superior on clay. I can see though how reasonable people might argue for Sampras at #4 above Kafelnikov at #5.
SoBad, We discuss here the GOAT volleyers, not a Kafelnikov!
I remember one of the ex-tennis players commented that if Becker was a better volleyer, he would not have to dive and fall to hit his volleys
Fine, have it your way:
Yep. Right in there with Stich and Krajicek.
How is Sampras not considered the greatest.
Because his serve did most of the work. In terms of pure volleys there are several better than him.
SoBad, There was tennis even prior to McEnroe!!
You don't win seven Wimbledon titles without being the greatest volleyer ever! :wink:
Federer should be joint first and Borg second.
Are you talking about the era when the ATP comprised a dozen or so pleasant moderately fit middle-aged gentlemen who played each other wearing long wool pants and sweaters and still failed to break a sweat during their matches despite continuous play?
And Wilander third?
Marginaly better than Solly
SoBad, Bravo! I'm posting here since two years and reading on TT even longer. I have read thousands of posts in both forums. I have read many, many absurd posts with wrong claims but I must confess your post reaches easily the absolute peak!
Writing only 42 words you are able to claim 6 (SIX!) wrong things!!! You are GOAT!
In ATP's first year, 1973, this association comprised 123 top players.
All of them were fit. No overweight player at all.
Many players were young, f.i. a certain Borg was 17, Connors and Vilas were 21.
No long pants at all, neither of wool nor of leather nor of iron...
No sweater at all (exception some players on very cold days).
All players were very fit players playing in T-shirts and shorts who sweat very often and often very much. This since 1946 already, with a few exceptions of Petra, von Cramm and Segura (sorry that you will not know these greats).
A friendly tip: If I don't know about tennis history, I avoid to post in a forum about tennis history...
Thanks, Bobby – are right in a sense. While every word in my post was accurate, a few crucial details were omitted, namely:
- mandatory dress shirts underneath the invariable sweaters
- optional jackets/overcoats
- cocktail party dress shoes
- Churchill-dry martinis on changeovers and pipes smoked throughout the events.
It would be interesting to contrast the cream of that tour with a modern 3.5 league on the East Coast (but arguably not as interesting as comparing their volleying skills against Nadal’s).
SoBad, Again sooooo bad....and ssooooooooo WRONG......
If you always in life are so accurate, I fear for your life, f. i. when you cross a very traffic square confusing green and red of the traffic lights. I wish you a long life, but PLEASE don't write about tennis (history). Why? It could be that your readers believe you are an idiot. We all don't want to call a poster "idiot"! Therefore: awake from your nightmare!
Your picture was taken in the 1920's and don't refer to the 1946 till McEnroe period! Furthermore it does NOT show the Musketeers while playing.
Maybe you now ask yourself or me why I'm writing about the Musketeers as they were only three but your presented (dino?) players are four......
Whilst in Odessa on a business trip, Dobrynya Nikitich befriended a young Mongolian man by the name of Manghudai who joined the team on its mission, with no objection from Ilyusha or Alyosha. Typical story of a trio turning into a quadron.
As regards the photo, I never claimed a particular timeline, but merely asked you if the era I described was the one you were referring to in your earlier post.
Lastly, I agree with your contempt for hypothetical use of “idiot” to refer to posters, especially ones who bring knowledge and reason to a discussion, as I believe in a courteous manner of debate. I would absolutely cringe if posters referred to you as “********”, “senile”, “illiterate”, or “spamming the most useless section of the forum with delusional drivel at an incredible rate”, regardless of the veracity of their assertions.
SoBad, I can't take you for real. Do you really think that you write meaningful words (such as the Odessa story)??? I fear for you that your readers are not taking you seriously after your stupid claims about the "old" tennis...
You are a bad liar: It was You who claimed those absurd things about the time before ATP which includes the whole period from 1877 till 1972 but which had of course great differences between the old-fashioned time till WW2 and the time afterwards, especially the 1960s and the early 1970s!!!. Then I informed you that there were no players after 1946 who played in wool pants and sweaters. What was your silly reaction?: publishing a photo picked out from the 1920's!!!!! I do hope that even you can understand the difference between the 1920s and the time from 1946 (or 1947) till 1972!! Have you been at school at all?
I clearly had proved that the era you described was not the pre-ATP era!!!
You have not commented my arguments where I disproved you wrong claims (pants, sweaters, sweat and so on).....
Not the forum is useless but you are as long as you post such posts. You never have seen a Laver or Rosewall or Gonzalez playing sweating in their shirts and shorts. That's not my fault. Please stop writing about an issue you don't understand.
Thanks for your insults but you have not revealed what the word with the asterisks is meaning....
Please note: Stupidity is not a crime, but if a silly person is as arrogant as you are, it's unbearable for a normal and healthy human being!!!
Bobby, why even get into a debate with a troll like that?
Thanks for your insight. Quite a remarkable list of players who were great at the net.
treblings, If I would be a wise philosopher, you are right I should not comment posts from obvious trolls ( a mild term for SoBad...).
But it's maybe a fault of my character that I always hope that serious people can convince non-serious people that the latters' opinions are wrong. But I must learn that SoBad has not reflected or commented any of my disproving arguments about long wool pants and similary rubbish.
And his claims are so absurd and backed with some arrogance that I went "hot" and did not want letting him escape from his idiotic statements. It's maybe also part of my character that I like to disprove stupid opinions and claims (see my many battles with Dan and others). I'm aware that it's probably not worth to answer a troll.
Thanks that you say he IS a troll. I wished more posters would inform SoBad that he is one.....
You are most welcome.
Thank you. :grin:
He's an all-time great on my Ignore List. :-?
hoodjem, Thanks. Maybe he is the GOAT of the trolls...
BobbyOne, mon ami,
The Odessa story was squarely on point in direct response to your questions about the Musketeers, but I can see how you might have trouble making the connection. Back to our oves, I merely asked if you were referring to the wool pants and sweater era when you challenged my list with your “before McEnroe” comment. I am now guessing that posting walls of text interspersed with random year references and personal insults is your way of saying “no”.
I note an increasing level of discomfort in your posts – name-calling, accusations of lying, and pronounced confusion over timing of both tennis tour eras and posts in this thread. I see no need to escalate this debate – I believe that reasonable people can agree to disagree with unreasonable people.
I am surprised that your friend treblings found the time to interject in our discussion here. Normally, I’d expect him to be busy creating threads about racquet covers, but I guess he saw a friend in dire need of help.
While this brief foray into the dark world of this forum section may not have been particularly enlightening for me, it has certainly confirmed my overall impressions of the early tennis and the people abusing the bandwidths in endless discussions thereof. Thanks for your participation and I might be available to take additional questions, should you have any.
i think he needs no informing. he knows what he is.
and i know you enjoy to take on people like that. so please don´t let me stop you
I'm NOT your friend. You are too arrogant, you lie and you don't reach the minimum level of intelligence that I want my friends having.
I did not have any questions about the Musketeers. I just informed you (albeit without success) that the Musketeers played in the 1920s and not since WW2!
I have clearly stated that your list about wool pants etc. is totally wrong but you still ignore facts. That's a masterpiece!
For the last time and especially for you, Bad man (or woman): There were no wool pants after 1946! Even a person with your IQ should understand this!
You just are wrong with your disdain for tennis before McEnroe!
You have not commented my disproving of your wrong claims about pants, sweaters, sweat, dozens of players, middle-aged players. I understand why: because you don't have any proof for your bizarre claims.
I did NOT write any random year references (it's your next lie). It's YOU who cannot differentiate between the 1920s and the post WW2 period. Go back to school! There you can learn the basics of logic!
If you would not lie, I would not call you a liar. So easy this.
I don't need help from my friends and other posters. It's too easy too disprove you even without help from them. It's just good that several serious posters also show you that you are a troll. Maybe you feel better when posting in the General thread where many posters claim that either Federer or Nadal cannot play tennis...
I will not have any questions for you with the possible exception if you already went back to school or if you have already consulted a good doctor for your mental problems.
treblings, Thanks for your understanding.
I think I have written a nice farewell post to SoBad...
Mais bien sûr, cher collègue BobbyOne, choosing your friends is a delicate matter: “You know a man when you have spent many days and nights together and have eaten a pood of salt together, for a new friend is akin to an ice cover early in the spring”.
And there you go again with a confused convoluted stream of insults, false allegations, and outright misrepresentations. Why don’t we proceed to analyze these complex issues one step at a time: at what point, in your opinion, did I claim that “there were wool pants after 1946”?
...and the Woodies!
I saw a Leach play at Wimbers, with "Borris" in 1986. Was it Mike or Rick?
Curious so bad SoBad,
I don't understand French that much. Stop it!
I don't understand your senseless stories and comparisons. Stop it!
Show me one confused point of my posts!
Show me one false allegation in my posts!
To which misrepresentation do you refer, jester?
There is NO complex issue. All your claims were wrong! It's rather that you have some complexes!! You even have not contradicted my disproving in any point!!!
You DID claim that there were wool pants in (early) ATP times!!! Read your post 314!!! That nonsense means the same (properly worse!!) as "after 1946" even though you did not use the latter term!!! I showed you that not only your claim about the early ATP years was wrong but even your insinuation that there were ANY wool pants after the war (unless you mean that there were no wool pants from 1946 to 1972 but yet in 1973 and the following years...).
You can choose: either you are a liar or an idiot (or even both)!
Logic is really not your strength...
Visit a helpful doctor.
I will put you on my ignore list because otherwise serious posters could critisize me that I communicate with a super troll, the worst troll I have ever seen...
Vcore89, Borotra and Cochet had a better volley. Lacoste was a baseliner.
most likely Mike. i´m to lazy to check the atp statistics
Еh bien, cher collègue BobbyOne. Rome et Londres ne sont plus que des apanages de les familles grec et yougoslave. Non, je vous préviens, que si vous ne me dites pas, que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocités de ces Antichrista (ma parole, j'y crois) – je ne vous connais plus, vous n'êtes plus mon ami, vous n'êtes plus mon cher collègue, comme vous dites. Perhaps after all Nadal’s departure from the Channel Slam is but a manifestation of the New York state of the great mind.
Thanks for pointing me to my post #314 – I enjoyed reading it just now. As you now concede, there is no mention of 1946 or any other particular year in that brief and articulate statement posed as a question that was never answered. What was your thought process (if I may call it that) to extract “1946” from post #314?
Wow. I've seen many threads get ruined by trolls, but this thread gets completely destroyed. Blows my mind !
The best I have seen is McEnroe, followed by Edberg and Rafter. As things stand, Rafter is the last great serve-and-volley player. He had to be an acrobat to pull it off in his time; today, there is no way he could play that style.
agreed. if you´ve seen Mc you must have seen Cash. where do you see him?
imo, he´s right up there with the one´s you´ve mentioned
Taking into account the speed of the game, the all around ability to hit volleys from both side, half volleys, and overheads, I agree with these three.
When I think of volleying, I will always think of Mac first. I watched a lot of doubles back in the day when team tennis was big and they showed slam doubles finals, and Mac could make volleys others could not. If it wasn't Ivan Lendl ripping a forehand at McEnroe's belly button from point blank range, more often than not it was coming back for a winner. He just had amazing touch, using his index and middle fingers and loosening his grip fingers (ring and pinky). A true artist.
At his peak, it seemed impossible to pass Edberg. Rafter was the only guy that I thought was McEnroe's equal as an athlete and in his level of confidence.
I think Cash had great form
McEnroe is not only a legendary volleyer himself, but also the ultimate authority in assessing the performance of other tennis legends in the forecourt.
LOL. Actually, i recall that Becker made that comment in an interview with Justin Gimelstob. Justin asked him about the 'Becker Dive' and Boris responded that he was too slow footed and had to compensate by diving for his volleys when he was out of position.
Cash, and later on Rafter, were the last great representatives of the old aussie school, a thing Hewitt and Philippoussis towards were never linked to.They were classical net men, and much in the Newcombe or Roche mold.
Agree, the last 3 great SV players who won many more points off the volley, not the serve. Sampras had a great volley and half-volley but he won more points off the serve without need to volley. I consider Philippoussis a Sampras type SV player winning more points off his dominating serve. Cash was a great SV but did not have the slam results of Mac and Edberg but pretty close to Rafter.
Separate names with a comma.