Interview with Michael Stich

[BobbyOne]

In the actual issue of German "Tennis Magazin" (oddly the "July" issue) there is an interview with German legend, Michael Stich.

I only refer to a few points.

Stich claims that Sampras is probably the best grass courter of all time because his opposition ("Edberg, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Agassi, Courier") was stronger than Federer's. Michael says that Roger did grandious deeds but would not have amassed 17 majors in Pete's time. The generation Federer and Co. would be fantastic but not the strongest. He concludes that maybe Laver's was the best.

I respect Michael for these words because he does not pump up his own and the current generation and praises Laver and Co. even though he never played against a Laver or Rosewall or Newcombe or Ashe.

Edit: Sorry I had written "12 majors" instead of "17 majors". Have corrected it now. Maybe a Freudian slip...

 

[Mick]

I watched a Laver interview on TV and he said in his time, tennis was not a big sport as it is today. So, while his achievements were amazing, it is more difficult for today's players to accomplish what he did back then.

 

[BobbyOne]

I watched a Laver interview on TV and he said in his time, tennis was not a big sport as it is today. So, while his achievements were amazing, it is more difficult for today's players to accomplish what he did back then.

Mick, Laver is a great player but he is not infallible in his judgments (as no player or ex-player is). For instance he ranked his greatest and toughest rival, Rosewall, only at sixth place among the players before open era. The latter deserves in reality a place among the all-time top five at least.

 

[Vensai]

It's a fair assessment. If it weren't for Krajicek, Sampras might have had 7 consecutive Wimbledons.

 

[kiki]

Sampras era was the last tough era on grass.

Well, in fact no more grass afterwards.Just green painted clay.

 

[NatF]

Stich glorifying his own era? Nothing surprising there.

Edberg was done at Wimbledon by 1993. Courier a tough grass courter? Becker was past his best at Wimbledon, hit 15 double faults in the 1995 final - not that tough really. Ivanisevic and Krajicek were talented yes, but the latter only played Sampras once at Wimbledon.

There was a thread on this, Roger faced as many Wimbledon champions and titlists in his runs as Pete. The idea that Sampras faced much better grass competition isn't based on anything factual.

I mean the very fact he counts Edberg as Sampras's competition on grass when they never met there (!!!), is enough to take his opinion with a large grain of salt.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Said something similar in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jun/27/tennis.wimbledon20062

 

[Phoenix1983]

I agree with Stich that Sampras is the grass GOAT.

 

[NatF]

I agree with Stich that Sampras is the grass GOAT.

He had the perfect game for grass really. He edges it for me. But only edges it.

 

[70後]

Stich can state his opinion. But the facts don't bear him out. Unfortunately a Wimbledon champion isn't even as well informed or well reasoned as some internet tennis fans. I'm talking about Pat Cash, of course.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And we are meant to listen to him just because he's Michael Stich? Please.

 

[BobbyOne]

It's a fair assessment. If it weren't for Krajicek, Sampras might have had 7 consecutive Wimbledons.

Vensai, Yes, but you probably mean 8 consecutive Wimbledons.

 

[NatF]

And we are meant to listen to him just because he's Michael Stich? Please.

The guy counts Edberg and himself as Sampras grass competition. Stich played Sampras once at Wimbledon, a year Sampras didn't even win the championship. I guess Federer can include Sampras in his grass competition too.

 

[BobbyOne]

Stich glorifying his own era? Nothing surprising there.

Edberg was done at Wimbledon by 1993. Courier a tough grass courter? Becker was past his best at Wimbledon, hit 15 double faults in the 1995 final - not that tough really. Ivanisevic and Krajicek were talented yes, but the latter only played Sampras once at Wimbledon.

There was a thread on this, Roger faced as many Wimbledon champions and titlists in his runs as Pete. The idea that Sampras faced much better grass competition isn't based on anything factual.

I mean the very fact he counts Edberg as Sampras's competition on grass when they never met there (!!!), is enough to take his opinion with a large grain of salt.

NatF, Stich is fair enough to concede that his era was probably weaker than Laver's.

Courier was tough on grass at least in 1993 when he beat Martin and Edberg and lost a tough final against Sampras. Edberg was Pete's opponent indirectly in 1993 that way.

 

[NatF]

NatF, Stich is fair enough to concede that his era was probably weaker than Laver's.

Courier was tough on grass at least in 1993 when he beat Martin and Edberg and lost a tough final against Sampras. Edberg was Pete's opponent indirectly in 1993 that way.

He's fair enough because what he says fits in with your view point? I would assume he means late 60's and early 70's not the mid 60's like you want him to

Courier was good in 1993, but he only made one 4R at Wimbledon after that, the rest were 2R and 1R. I don't count indirect opponents, seems silly. Edberg dropped off at Wimbledon, making one SF at Wimbledon when Sampras won it isn't enough to count him as competition.

The main opponents Sampras faced were Goran, Andre, Borris. Borris was great on grass but not at his best in the mid 90's. So I find Stich's comments quite superficial.

 

[BobbyOne]

And we are meant to listen to him just because he's Michael Stich? Please.

Why not, Sabratha? Stich was one of the most talented and skilled players at all. A better offensive player than Federer. Must it be always Roger???

 

[NatF]

Why not, Sabratha? Stich was one of the most talented and skilled players at all. A better offensive player than Federer. Must it be always Roger???

Better offensively because of his volleys? Federer's forehand is a better offensive weapon than anything Stich had in his arsenal.

 

[BobbyOne]

He's fair enough because what he says fits in with your view point? I would assume he means late 60's and early 70's not the mid 60's like you want him to

Courier was good in 1993, but he only made one 4R at Wimbledon after that, the rest were 2R and 1R. I don't count indirect opponents, seems silly. Edberg dropped off at Wimbledon, making one SF at Wimbledon when Sampras won it isn't enough to count him as competition.

The main opponents Sampras faced were Goran, Andre, Borris. Borris was great on grass but not at his best in the mid 90's. So I find Stich's comments quite superficial.

NatF, Why again nasty after a more civilized period? Why these wrong insinuations??

I said he is fair enough not to claim that his own era was the best (in contrary to your own claim)!

Why do you differ between the peak Laver and the past peak Laver period? But if you do, please note: Rod was not "The Laver " in the 1970s anymore.

Why your side-step to blame me for a Rosewall bias. I can tell you that I'm not as Rosewall biased as you are Federer biased. No criticism on Roger allowed!! Everyone who praises Federer is fair enough...

As you should know Courier's great time was generally over after 1993. So his poor efforts afterwards are not surprising and don't take away anything from his great 1993 Wimbledon run.

There never was a player named Borris!

 

[BobbyOne]

Better offensively because of his volleys? Federer's forehand is a better offensive weapon than anything Stich had in his arsenal.

NatF, Stich also said that Federer (he meant his peak) had not to deal with great serve-and-volleyers. If he would have, he would not have won that much.

 

[NatF]

NatF, Why again nasty after a more civilized period? Why these wrong insinuations??

I said he is fair enough not to claim that his own ear was the best (in contrary to your own claim)!

Why do you differ between the peak Laver and the past peak Laver period? But if you do, please note: Rod was not "The Laver " in the 1970s anymore.

Why your side-step to blame me for a Rosewall bias. I can tell you that I'm not as Rosewall biased as you are Federer biased. No criticism on Roger allowed!!

As you should know Courier's great time was generally over after 1993. So his poor efforts afterwards are not surprising and don't take away anything from his great 1993 Wimbledon run.

There never was a player named Borris!

I'm not being nasty. And I'm more biased that you? You who claimed Rosewall had an excellent serve :lol:

I gave Boris an extra r, really worth pointing out?

I never claimed he thought his era was the best, but it's not odd for him to think his era is better than what came after. I find it unlikely Stich is talking about what happened in the pro's which is something no former pro seems to mention.

Yes Courier was virtually done after 1993, which makes calling him Sampras' grass competition especially odd. He only had won QF and one 4R apart from his Final. Yet he's a great grass courter? Federer has beaten substantially better players on grass than Courier. Likewise Edberg and Stich weren't really Sampras' competition in his winning years.

NatF, Stich also said that Federer (he meant his peak) had not to deal with great serve-and-volleyers. If he would have, he would not have won that much.

Is Stich's opinion factual? He thought Henman's serve and volley would bother Federer in 2006 at Wimbledon on the slicker grass. It didn't.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I gave Boris an extra r, really worth pointing out?

Not really.

Bobby claimed in his post that Stich spoke about his own ear not being the best. But you didn't point out that Stich made no comment about the quality of his hearing.

I note that Bobby always points out these pedantic typos and minor grammatical errors, to make it seem as if he is winning the argument.

 

[NatF]

Not really.

Bobby claimed in his post that Stich spoke about his own ear not being the best. But you didn't point out that Stich made no comment about the quality of his hearing.

I note that Bobby always points out these pedantic typos and minor grammatical errors, to make it seem as if he is winning the argument.

It does annoy me when he does that. But he does it to everyone so I don't take it personally. Just seems like he's trying to make me look like an idiot...

And he's certainly more Rosewall biased than I am Federer biased :lol:

 

[treblings]

the interview with Stich is pretty interesting. He is very articulate and outspoken.
i wonder, should the fact that only a handful of guys have won majors over the last eight years or so be considered a sign for a strong era?

Stich also talks only about the era of Laver, neglecting to mention the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad and others

 

[NatF]

the interview with Stich is pretty interesting. He is very articulate and outspoken.
i wonder, should the fact that only a handful of guys have won majors over the last eight years or so be considered a sign for a strong era?

Stich also talks only about the era of Laver, neglecting to mention the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad and others

It can interpreted both ways. Having several strong players doesn't mean the rest are necessarily any weak than before or perhaps potentially better.

 

[Kenshin]

In the actual issue of German "Tennis Magazin" (oddly the "July" issue) there is an interview with German legend, Michael Stich.

I only refer to a few points.

Stich claims that Sampras is probably the best grass courter of all time because his opposition ("Edberg, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Agassi, Courier") was stronger than Federer's. Michael says that Roger did grandious deeds but would not have amassed 17 majors in Pete's time. The generation Federer and Co. would be fantastic but not the strongest. He concludes that maybe Laver's was the best.

I respect Michael for these words because he does not pump up his own and the current generation and praises Laver and Co. even though he never played against a Laver or Rosewall or Newcombe or Ashe.

Edit: Sorry I had written "12 majors" instead of "17 majors". Have corrected it now. Maybe a Freudian slip...

Bobby, thanks for the interview. Interesting read. And Congrats for opening a new thread. Keep up the good work. :wink:

 

[BobbyOne]

I'm not being nasty. And I'm more biased that you? You who claimed Rosewall had an excellent serve :lol:

I gave Boris an extra r, really worth pointing out?

I never claimed he thought his era was the best, but it's not odd for him to think his era is better than what came after. I find it unlikely Stich is talking about what happened in the pro's which is something no former pro seems to mention.

Yes Courier was virtually done after 1993, which makes calling him Sampras' grass competition especially odd. He only had won QF and one 4R apart from his Final. Yet he's a great grass courter? Federer has beaten substantially better players on grass than Courier. Likewise Edberg and Stich weren't really Sampras' competition in his winning years.



Is Stich's opinion factual? He thought Henman's serve and volley would bother Federer in 2006 at Wimbledon on the slicker grass. It didn't.

NatF, I found it nasty to insinuate I only find a statement fair if it concures with my one opinion. I'm proud that I always try to be objective. F.i. I recently plead for Emerson and Newcombe in hoodjem lists even though I'm not a fan of Emmo and Newk...

I never said that Rosewall had an excellent serve. But I do know that experts praised it for its accuracy, flatness and deception.

Since you wrote "Borris" twice in a row, I was not sure if it was a typo or a little lack of knowledge about players before your time.

I'm sorry if it was the first.

Maybe I was influenced to point out the little error by kiki's many errors, especially "Butcholz" or similary nonsense. In his case they at least partly are not typos but they show his disdain for some all-time greats.

If we want to think exactly we also should read, write and speak exactly!

What is odd in Stich's ("the guy"...) claim?

As long as Courier was a top player, as long he was tough also on grass.

Henman played some fine matches against Federer albeit not in majors.

 

[BobbyOne]

Not really.

Bobby claimed in his post that Stich spoke about his own ear not being the best. But you didn't point out that Stich made no comment about the quality of his hearing.

I note that Bobby always points out these pedantic typos and minor grammatical errors, to make it seem as if he is winning the argument.

Phoenix1983, Against you I have won all arguments. That's not difficult.

Comparing my "pedantry" with your severe faux pas, I'm an angel ;-)

You published my real name, you insulted me sometimes ("fraud" and so on) without reason and you offended both Ken Rosewall and me with your permanent Rosewall obituaries. I don't attack here your Rosewall/Wimbledon joke as people are entitled to have absurd and bizarre opinions and the joke is not a mistake but just a wrong opinion.

I never have pointed out clear typos and very seldom grammatical errors.

You DO know that ear instead of era was a typo whereas "Borris.Borris" did not exactly look like that.

 

[BobbyOne]

It does annoy me when he does that. But he does it to everyone so I don't take it personally. Just seems like he's trying to make me look like an idiot...

And he's certainly more Rosewall biased than I am Federer biased :lol:

NatF, You are not an idiot but you once called me one. You sometimes use nasty words and meaningless insinuations to show I'm not an expert...

Please tell me one claim of mine where I have pushed Rosewall unjustified. But for you and many others Roger Federer is sacrosanct. No criticism on the God is allowed. As an agnostic I use to critisize even Gods, you must know...

 

[BobbyOne]

the interview with Stich is pretty interesting. He is very articulate and outspoken.
i wonder, should the fact that only a handful of guys have won majors over the last eight years or so be considered a sign for a strong era?

Stich also talks only about the era of Laver, neglecting to mention the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad and others

treblings, Thanks. Stich in the same interview says that the fact that only three players win (almost) all the majors, is a sign that this period has too few champions. I agree with him but should not he have said four players?

I agree that current and recent players and experts (and posters here) always mention Laver but seldom a Rosewall or Gonzalez and Tilden. Laver is an alibi for those who don't know much about older times but want to include at least one oldie in their GOAT list to make it looking better...

But I was glad that Michael has mentioned Laver at all and even Rod's era as possibly the greatest. Of course Stich is not an expert for tennis history.

By the way, when Muster played against Stich in that legendary five set Davis Cup match near Graz (I'm sure you have watched it), where Muster won when both players were very exhausted at the end, I was hoping most of the time that the German wins because I disliked the behaviour of the Austrian spectators which was very unfair. (soccer crowds are even worse worldwide...).Plus Stich had a more beautiful game than Thomas.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, thanks for the interview. Interesting read. And Congrats for opening a new thread. Keep up the good work. :wink:

kenshin, Thanks for your friendly words. Maybe I need sometimes a bit of such a balsam to better forgetting some unfriendly posts from my old "friends". There are not too many of posters who appreciate my efforts as you do...

Maybe Japanese and Viennese people are often thinking similarly...;-)

By the way, I never saw a non-reasonable post of your's. If you have time, please post more often...

Your "eye-opener", BobbyOne

 

[treblings]

treblings, Thanks. Stich in the same interview says that the fact that only three players win (almost) all the majors, is a sign that this period has too few champions. I agree with him but should not he have said four players?

I agree that current and recent players and experts (and posters here) always mention Laver but seldom a Rosewall or Gonzalez and Tilden. Laver is an alibi for those who don't know much about older times but want to include at least one oldie in their GOAT list to make it looking better...

But I was glad that Michael has mentioned Laver at all and even Rod's era as possibly the greatest. Of course Stich is not an expert for tennis history.

By the way, when Muster played against Stich in that legendary five set Davis Cup match near Graz (I'm sure you have watched it), where Muster won when both players were very exhausted at the end, I was hoping most of the time that the German wins because I disliked the behaviour of the Austrian spectators which was very unfair. (soccer crowds are even worse worldwide...).Plus Stich had a more beautiful game than Thomas.

Muster was never one of my favourite players. i tend to like those, who make the game look easy and less like a boxing match.
i´ve rooted for him nevertheless on many occasions, thinking that his successes would further austrian tennis

 

[NatF]

NatF, You are not an idiot but you once called me one. You sometimes use nasty words and meaningless insinuations to show I'm not an expert...

Please tell me one claim of mine where I have pushed Rosewall unjustified. But for you and many others Roger Federer is sacrosanct. No criticism on the God is allowed. As an agnostic I use to critisize even Gods, you must know...

I don't want to argue about which of us is more objective. Neither of us could be objective on that

I also don't want to discuss our past quarrels. We'll end up losing the fragile peace we have at the moment.

NatF, I found it nasty to insinuate I only find a statement fair if it concures with my one opinion. I'm proud that I always try to be objective. F.i. I recently plead for Emerson and Newcombe in hoodjem lists even though I'm not a fan of Emmo and Newk...

I never said that Rosewall had an excellent serve. But I do know that experts praised it for its accuracy, flatness and deception.

Since you wrote "Borris" twice in a row, I was not sure if it was a typo or a little lack of knowledge about players before your time.

I'm sorry if it was the first.

Maybe I was influenced to point out the little error by kiki's many errors, especially "Butcholz" or similary nonsense. In his case they at least partly are not typos but they show his disdain for some all-time greats.

If we want to think exactly we also should read, write and speak exactly!

What is odd in Stich's ("the guy"...) claim?

As long as Courier was a top player, as long he was tough also on grass.

Henman played some fine matches against Federer albeit not in majors.

I will concede that it may have been a little mean to insinuate you found Stich's statements fair because they gel with yours. Not that it would be surprising, I think we all do it. But nethertheless I will try not to it in future. I don't think it was 'nasty' though, I feel nasty is quite a strong word.

Regarding Boris, I don't know what was going on when I wrote it.

I was saying Stich's comments weren't odd as it's usual for players to glorify their own era's over what came later.

Courier's best year was 1992 he made the 3R of Wimbledon. The year before a Quarter Final. So he was not always tough on grass during his peak. He lost to Andrei Olhovskiy in 1992, a guy with a very modest record on grass, 23-23.

His loss the year before to Stich (ironically ) was not a bad loss. Looks to me like Courier had one great run. He was Sampras competition but no more than the likes of Djokovic or Murray for Federer, both of whom are much better grass courters.

Henman did play some great matches Against Federer. Like in Paris in 2003 and Rottadam in 2004. But the majors are obviously where Federer was most focused. Henman in great form at the USO in 2004 could only win half (49) his net approaches against Federer. I don't doubt the different style of play could cause Federer some problems but Federer has some of the best passing shots of all time and holds his own serve very well. I think he'd be fine overall.

 

[BobbyOne]

I don't want to argue about which of us is more objective. Neither of us could be objective on that

I also don't want to discuss our past quarrels. We'll end up losing the fragile peace we have at the moment.



I will concede that it may have been a little mean to insinuate you found Stich's statements fair because they gel with yours. Not that it would be surprising, I think we all do it. But nethertheless I will try not to it in future. I don't think it was 'nasty' though, I feel nasty is quite a strong word.

Regarding Boris, I don't know what was going on when I wrote it.

I was saying Stich's comments weren't odd as it's usual for players to glorify their own era's over what came later.

Courier's best year was 1992 he made the 3R of Wimbledon. The year before a Quarter Final. So he was not always tough on grass during his peak. He lost to Andrei Olhovskiy in 1992, a guy with a very modest record on grass, 23-23.

His loss the year before to Stich (ironically ) was not a bad loss. Looks to me like Courier had one great run. He was Sampras competition but no more than the likes of Djokovic or Murray for Federer, both of whom are much better grass courters.

Henman did play some great matches Against Federer. Like in Paris in 2003 and Rottadam in 2004. But the majors are obviously where Federer was most focused. Henman in great form at the USO in 2004 could only win half (49) his net approaches against Federer. I don't doubt the different style of play could cause Federer some problems but Federer has some of the best passing shots of all time and holds his own serve very well. I think he'd be fine overall.

NatF, Thanks for your serious and conciliatory post.

I agree with all you write here.

Let's have our peace also in future ;-)

 

[Rhino]

Nobody is the best of all time because of his era. The best of all time is the best of all time because of his tennis ability. If you say Federer's era was/is weak (not that I agree with that), all you are saying is that a champion can afford to be a bit worse and still win titles, but it doesn't mean he actually is worse, he wins titles either way. Federer would clean up on grass within any era, just as he did within the era he was born.

 

[BobbyOne]

Nobody is the best of all time because of his era. The best of all time is the best of all time because of his tennis ability. If you say Federer's era was/is weak (not that I agree with that), all you are saying is that a champion can afford to be a bit worse and still win titles, but it doesn't mean he actually is worse, he wins titles either way. Federer would clean up on grass within any era, just as he did within the era he was born.

Rhino, I contradict: Of course it's important to examine if an era is a strong or weak in comparison with other eras. And there were actually strong and weak eras. For me the 1950's (that unbelievable strong pro group) was very tough and also the 1970s as kiki rightly say. Look at the top players who played then.

 

[ARFED]

kenshin, Thanks for your friendly words. Maybe I need sometimes a bit of such a balsam to better forgetting some unfriendly posts from my old "friends". There are not too many of posters who appreciate my efforts as you do...

Maybe Japanese and Viennese people are often thinking similarly...;-)

By the way, I never saw a non-reasonable post of your's. If you have time, please post more often...

Your "eye-opener", BobbyOne

Well the past century proves you are right. :twisted:

A joke Bobby, don`t take it too seriously

 

[BobbyOne]

Well the past century proves you are right. :twisted:

A joke Bobby, don`t take it too seriously

ARFED, It was in a time before even I was born...;-)

 

[dominikk1985]

federer did have a rather easy grass era. Roddick was tough to beat due to his hold ability but not a really greart grass courter because he lacked footwork, volley and return ability.

the current era is even weaker though since anyone is a hardcourt specialist now. at least fed had to face some solid grass courters like Hewitt and philipoussis early on while Novak and nadal really faced nobody after 2010 or so when fed declined.

 

[Thetouch]

Stich is absolutely right. In my oppinion Federer would be lucky to have won Wimbledon once in the 90s. How manny REAL grass specialists have been outthere since the early 00´s? Almost none. Sampras didn´t face them all at Wimbledon in the 90s just because it wasn´t possible but his overall wins were more impressive buy looking at the draws. Example: In 1993 Becker def. Stich, Agassi def. Krajicek, Martin def. Ivanisevic, Sampras def. Agassi, Courier def. Edberg, Sampras def. Becker and Courier. At that point there were 4 Wimbledon Champions and 3 future Wimbledon Champions facing either each other or against up coming guys and former finalists. There is no comparisson to the Wimbledon draws in the Federer era or now. Back then it was simply tougher.

Nadal winning Wimbledon 2 times, Novak and Murray once is almost like Sampras or Becker winning the French, which means it couldn´t happen unless you changed from clay to kind of hard court with much less clay.^^

 

[dominikk1985]

Stich is absolutely right. In my oppinion Federer would be lucky to have won Wimbledon once in the 90s. How manny REAL grass specialists have been outthere since the early 00´s? Almost none. Sampras didn´t face them all at Wimbledon in the 90s just because it wasn´t possible but his overall wins were more impressive buy looking at the draws. Example: In 1993 Becker def. Stich, Agassi def. Krajicek, Martin def. Ivanisevic, Sampras def. Agassi, Courier def. Edberg, Sampras def. Becker and Courier. At that point there were 4 Wimbledon Champions and 3 future Wimbledon Champions facing either each other or against up coming guys and former finalists. There is no comparisson to the Wimbledon draws in the Federer era or now. Back then it was simply tougher.

Nadal winning Wimbledon 2 times, Novak and Murray once is almost like Sampras or Becker winning the French, which means it couldn´t happen unless you changed from clay to kind of hard court with much less clay.^^

I don't agree that fed would have never won it but the fact that nadal won Wimbledon twice and almost beat Peak fed in 07 and beat almost Peak fed in 08 Shows that from the early 00s till now (and counting) is a weak grass era.

nadal would be lucky to win some rounds in the 90s. fed on the other Hand was so good and also able to Play S&V that he would have won some Wimbledons in the 90s but not every time. pete wouldn't have beat fed every time either.

 

[morten]

I agree with Stich... Fed would have about 8-9 slams maximum in that era... And i do not think Nadal would have any Wimbledon victory, or that many titles on the faster hard courts of the 90s.. I wish they brought back the faster courts with lower bounce, it would bring back the diversity.. Sadly the slower courts made the game more boring, the opposite of what they probably wanted...

 

[Kevin T]

I get sad when TV coverage shows a wide lens view from above the Wimby grounds...nothing but dirt on the baseline with pristine grass covering the remainder of the court. I remember, not that long ago, when there was also a nice dirt strip running from the baseline and down the center of the court to the net. I really, really miss serve and volley tennis.

 

[BobbyOne]

I get sad when TV coverage shows a wide lens view from above the Wimby grounds...nothing but dirt on the baseline with pristine grass covering the remainder of the court. I remember, not that long ago, when there was also a nice dirt strip running from the baseline and down the center of the court to the net. I really, really miss serve and volley tennis.

KevinT, Yes there also were brown spots left and right near the net.

It's a shame that we don't have top serve and volleyers today.