Pat Cash told to us.. better 80´s tennis than today

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by pepe01, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. pepe01

    pepe01 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Obregon city
    Cash told to a Argentinian reporter that must of all us we are thinking, lack of variety style, predictible results and tennis based on force is less atractive to see than 80´s tennis....agree with you Pat....
     
    #1
  2. Prodigy

    Prodigy New User

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    Didn't he play around that time? He's partial to his own "era".
     
    #2
  3. dirtballer

    dirtballer Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    951
    Poly strings and 2-handed backhands have changed the game forever. The game isn't as artistic anymore. There are no artists like John McEnroe or Ille Nastasi out there and there probably won't be again. However, two big servers playing on fast grass in the 80s or two moonballers playing on slow clay in the 80s wasn't real entertaining either.
     
    #3
  4. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,810
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    He's right to a large extent:

    you don't get the variety you had in a match between Cash and Lendl at W or the USO.

    And Cash is in the right position to complain about it because he was very spectacular.

    Today a lot of it is a war of attrition. The workmanlike tennis.
     
    #4
  5. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,404
    I agree. People will want to blame slow courts but I think, given the changing of some courts back to faster surfaces I don't think variety in tennis would get back to the 80s levels.

    Also worth nothing that today's baseliners are much, much better volleyers than their equivalents in the 80s and today's serve-volley players are also much better on the baseline than their 80s equivalent. Basically, the overall level has risen somewhat in those who are competitive at the highest levels. It's just the variety has narrowed in many ways (as an average).
     
    #5
  6. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    Going back to wood would change tennis for the better with only 1 rule change. It would bring back the variety regardless of the court surfaces. Baseball did it, why can't tennis
     
    #6
  7. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It's funny. I was watching the 1991 French Open final between Courier and Agassi the other day, and Bud Collins was talking about how he thought there was too much power in the game. I LOLed, because when compared to today's game, there's not much power. I see such complaints as the moans of people scared of the change and evolution in the game of tennis.
     
    #7
  8. Lsmkenpo

    Lsmkenpo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,915
    The play at Bercy last year suggests you may be wrong.
     
    #8
  9. Ludwig von Mises

    Ludwig von Mises Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    161
    I don't think today's players are better volleyers than the 80's guy- I think they are quite deficient in volleying skill these days. I also dont agree that the baseline strokes are superior now to the 80's- in terms of actual strokes. The strings and racquets are more advanced so there is more velocity and spin on the ball- yes.
    But the actual stroke mechanics are not "better". At least if you compare to the late 80's (there was a time when there was not much heavy-ness coming off of the BH wing but the advent of power tennis c. 1985 and the 2h BH seems to have changed that).

    As to wood racquets- I used to be 100% against going back to wood for the ATP tour (the WTA is totally irrelevant, except for Julia Goerges, so I dont care what they do) but now I think it might be really cool for tennis.
    I am close to a 5.0 player and recently whenever I go out to play- i warm up with a Jack Kramer woodie with a 68" head but with poly strings. I did it just to fool around one day- but I liked it so much I now always warm up with a wood racquet; I carry two around in my bag at all times, the Jack Kramer and a Donnay Borg Pro- in case my opponent also wants to hit with one. Some of my friends saw me do this and asked me for my wood racquets so they could also hit with them.
    One of my friends who is a solid 5.5 was ripping big winners with big top spin when hitting with the Kramer. After he finished hitting with it he said that it was great (brought back old, fond memories)- and that it hit very similar to his Wilson 6.1 tour 90.
    I think the small wood heads force you to be very precise but if you move your feet and get the racquet head in the right position you can certainty hit big, deep, top spin shots. And you cant just bludgeon the ball and get all of those mishits to stay in; so you must be a much more skilled player. It would be fun to watch Fed playing Djoker each with wood racquets.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2011
    #9
  10. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,810
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    I think that on the FH side the mechanics is better today, in that it allows a greater ball acceleration, as a result of several factors:

    - the takeback loop is larger than in the 80s

    - the whole kinetic chain (leg, hip, torso, upper arm, forearm, wrist) is better engaged today, in that "lashing" mechanism, esp in the last segment (wrist)

    - the contribution of the wrist is much more significant today and the wrist is more flexible (the "educated wrist release")

    See:
    Federer: a wristy forehand?
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=15518

    However, one pays for it in more injuries in the wrist (the ulnar area) and forearm.

    One area which is less productive today is the translational component of the FH, the stepping into the ball.

    This is caused by the preponderence of the open-stance FH, in which the rotational component is more significant. One pays for it in hip injuries and surgeries (Guga, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian).

    The players simply camp at the baseline, many of them forgetting about advancing into the ball, taking it on the rise, etc.
     
    #10
  11. marosmith

    marosmith Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,021
    Location:
    Lafayette, Or
    I think the late 90's were great because you had a mix of modern tennis and some classic elements with some of the young guys being all-courters I hope this happens again.
     
    #11
  12. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,854
    Location:
    Jersey
    Agreed. I say we all sign a petition and send it to the ATP :)
     
    #12
  13. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    I wish there were some bona fide rivalries in the game. Like hostility and a little bit of trash talk. I'm sure somebody will criticize me for wishing ill upon the game, but they're just so friendly and nice. All of them. I barely ever truly care about who wins or not and that even goes for Davis Cup.
     
    #13
  14. Nadal = Borg

    Nadal = Borg Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    193
    Was rafter 3-0 or 4-0 against Fed?
     
    #14
  15. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,055
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    Cash actually played half of his 17-18 yrs of pro tennis in the 80s and the other half in the 90s. His (singles) peak came in the late 80s (1988 ). Men's tennis in the 90s became somewhat boring as power (on fast courts) started to dominate the game.

    The larger diameter, type 3 ball was developed as an effort to rectify the problem of very short points in the men's games (on fast surfaces). This was not well received. Pro-grade balls were made brighter and court surfaces were slowed down. This helped to offset the overwhelming power in the men's game.

    No, tennis of the 90s was starting to become boring -- too much power (very short ralies) on the fast surfaces of the day.
    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2011
    #15
  16. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,055
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    You're in the wrong sport. Ice hockey or baseball (can you spell COMA?) may be more to your liking. Tennis has a long tradition as a gentleman's game.
     
    #16
  17. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,022
    Well he's right. If Nadal is winning, you know the era is weak.
     
    #17
  18. 1970CRBase

    1970CRBase Guest

    They're basically corporate spokespeople for their brand. Nice, sugary, wholesome image and 100% PC.
     
    #18
  19. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    boring robotic drones is how i liked to call them
     
    #19
  20. Ludwig von Mises

    Ludwig von Mises Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    161
    Do you remember the Mcenroe-Connors rivalry? What about Mcenroe-Lendl? Lendl-Connors? What about when Mcenroe played Gilbert (i know not a rivalry, but still there was tension)? How about Agassi-Becker? What about Nastase vs. anyone, Tiriac v. anyone? The 1969 davis cup? There was bad blood, tension, yelling, stare downs, players headhunting the volleyer when at net. And it was a glorious time for tennis. Now every one is a total p*ssy and you like that? Come on. Nastase and Mac are the greatest characters the game has ever known; and before them there was Pancho- and he was surly. And we loved them for it.
     
    #20
  21. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    The overall level of tennis being played today is better than in the 80s. Tennis is continuously evolving. Players are more athletic, and workmanlike than before, and you can bet that in 5, 10, 20 years it will reach even higher heights.

    Now, it is true that the variety and contrast in styles has diminished. One could make the pint that tennis was more exciting back then.
     
    #21
  22. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    i love that statement. Until when is it going to evolve? Until infinity?
     
    #22
  23. Ludwig von Mises

    Ludwig von Mises Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    161
    how do you know they are more athletic? this is always stated like its some sort undisputed rule that every one must except. Do you think anyone is more athletic than Borg and Nastase? I dont know if anyone is at the peak of fitness like Lendl and Muster were. Do you know that it takes maybe more athleticism to play that up and down, attack the net style that they played with old technology? Not just side to side ping pong style tennis.
     
    #23
  24. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,837
    to say theres no more artistry in the game is confusing to me considering roger federer has been around for the last 10 years, and his shotmaking rivals or betters mac and nastase.. and the federer-nadal rivalry is one of the best of all time, in my and many others opinions. incredible wimbledon finals, and some of the tour events. granted federer seem to be slipping and a bit changing of the guards, but there is still an excellent federer-nadal-joker rivalry happening. and the last few years has produced many great matches-fed vs agassi at the us open, fed vs nadal at wimbledon, fed vs. roddick.. i think pat cash is just old-school in his thinking, because hes a serve and volleyer, he thinks its more exciting... if you asked a baseliner from the 80s they might give a different opinion..
     
    #24
  25. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    In the 70's with Tiriac, Nastase, Connors, and Mac, seems like there were a lot more personalities. Lendl hitting it right at Mac? Interesting. Right now I have to settle for Fed being annoyed by Nole's entourage.
     
    #25
  26. Xemi666

    Xemi666 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    807
    Yeah, right. Pat Cash is a nostalgiatard who lives in the past, like many of the posters in this forum. ATG's like Lendl and Agassi have admitted that tennis has evolved and they would struggle nowadays.
     
    #26
  27. gpt

    gpt Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    880
    Its no big admission that tennis has evolved. And just because Lendl, Agassi etc say they would struggle nowadays does not mean nowadays is any more interesting.
     
    #27
  28. Xemi666

    Xemi666 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    807
    Being interesting or not, is subjective. You may not find it more interesting, while others may. What cannot be discussed is that the effectiveness of the current players is higher than ever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011
    #28
  29. gpt

    gpt Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    880
    agreed.....

    but i also find it less interesting
     
    #29
  30. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,820
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I wouldn't rely on the opinion of someone who once predicted Federer was never going to win Wimbledon.
     
    #30
  31. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    Prime Agassi would rickroll any player on tour right now not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. He would be not only one of the hardest hitters but with added consistency. Agassi and Lendl are well into retirement and have nothing to gain by playing the tough guy and talking big. It’s in their interest to remain humble. Retired players are probably the worst source for unbiased and honest opinions.
     
    #31
  32. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    I'm not saying there weren't players of the past who were in great shape. You listed many right there. But overall the quality of athleticism on the tour has improved greatly. In this day, you have to put in a lot of off court work to be competetive. You don't see players who get by on sheer talent alone anymore.

    My tennis coach played on the tour during the 80's and 90's and collected atp points. He was a baseline grinder and took pride in his fitness. Now he is playing men's opens and not doing so great. He constantly talks about how the opponents he faces are all incredibly physical, and how the game is different than when he played. I trust his word for it.
     
    #32
  33. tenis1

    tenis1 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    848
    So are you saying Aggasi's and Lendl's opinion is worthless and biased, but Pat Cash's is right on the money?
     
    #33
  34. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    I actually agree that the best players of the past would probably still be at the top today, but are you really going to argue that the overall level and professionalism across the board has not improved?
     
    #34
  35. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    First off, their statements are not even on the same topic. One is the level of tennis and the other topic is the entertainment value. Secondly, they're all biased, I just happen to share the same opinion as Cash. On another note, I find the more public and popular a person is the more they act like politicians and say things they think the public want to hear. If Agassi rocked the boat it would make the news. Nobody really cares about what Cash says so I’d be more inclined to think he brings a bit more touch of honesty to what he says.
     
    #35
  36. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    I’d argue that outside of the top 3-4 players in the world this is the sorriest bunch of tennis players we have ever seen given the advances in technology, training, nutrition, psychology, etc.
     
    #36
  37. BrooklynNY

    BrooklynNY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,627
    Unfortunately, I'd be inclined to agree with you. There are no such thing as style matchups anymore. There is just an favorite and an underdog. It's just a war of attrition out there for the most part, there are always exceptions, but few an far between.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011
    #37
  38. Backhanded Compliment

    Backhanded Compliment Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,939
    I agree and yes I grew up playing 5 times a week in the 80's. I think the biggest problem is a lack of idiomatic playing styles. Perhaps they have gone a little too far in slowing all of the faster surfaces down but the real problem is the way the mechanics are developed today at the junior level. It's mostly 2 handed backhands and not a lot of net movement. The strings have made that a reality but I dont blame Nadal and Federer at all. Fed has ridiculously classic strokes... he's like a textbook but there arent a lot of players like him out there with 1HBH. Nadal is an extremely idiomatic player by comparison and despite there being many clones... none have the radicality of his game. I like his extreme style of play and stroke production.

    What bugs me are players like Murray, Djoker etc. who are simply duller players than Nadal and Fed... I do root for Murray and Djoker these days but I want to see more idiomatic shotmaking from them. Murray is capable of it but he needs an extended period of inspired tennis.. not simply very good tennis. That's his crux, we will see if he can cross that threshold.

    Also, I've noticed that the return of serve has become less inspired lately too... Djoker and Murray return well (for today) but they are nothing in comparison to Connors or Agassi. The pro's just dont attack the returns the way they did back in the old days so there is less tension... it's all about setting up long baseline rallies. It somewhat neutralizes the variety of the game.
     
    #38
  39. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    Returning serve is a lot easier and straight forward today. You can float a return deep and reset the point at zero basically nullifying the serve. If you stayed back 20’ from the baseline and floated returns like Nadal does now against Sampras you wouldn’t win 1 point on his serve. Someone like Agassi had to be a lot more creative and aggressive with his return. He had to take chances by staying close to the baseline and take the return early. This opened him up to being aced more often as well. There is no longer any reason to try and force such an aggressive return anymore with everyone being such baseline huggers.
     
    #39
  40. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    the predictable pete-tards are at it again...
     
    #40
  41. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    I like how you state your opinion as a fact....
     
    #41
  42. Xemi666

    Xemi666 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    807
    In other words "Cash opinion is valid because I like it", what are you 10?
     
    #42
  43. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    The point is that on a fast surface Nadal's method of returning would put him in a very bad situation against someone like Sampras who had disguise, placement, speed, spin, and clutchness. Not to mention Sampras, unlike Federer, Roddick, etc. would be able to back up his serve with not just his great netgame, but also a powerful ground game.


    Nadal already struggles to return the likes of Roddick and Karlovic (he rarely breaks them, and when he does it's not like he hit amazing returns). Think of someone like Sampras who has just as good of a serve (if not better), along with a much better ability to back it up also.
     
    #43
  44. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    and what facts do you have? none. It's an internet forum. %99.99 of the things posted here are mere opinion. Or are you going to write me up a mathematical equation for every post you make to prove your point of view?


    What are you? 5? There is no, “in other words”. I agree with his opinion because it’s my opinion. Do I need to draw you a diagram? It has nothing to do with validity.
     
    #44
  45. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    Then I guess when you liberally labeled some posters who disagreed with your views of how great sampras was as "12 yr old punks", you forgot that this is an internet forum and all people have are merely opinions??

    If the the only way to handle the Sampras serve is to do it the agassi way, explain why his serve was seldom effective on clay, against top clay-courters who stood 20 ft behind? or did everyone that beat Pete on fast surfaces had great returns like Agassi?
     
    #45
  46. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    In case you haven't noticed, Nadal does make changes to his service return stance based on what works, as the match goes along. Also, the Sampras ground game is not nearly as good as Federer's, so not sure how that is supposed to help Sampras vs. Nadal.
     
    #46
  47. ttbrowne

    ttbrowne Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,620
    "Artists"???? Isn't tennis a physical sport?? As much as some would like to think of tennis as Art...it is not. It's a tough sport. To hell with the 80's and all that crap. The tennis now is better.
     
    #47
  48. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    in what way is it better? Because Nadal can bench press more than Connors? Because Djokovic can run twice as long as McEnroe?
     
    #48
  49. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    You want to have a serious tennis discussion and you just asked me why Sampras’ serve wasn’t as effective on clay. Uh huh….
     
    #49
  50. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,516
    Very good post, the truth is spoken here.
     
    #50

Share This Page