Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Mick3391, Feb 8, 2013.
I'm a little puzzled. This is a thread about Laver, isn't it? It's not a Federer thread.
see the part above the response to you ; the response to urban ....read it once more , if you still don't get it, I can explain in even more detail ...
you found the right definition of Laver: Her majesty all court greatness
abmk is following his agenda....
turn on your sarcasm meter !
I know he/she intended to say otherwise.But his/her msitake is that found the perfect definition for the greatest player that has honoured our specie
I think that may well be right. Borg had more topspin but not the net game; Lendl both power and spin on his groundstrokes but again, not the net game. McEnroe had the net game but lacked the power on the groundstrokes, though I do think he had a complete game that mirrored Laver's -- minus the critical factor of power.
The Julius Heldman article is here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5697354&postcount=1616
I will give McEnroe this, I do think his serve was superior to Laver's. McEnroe had a fantastic serve in his prime but he didn't have Laver's groundstroke power. I think Laver was a little faster also but McEnroe was extremely quick.
If Justine Henin served 121mph I don't think Laver would have a problem with power.
Daneil Bracialli the Italian serves in the 140's all the time, although he's banned for match fixing for a while. Sometimes short people just have such live shoulders it doesn't matter that they're short and they just serve big anyway.
He uses the height thing against Laver all the time to make Federer look better. I have told him he doesn't need to do that to make Federer look good because Federer is superb. That's his thing and I don't think you can change that.
It isn't just about the power on serve. Your general height can have little to do with how much power you are able to generate off any particular stroke, but if you think about it for just one second, you will realize that your height can cause a particular limitation off your serve.
A little rude, but unfortunately the move to the former pro player forum assured us all that this would happen.
The worst part about this is that many people on this forum are unwillingly to admit what is so obvious to everyone. That is what makes it a bit sad. There is no harm in being biased, problems only arise when you think you're above it all when you are clearly not.
I don't think anyone would deny that many jealous fanboys have posted in this thread. :lol:
what really sets him apart is:
-.play out in the most dificult situations
-.all round court supreme ability
I love your signature.
Well the guy he got it from is one of the GOAT candidates of posters.
Laver was too short. 5'8? Cmon :lol:
that's some really good playing by a 36 yo.
(Sigh...), like she serve consistently at 121 mph everytime. And her serve isn't even considered as a weapon anyway, pretty much that includes almost all the female players. The WTA is NOT like the ATP, where there's many big gunners, and are atleast 6'. I don't care how great technique you have, being small have it's limitation. A 5'8" player can pratice all he wants, but he's not going to serve like Karlovic, Isner or Roddick.
If the modern game is suited for an undersized player to reach the very top, then where are they at ?? You haven't seen it either from the 90s to the present. Don't tell me it's a coincidence that there wasn't any great athlete with gifted talent at 5'8" for all of those years, while there were many at 6'0"-6'4". No one is buying that. Okay?
You don't get it. Even if Federer doesn't exist, that's not going to change my mind. And why should I? I don't want to lie. It's the truth...there's no dominant player at 5'8". You know that.
121 for a woman is like 140mph for a man. She's a woman and she served as big as James Blake.
He's been back on tour for some time now.
You still don't get it. Henin can throw in 121 once in a while but still she's not considered a great server. While I doubt that Laver can throw in 140, but even if he can once in awhile, that doesn't prove he would be a great server. Fact is...no undersized player was ever a great server especially when compare to some of the all time great who are atleast 6'+. And the top server today are Ivo and Isner, who are incredibly tall. Capiche?
^^^Idem eadem idem vetus litanicam.
Please translate for us "Non-Latinos"...
It means "Same Old Litany."
gleiche alte Litanei
stessa litania vecchia
samma gamla litania
dezelfde oude litanie
λένε αν επαναληφθεί κάτι αρκετοί άνθρωποι θα πιστεύουν ότι τελικά αυτό ως γεγονός
Now you know how everyone feels about the weak era nonsense.
I'm telling you, pc1, you're being taken for a ride.
Weak era can never be proven. I'm sure there have been weak era but as we just have to go with what players did in their times. I'm sure we all have opinions there.
I need a ride to the city today. What time can you pick me up? I'll chip in for gas.
The taller player has an advantage serving. More margin for error, leverage, 'easy power.'
However, there are advantages to being a shorter player (as long as they are also a great athlete with skill). Movement is the most obvious. A lower center of gravity allows for the ability to change direction quickly. Also, the ability to get to the net quickly, maintain balance and set up for the 1st volley. Now, the tall player will have the reach advantage to cover the net, which can make up for the lack of quickness and reaction time. If you can just stick your racquet out in either direction and hit volleys no matter how wide the passing shot is hit, that would give you an edge.
Laver was before my time, but based on the clips I've seen, I can't imagine anybody having a better 1st volley than Rod Laver. That being said, I agree that it was a completely different game in Laver's day.
That doesn't stop anyone.
Well, you'll have to let TMF know. Just don't expect to arrive at your intended destination.
Only a few fans from planet TT in former pro player forum believe tennis and all sport stay constant, worse is some even believe sport regress over time(LOL). In the real world, anyone in their right mind knows tennis gets better because of more athletes around the world competing, with more talent, athletic, stronger, faster players than Laver's time. All sports push the present/future athletes to be better. Of couse 6 or 7 years span may not makd a difference, but 15 years, 25 years, etc...you see the game has improve thus play at a higher level. The best players today beat the best players of the past generations. Any fans who's been watching tennis will tell you that experts/historians/ex-pro players share the same view.
I guess I'll have to jog then.
And the world has gotten a lot smarter since then, also.
"Human intelligence may have actually peaked before our ancient predecessors ever left Africa, Gerald Crabtree writes in two new journal articles. Genetic mutations during the past several millennia are causing a decline in overall human intellectual and emotional fitness, he says. Evolutionary pressure no longer favors intellect, so the problem is getting exponentially worse."
Perhaps TMF's ancestors would have known better, but at least most TT bloggers (aka "anyone in their right mind") think tennis gets better day after day.
Maybe the answer is that we're both right: today's tennis greats are better athletes but dumber players.
"Me see ball. Me hit ball. Me hit ball hard. Me hit ball fast." --R. Nadal IV
According to hoodjem, players/coaches have more knowledge, experience from the past/present makes them dumber.
I believe that this is the opposite of what I was suggesting.
Here's what I wrote.
"dumber" does not equal "more knowledge"
:???: (Do I really need to write this.?)
If not, then you agree they are less knowledgeable than the people in the 60s?
You said today's are dumber, can you prove that?
You're absolutely right: exacerbating the problems of over-population is an excellent demonstration of our declining intelligence.
Before I was sitting on the fence about whether the human race is getting dumber. But the above statistics prove we are. Thank you.
Yeah, Neanderthal and Homosapien are more intelligent than us.
Only way you can be excused is if you are 7 years old. Judging by your posts, that is your mental age, anyway.
Is your post any better?
As for the decline of intelligence, we better hurry and come up with solutions to our problems for the benefit of our idiot descendants. We'll leave a detailed readme.
Exactly, **** sapiens is more intelligent.
We are typically getting off the topic when that one poster tends to post his same old litany.
Mick3391 who started the thread realized that Laver was a tremendous player after finally viewing him. He saw what many of us saw over the years and came to the conclusion that Laver was great.
So I do salute him in that he was open minded.
There is no need to keep responding to the same tired argument that happens in every thread here it seems. It's really not a part of THIS thread.
world pop went past 7 billion since then..is'nt it a laugh. :neutral:
To be fair, threads in this forum go off topic pretty much every time, regardless of whether or not TMF has made a post. There was a time when every thread became a Rosewall/Hoad debate.
Also, there are many people who think Laver was great but not necessarily the greatest. There shouldn't be any hard feelings.
What about the thead doubles GOAT ?
There were plenty of posts that went off topic. But since it was about the B. Brothers, you didn't mind the thread was hijack. Funny you would never "solute" the OP, but you would had the thread was related to any players during Laver's era, lol.
what tennis has earned at the ground level, it has lost at the top.
I was looking at the 25 ' 1975 Dallas finals link, where we could see how great was Laver, even at 36, losing an extremely close match to peak Borg.
but he was not perfect.The only real big title he never won was precisely the WCT Finals.He lost the 1971 and 1972 finals to Ken Rosewall, and lost the 1973 semis to Smith and that 1975 semifinal match against Borg.
Charlton Heston, the narrator mentions that this may have been the second best match at Dallas, after the 1972 final.I think the 1983 final that pitted Mc Enroe and Lendl is just as close.
I haven't watched a lot of tennis in the last 5-10 years.
Watched the 2013 AO. Was bored silly. WTF has tennis come to? Long boring rallies, few kill shots, zero excitement.
Courier, Sampras, Goran, Safin etc. They were exciting players.
This modern lot of players is hampered by the sludgy courts and the need to hit loopy topspin every freakin' shot. Speed up the damn courts already.
And Laver? One of the top 5 in any era.
Separate names with a comma.