Roddick Dumps Gilbert

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Springfield, Dec 12, 2004.

  1. jun

    jun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    548
    If you want to become better at something, you have to believe you can be better at it. Most pros go out there work on their weakness, and try to add another dimension to their games. Sometimes these changes may not be as clear or obvious, but they can make differences. Even Lleyton Hewitt says that he's trying to be more aggressive and come to net a little bit more. You need to keep adding things to your game otherwise others will pass you by.

    Even Martina Navrotilova said that only recently, she has learned to hit one handed backhand confidently, and that she has learned new footwork and that she's tinkering with her forehand to get more topspin. This was about 2 years ago.

    Your game may not be broken, but you have to look into areas where you can become better. Otherwise, what's the point of practicing? Hit more forehands and be satisfied?

    If Roddick is going to beat Federer or Hewitt, he's not going to beat him by playing cat and mouse from baseline. In what other ways, can roddick not play cat and mouse from baseline? It's pretty clear,isn't it?
     
  2. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    Regarding the suggestion of Roddick taking on Todd Martin as coach... Didn't Mardy Fish beat him to it already?
     
  3. Kevin Patrick

    Kevin Patrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,025
    When Graf started dating Agassi, I wondered how she'd deal with hearing Gilbert blather in her ear for the duration of a match. She sat next to him at one tournament & moved to the bleachers the next tourney. 2 years (& one kid) later Gilbert was gone.
    Of course this is more about personality conflicts than game conflicts. Roddick's family seems very reserved compared to Gilbert. We'll probably never know why they broke up(there seems to be too much mutual respect) but this is from tennisweek.com:

    "Recently, Andy Roddick informed that he has decided to continue his career without my services," Gilbert said in the statement. "I have enjoyed all of my time with Andy. He has been a great student of the game during the time we worked together and I am very proud of the results that were achieved. While I clearly believe that there is still a great deal of work to be done, Andy clearly does not feel that way. I wish Andy all of the best and will be rooting for him."

    Roddick did not offer specific details behind the decision to dismiss Gilbert in a statement he issued today through his management company, SFX Sports.

    "The decision to not rehire Brad Gilbert for the 2005 season is based on what I think is best for my game at this time," Roddick said in a statement. "Any more on this situation is a private matter between coach and player. That being said, I enjoyed my time with Brad and wish him continued success in his future."

    Exactly what created the rift remains unclear at this point. Rumors are circulating that Roddick's family was not exactly enamored of Gilbert's vocal coaching style and were not satisfied with the progress the Wimbledon runner-up was showing on the court, though Roddick finished the year ranked only one spot lower than last year and had shown a willingness to take advantage of his seismic serve by attacking the net more frequently. Roddick's parents — Jerry and Blanche — have been extremely supportive of their son since his junior days. His older brother John Roddick, a former All-American at the University of Georgia and current coach of the New York Sportimes WTT franchise who also runs a tennis academy in Texas, has been a strong influence throughout Andy's career as well. In fact, Roddick cited the desire to live closer to his brother as one of the reasons he moved from Boca Raton back to Austin, Texas earlier this year.

    The Roddick clan is a tight-knit group and there is speculation that the family will now play a greater role in his career with his brother or father possibly traveling with him on the road. Rumors also persist Roddick may be interested in former No. 1 Jim Courier as a potential successor to Gilbert though Roddick's management company would not confirm if Courier was a candidate for the coaching vacancy. Roddick's close friend and Davis Cup teammate, Mardy Fish, hired the recently-retired Todd Martin as his new coach, replacing Kelly Jones.

    The 34-year-old Courier, who worked with Roddick during his tenure as coach of the U.S. Davis Cup team, shares stylistic similarities with Roddick. Both are intense, physical players whose games are based around the serve and forehand. Both men faced formidable rivals with imposing all-court styles and athleticism to match — Courier compiled a 4-16 career record against 14-time Grand Slam champion Pete Sampras; Roddick has registered a 1-8 record against top-ranked Roger Federer, winning just one set against the Swiss stylist in their last four meetings.

    more at:

    http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tenni...howarticle&newsid=11890&bannerregion=
     
  4. mlee2

    mlee2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    Roddick's volleying skills are due to his confidence (or lack thereof). Good days = good confidence and visa versa. He has the mechanics/fundementals.

    I can't believe some hacks on this board have the gall to reduce Roddick's net skills to some club player...pleease...

    Everything else I wanted to say has been said.
     
  5. VictorS.

    VictorS. Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,227
    This is obviously a hot topic right now. I think people are knit-picking in regards to Roddick's ability from the baseline. Of course, he doesn't hit the ball early or on the rise like an Andre Agassi. However, he can certainly hold his own in baseline ralleys even when players return his serve. Let's not forget some of the wins he's notched this year:

    beat Safin three times (Miami, Bangkok, and TMC Houston)

    Beat Tommy Haas a couple times (Olympics and I believe TMS Montreal or Cincinnati)

    beat Hewitt at Queens Club
     
  6. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,816
    i think roddick dumped him cuz gilbert was helping roddick with strategy and confidence but not with improving his game. and the davis cup losses were the straw that broke the camels back, losing both matches on clay. on clay u cant hide ur weaknesses. that and an early round exit at the french open again this year proves he was no better on clay this year then last year. without improving, roddick isnt going to beat federer and i dont think he thinks he can improve with gilbert.
     
  7. VictorS.

    VictorS. Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,227
    I'm curious. Was Brad Gilbert behind the new serve and volley tactics Roddick implemented in Houston and Seville?? So by dumping Gilbert, is Roddick abandoning this strategy? It'll be interesting to see who Roddick hires and how he wants Roddick to play.
     
  8. jings

    jings Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    863
    I'm not sure it's nit-picking with Roddick's volley, but it is the weakest physical part of his game, I think we can agree on that. Henman the Warrior does as well as he does because he normally just needs the one volley, whether at full stretch or otherwise - he's that good. I'm not anti Roddick volleying, or rather "shortening points" which is a better way to think of his change up imo, so long as he's constructing the point properly and coming in the right way. Henman gets away with murder sometimes because he has such great touch, but Roddick is made to look very bad at the net because he's often not coming in the right way and ultimately giving himself a tougher 1st volley than he might want / can deal with. Roddick's volley is good enough to deal with limited testing by the top guys. If what we're talking about here is Roddick creating a strategy to beat Fed, then if Gilbert was working on strategy as well, and given the changes we see in Roddick's game it's fair to think he might have been, then he's silly to get rid of him. I think Roddick was going in the right direction, it just needed time.
     
  9. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    (Transcribed by me.)

    CNN WORLD SPORT anchor Candy Reid interviews Peter Bodo, senior editor of Tennis Magazine.

    (Candy Reid asks if the firing is a surprise.)

    Peter Bodo: It’s not surprising, given two factors. You know, Andy’s a restless young man, you, you know the type of young man he is temperamentally, he’s a little bit different from Brad, he’s a little bit different, from a different generation. And also I think, you know, the shelf life of Brad can be relatively short. Brad is a very outspoken guy, he’s a very, uh, he’s an ambitious guy, he likes the limelight, likes publicity, so it really at some level isn’t very surprising at all.
     
  10. mlee2

    mlee2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    I agree that Roddick's volley tactics (how and WHEN he moves to net) are horrible but then again, that can be said about so many players.

    Once he actually gets up there with a decent set up, he's actually competent up there...given that he's *into it* and confident up there.

    Jings, I also share your sentiments about Henman. It really is unreal how his volleys let him get away with, considering the p*ss poor setups he does sometimes. He has the best volleys of all time: his volleying skills bow to no one...including Sampras, Edberg, and Rafter.
     
  11. @wright

    @wright Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,567
    I think Roddick should hire Mike Agassi as his new coach. Ed, you had me rolling with the Dan'l Boone comment! I wonder if Agassi ever drank frontier-style whiskey and skinned coon on changeovers?
     
  12. ty slothrop

    ty slothrop Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Messages:
    552
    funny, I was thinking Richard Williams
     
  13. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I think Brad was telling him to come in all the time which is stupid for him. I also think he doesnt fully respect Roddick's oppents, Federer, Hewitt, etc....and he is so biased in his own thoughts that he analyzes the matchups in a way that is not reasonable and you end up deluding yourself in the match. You have to give your player confidence but you cant diminish the abilities of opponents to the point the evaluation has no bearing on reality and I think that is what Brad did for Andy's opponents.
     
  14. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    LOL, Roddick has the volley mechanics/fundamentals? No one or very few compare Roddick's volley skill to club players. They are comparing his with professional players.

    Just tell me, who does Roddick volley better out of current top 10?

    Federer/Hewitt/Safin/Moya/Henman/Coria/Agassi/Nalbandia/Gaudio. You must be blind to say Roddick has the volley mechanics and fundamentals! He is bending his waist instead of his knees, he is swing rather than punching, he has loose wrist at point of contact rather than firm. You name it. If it were just experience, he should be much better by now. He sure has tried to come to the net the whole year.
     
  15. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I think he volleys better than Agassi and Gaudio, among the top tenners. That is it.
     
  16. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    Gaudio is a very good volleyer, has great feel and touch at net. Agassi's volley technique is sound, he is just not up to the net that much.
     
  17. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    While not as horrible as Roddick's, Agassi's volleys are certainly far from being "sound".

    I would classify Roddick as a non-volleyer. Roddick has never been, is not, and will never be, able to volley competently - for the same reason that David Ortiz will never win a Gold Glove. Notice Ortiz hardly ever plays defensively? There's a reason for that - the same reason that Roddick shouldn't be going near the net.

    As for Agassi, I would classify him as a desperate volleyer who never had the potential to be more. His volleying technique is bad - period. He volleys using similar mechanics as he uses for his groundstrokes. He swings too much, and he is too far away from the net. He knows he's not a volleyer, as, whenever he's at net (well, in the general vicinity, at least), he looks like he'd rather be anywhere but there. He volleys like he's in a panic - desperate to get back to the comfort of the baseline.

    In every sport, some athletes are more multi-dimensional than are others. That's life, simply. It's not right or wrong or good or bad - unless someone repeatedly tries to do something they possess no natural capacity for.
     
  18. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Rabbit, I think you were trying to point out that Fed is a great all around player, but once you start comparing him to some other great players, you'll find the disagreements come flying at you. Yes, Fed is a great player and he may not be the best at every single aspect of the game, but he's so close that we can't use others to compare him with because that will cause arguments. Fed is just that good that you can't even say any part of his game is worse than some of the best ever at their particular strengths. I'm still wondering how you could think that Roddick has a better forehand and that Michael Chang moves better than Roger.
     
  19. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,542
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    Rickson - I had more than a little trouble following your post. My estimation of some of these abilities comes from 32 years of watching and playing tennis.

    With regard to Federer. He is a great player, but he is nowhere near GOAT. One good year does not a champion make, otherwise Matts Wilander would be held up as a potential GOAT. You're probably wondering why, well Matts Wilander was the last player to win 3/4 Grand Slams in one year. He swapped with Federer and won the French instead of Wimbledon, but I believe he made the quarter of Wimbledon which means for all intents and purposes he had a better year than Federer. There are many who don't know who Matts is now. And, to be fair, Matts' 1989 was a nose dive. Let's hope Federer doesn't follow suit.

    My point with Roddick was that Federer does not hit his forehand as hard as Roddick. I stand by that. Federer also does not miss as many forehands as Roddick, ergo he is more consistent off both wings than Roddick which proves the point Bill Tilden made in the 20s that tennis matches are won by the player who makes less errors. Nick Bollettieri challenged that theory with his academy style of tennis which encourages players to hit more winners than their opponents.

    Federer is not as fleet of foot as Michael Chang in his prime or Johann Kriek in his. What he does have is a better sense of anticipation, much like Jimmy Connors & John McEnroe. Federer, like them, has a great sense of where the ball is going next. Tell you the truth, Ilie Nastase had better anticipation and movement than Federer. Don't bother arguing that, because it's a fact.

    Federer does not, IMO, volley as well as a host of players, Edberg, McEnroe (IMO the two best volleyers in the history of the sport), Sampras volleyed better in his prime, Kraijcek, Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Roche all had better volleys than Federer. Federer's volleys look so good now because the rest of the field is so bad (as professionals go) at net. Federer does have better groundstrokes than most but not all of those listed (Rosewall)

    Agassi, Connors, and Borg all have/had better groundstrokes than Federer in their prime. Federer absolutely has better volleys than any of those guys.

    Don't get me wrong here, I am a huge Federer fan and have no doubt that he is the best player out there right now. That said, Federer's game is a throwback to what used to be the standard in professional tennis. His game looks soooo good because it is different than the carbon copy ping pong players that have dominated the tour for the last 5 - 8 years. I mean give me a break along side Ferrero and Nalbandian, anyone who stepped inside the baseline would look like an absolute genius!

    Federer does hit shots that have unbelievable angles, but trust me, the same thing was said about John McEnroe when he was at the top of his game. And, nobody has (or will IMO) equalled McEnroe's 1984 when he went 82-3 for the year. He lost 3 matches all year, and one of them he shouldn't have. He was up 2 sets to love against Lendl in the French Open final and decided he could stay back with Lendl. He went on that year, two weeks later, to win Wimbledon against another great player, Jimmy Connors and then decimated Ivan Lendl at the U.S. Open. Like I said before, McEnroe came up and still comes up with the most unbelievable angles at net. He is a freak of nature.

    Federer hasn't won two Grand Slams like Rod Laver. Federer hasn't won 5 straight Wimbledons like Borg, or even 3 straight like Sampras. He likewise doesn't have 6 French titles like Borg.

    Don't take my word for it, listen to what players who have played both Federer and Sampras say. They give the nod to Sampras on about half the shots that are mentioned. They say Federer is a better mover, but Sampras had a better serve. Federer has a better backhand, but Sampras has a better volley. It goes on.

    My point is while Federer is a great player, he isn't the best ever. That mantle can only be assumed after a career is over. I have seen the same question asked when Nastase was in his prime because he could do things other players couldn't, when Borg was in his prime because of his Grand Slam record, when McEnroe was in his prime because of his awesome ability, when Sampras was in his prime because of his Grand Slam count, and now with Federer. You'll see that regardless of who is playing, the question is always asked or the claim is always made that the current number 1 is the greatest ever. Your point of reference for this question is very shallow given the length of time you have been following the game, I understand that. The one warning I give to you is don't assume that your point of reference is absolute. Because clearly, you have a lot to learn about tennis.
     
  20. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,787
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    I fully agree we must wait until his career is finished to say where Federer is in the all time list. We need respect for the predecessors.

    Also agree that Nastase had an amazing anticipation and improvisation.

    In terms of volleys, I'd say Fed is not so solid in terms of resisting at the net to a heavy barrage. Reason IMO: his arm is not so strong as say Sampras's.

    Indeed, thank heavens Fed shows us again how beautiful tennis can be. There is a reason why tennis stadiums are emptier these days and it comes to the quality of shows during the last years.

    And yes, it would be diifficult to match Mac's 84 year.

    Good and well-reasoned posting, Rabbit, IMO.
     
  21. bcaz

    bcaz Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    986
    Props, Rabbit -- one of the best posts I've seen. Couldn't have been said better. Tilden, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer ...

    Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Bonds ...
     
  22. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Personally I feel Federer's forehand is atleast as hard as the other current players in addition to being better overall, and may be the best overall forehand of all time. I personally dont feel his forehand is not a "standout shot". I also feel his year overall could be argued to be better than McEnroe of 84, or Wilander of 88, it is not definitively so, but it could be argued. I am not the only one who has suggested it might be, some important figures in the game I have noted suggesting as such.
    I also dont see Rosewall controling Federer from both the net and baseline personally.

    I do agree his career not be compared to the best ever of yet, but nobody's could at 23 that I am aware of. So that does not make him unique. He is also not the best ever at every aspect, but nobody is. Nobody would come close to being the best ever at every aspect.

    I personally feel Conner's abilities were exposed to be more limited than previously believed when Borg began dominating their matches when Conners was still close to his best.
    I dont believe his groundstrokes to be better than Federer's, among others. There is much more to quality of groundstroking than power per time.
     
  23. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,542
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    Well, these boards are about opinions. And, to listen to some of the guys who've been around the game for more years than me, Rosewall's groundstrokes were good enough to win the French and reach the finals of Wimbledon. With regard to his career, Rosewall won his first Grand Slam in 1953 and reached the finals of both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1974 losing both to Connors in what is widely considered his best year. Checking my math, that is a stretch of 21 years, meaning that Rosewall won the French when he was 18 and reached the finals of his last two when he was 39. Rosewall's backhand is widely regarded as one of, if not the best in the history of the sport. Groundstrokes largely account for winning the French which Rosewall did twice. Federer has yet to win the French or advance deep in the tournament. IMO, he must do both in order to pass Sampras on the list. And, just for the record, Rosewall has 8 slam titles, 4 Aussie, 2 French, and 2 Opens.

    Further, your conclusion is incorrect. Volleys and groundstrokes do not constitute a complete game. Federer's serve and Rosewall's serve are not even in the same class. Rosewall's serve basically allowed him to put the ball in play, it was not a weapon. Federer has better foot speed than Rosewall. Federer is bigger and stronger than Rosewall. Rosewall was simply awesome off the ground and a better player at net than Federer IMO. IMO, Rosewall had a better return of serve than Federer, but that may change if Federer improves.

    I believe I said Connors in his prime. I assume we're talking about the same player here. Connors in his prime hit his groundstorkes every bit as hard as anyone today. Watch his finals against Rosewall in 74 or his match against Borg on clay at Forest Hills in 76 (which was also a final). I have done both recently and his ball speed would match the majority of today's players, Federer included. Connors strokes lacked the topspin that Federer's do, but he took the ball earlier and that in combination with the flat ball he hit robbed his opponents of time.

    ...a developed Borg exposed his abilities... I don't know what that means. Borg won five (5) consecutive Wimbledon titles and six (6) overall French titles. He lost at the French to two people in his whole career meaning that he quit playing the French after winning it. He did so to concentrate his efforts on Wimbledon. Further, this means that he won the French and Wimbledon back to back on more than one occassion. Borg quit playing Wimbledon when he lost, the first loss after his consecutive victories to McEnroe.

    I agree that Borg's abilities were exposed. They exposed what is generally considered the best athlete to ever step on a tennis court. They exposed what is still the highest winning percentage in entered Grand Slams of any player. They exposed a player who won consistently against a field of what is now Hall of Fame players. Granted, Borg left the game at 26, but to me, this makes his achievements even greater. The man won 11 Grand Slams by the time he had turned 25! He also won all of his grand slams on the two most diverse surfaces in the game. That speaks volumes about the ability of his game to adapt. Please don't even start with the level of competition because if anything, there were more better players at the top of the game then than now.

    Your logic escapes me completely. The history of tennis is based on grand slam results. If you want to compare the best year ever, we can do that as well.

    First, let's compare Wilander's 88 to Federer's 04 in Grand Slam results. Both won the Aussie.....Wilander won the French and Federer got put out in the 3rd round....Wilander got to the quarters of Wimbledon and Federer won it...both won the U.S. Opens. Last time I checked, the quarters are further into a tournament than a 3rd round. Wilander lost to Mecir who took the eventual winner, Edberg to 4 sets. Federer lost to Kuerten who then lost to Nalbandian in the quarters, two rounds later. So, Wilander won two more rounds than Federer in each of their 3/4 years.

    McEnroe's best year was better than (to date) Federer's best year. 82-3 is a better overall mark, plain and simple.

    Let me say that I am a huge Federer fan. He has had a spectacular two-year run. But, two years does not make someone the best to ever step on the court in every category. Let's see if he can do it for 5 or 6 more years. If he can, and he can win the French, then I'll be the first to proclaim him as one of the best ever. If he wins the true Grand Slam, all four in one calendar year, then I'll say he's probably better than Laver.

    To listen to you and Rickson, Federer will win the Grand Slam every year from here on out. You'd better stop and consider a couple of things. First, Federer found out this year he's not made of steel, he tore his thigh muscle. Should he become susceptible to injury, like the Williams, then his potential is nil. Both of the Williams girls are better at every aspect of the game than their contemporaries (just ask them), but they can't stay healthy. Should Federer succomb to the same problem, then he's going to be just another player on the tour with some good results and some bad results. Second, the money in the game today may cause Federer to become unmotivated. Not everyone in the game is concerned with their historical mark, just ask another (probably more) talented player, Rios. Yes, I think Rios is more talented than Federer. The difference between the two is motivation, plain and simple. Federer has not displayed the singlemindedness that made Lendl and Sampras great. He has displayed the talent of some other players like McEnroe, Nastase, and Rios. This makes them a joy to watch, but none of them could keep that level up consistently over the life of their career. Federer has yet to demonstrate any different IMO.

    SpecialK would be proud of this post.
     
  24. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,542
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    And we haven't even mentioned Sampras.

    davey25 - I find it amusing that I had the same discussion a few years back on these boards with Sampras fans. They were touting Sampras as the GOAT. I said then, and you have proved it true now, that there would be a player in the future (I had no idea it would be this fast) and his fans would be discounting Sampras' achievments and touting him as better in every category.

    I find the stock in my future as a fortune teller is rising.
     
  25. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    You based your accessment McEnroe's year was better than Federer's not strictly on slam results, but on his overall year record.
    You based Wilander's strictly on slam results. So I was pointing out your inconsistency which I can see has greatly irritated you. If you combine both it could be argued Federer had the best year of the three. There are many knowledgeable experts who have said on air this year Federer may have the best year in the last 30 years, so I can live with that being my opinion even if you disagree with it.

    Neither Rickson or I claimed Federer would win the grand slam every year from here on in, or close to it. Do not patronize us because you are bitter we disagree with you. Nor did I claim him to better than Sampras in every category. Just because some Roger fans dare to compare his tennis to past greats does not equate to claiming him to be better than a particular other great in every category.

    When I was referring to Borg exposing his abilities, I used those words right after I referred to Conners. Thus I was implying he exposed Conner's abilities as being less oustanding than previously thought IMO. I assumed the way I wrote my statement would be easy to understand, apparently not for some.
     
  26. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Hmmm, seems pretty easy to understand I was referring to Borg exposing Conner's abilities. I wonder if anybody else would have had trouble interpreting this. :roll:
     
  27. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,542
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    My bad. It read to me like Borg's abilities were exposed, not that Borg was exposing anyone else's abilities. However, to my knowledge, Borg never played anyone named Conners. :)

    Borg didn't expose Connors' forehand as that would have been a low sliced ball to his forehand that made him reach out. Quite the contrary, Connors ate up topspin strokes because they allowed him to take the ball at a height that he was comfortable with. Pancho Segura once remarked that "Jimbo loved guys who hit topspin". Nonetheless, Borg did enjoy the better of the matches later in their rivalry and I fully acknowledge such. At the time, I rooted for Borg to do just that.

    I have no idea when you began watching tennis, but Connors made an interesting transition in his game, one that Roddick and other pros are foreced to make. Connors began by blowing opponents off court with his power. Later in his career, Connors had learned how to win. There is a big difference in the two as I myself have found out over the years. Knowing what shots to hit against someone is as effective as being able to hit one shot (or two or three) really hard. Connors journey through tennis was a great example of how one's game matures if one stays competitive at any level.

    The McEnroe/Wilander argument was in response to your nobody had a better year than Federer deal. Depending on how you look at years, there have been two better, one by McEnroe and one by Wilander. If you disagree with that, then we'll just agree to disagree. Actually, there have been many more better than Federer's 04, but I digress.

    You should proabably reread Rickson's posts. He does claim Federer to be the best at everything and your subsequent rally to his defense was the impetus for my assumption that you were of the same vein of thought.

    Bitter? No and that's the problem with these type forums. There is no intonation and it's hard to communicate tone. I'm not bitter, merely pointing out deficiencies in your argument, a rebuttal as it were.
     
  28. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    rabbit is there a word count feature when you post? that was a gooder man and you even overran the allowable limit and had to create a new post just to complete your thought process! i'm proud of you man! i'm sure SecialK is proud of you too because that was his signature move :) --kinda like the Newcombe buggy whip forehand.. nobody ever wins when you discuss who is better especially when it spans players in a number of years, not to mention that GOAT can have 3 primary meanings #1 being GOAT=best ever for a period of time, #2 = best over a long period of time ie most majours, and #3 = best player as far as talent and abilities. also, why is it that just because you voice an opinion, others assume you are angry? also, where do these kids get off thinkin they know it all at the ripe age of 15 or whatever they are? like they've been around long enough to accumulate much wisdom. i remember when i was young, i sought out and learned from people who knew more than me..many kids dont seem to do this.they seem to think they are GOAT even tho they know verylittle. i really dont think that Fed is the best ever at any single aspect of the game, but he is high quality at more aspects i think than any other player ever and i think that makes him an amazing one of a kind...he just doesnt have a weakness that i can see..i dont know if that makes him GOAT or not..all i know is that he sure is fun to watch, and i dont know that there has ever been anyone who is that complete of a player.. i also agree with you that there were alot more and better athletes playing pro tennis before than now. we've been lucky enough to witrness this and even see it in person which is a lot more relavent than info you happen to hear about a player from other people or by reading the propaganda. now you have trained tennis uni dimensional players rather than athletic multiple dimensional ones in large part with some exceptions. i just watched a rafter/sampras match and, other than maybe fed, there really isnt anyone on tour as far as i am concerned who have the abilities and althleticism of either of these dudes...i'm not trying to oneup you in length here oh..also why is it that some posters just look for any words they can misinterpret and twist around, any litle bit of minutia, and some exception to a basic truth just to bust peoples chops about? later..
     
  29. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Fair enough. I do feel beyond any doubt Roger had the best year in the past 15 years though. Do we atleast agree on that? I cant see how the other greatest years in that time, Becker of 89, Sampras of 94 and 97, Agassi of 99, and Courier of 92, can be considered better.

    I dont feel Roger is the best ever at every aspect of the game. I do though feel he has standout areas, which you stated you dont believe he does, that is the sum of his parts that makes him so great. I agree with the latter but I feel his forehand and return of serve are standout shots. I personally feel his forehand is the best and strongly disagree with those who say Roddicks or Agassis is better. That is my opinion, but most experts and fans seem to have rated his forehand the best in the game now as well. Even if it not the hardest I find it the best overall. I would disagree his only advantage over Roddick is not missing forehands. He actually misses the same amount in most of their matches, and hits more winners off that side. There are only rare exceptions to that like the Wimbledon final this year and the Canadian Open semi last year where the forehand winners were almost equal with Roddick slightly ahead. Most of their matches that is not the case at all though, and I have seen and carefully viewed all their matches. The game of Andre Agassi isnt based around hitting winners as much so I dont look for that as being as much a factor in their matches.

    As for the return there are different ways to evaluate the return. I feel his is underrated and as good as anyone elses since he contacts, completes his follow through, and gets back in play, more returns against big serves than any of the other greatest returns like Agassi, Safin, and Hewitt do. Hewitt comes the closest in that sense. The serving stats of the biggest servers versus him would back me up on alot of that, again there are other facets that may make his less impressive to some but I rate his at the top for that reason. If you are talking about the explosiveness it is definitely Agassi or Safin as the top two, however that isnt what I value most in a return unless the difference is even more significant(Williams versus the other women). Again that is my opinion.
     

Share This Page