Rafael Nadal's insult utterance to Sampras era

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by tennissportsrog

Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport.

"Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.
It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve." said Nadal.


http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx

Originally Posted by Gorecki

looping serve... loop, loop loop loop looop loop x 40, stall for 40 minutes tu tuck hair, arranje butt hemorroids, Rinse & Repeat...

soooooo much better

should we be surprised to see that the classless nadal has bad taste ?

the most boring and inesthetical player ever created in the whole tennis history... who dares to say "sampras wasn't fun"...... that's absolutely hilarous !
will his lack of class ever stop ?

[DrpShot!]

I love watching Nadal towel off and pick his bum for a full 40 seconds between points, great drama. It actually would be great drama if they timed today's players. Nadal would have to be ready to serve or receive within the ITF's 25 seconds or he loses the next point. No doubt the number of 30 ball rallies would go down. He'd still win on the clay, it would just be a lot more fun to watch.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

should we be surprised to see that the classless nadal has bad taste ?

the most boring and inesthetical player ever created in the whole tennis history... who dares to say "sampras wasn't fun"...... that's absolutely hilarous !
will his lack of class ever stop ?

It's all opinion my friend. No matter what I think we all have to marvel at Nadal's unique style of play and his ability to win.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

should we be surprised to see that the classless nadal has bad taste ?

the most boring and inesthetical player ever created in the whole tennis history... who dares to say "sampras wasn't fun"...... that's absolutely hilarous !
will his lack of class ever stop ?

Sampras was considered boring by a lot of people.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Sampras was considered boring by a lot of people.

True enough. People used to look at Sampras and wish for the old days with Connors, Nastase and McEnroe. I would guess that if Sampras played before Connors, Nastase and McEnroe many of those same people would wish for the days of Sampras.

It all depends on the opponent who is playing the great. If Nadal plays Federer in some matches it may be considered exciting. Yet nowadays to me the Nadal-Federer matchup to me is the worst nightmare I can see in a majors. Not that Federer can't win but it's the same old type of play. A rerun which we've seen a few trillion times. Add that Nadal is usually the heavy favorite and usually wins especially on red clay and I don't want to see that matchup.

Sampras-Agassi could be very boring if Pete was on his game. His serve could overpower even the Agassi return. Yet a Rafter-Agassi or even a Rafter-Sampras to me (especially when Rafter was at his peak in the late 1990's) was better because of the difference styles of play.

To me John Isner is extremely boring to watch. He is rarely broken on serve and he rarely breaks himself. His groundies to me are not exactly the greatest. Yet some may love to watch Isner play.

[Lefty78]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Sampras was considered boring by a lot of people.

More so for his personality than his game, imo

[BrooklynNY]

Greatness is boring.

Federer is boring, he just talks to you more.


Anytime one person completely dominates, it can be considered boring. I often read here people say 'clay season is boring, Rafa wins everything'

Tim Duncan is boring too, the guy wins multiple championships and doesn't make an announcement of how great he is, and how he should now be called by his self imposed nickname.. 'the king'

Perhaps Pete should have embroidered "believe" or "286" on his shoes.

=\

[TennisDawg]

Seems during the Sampras, Agassi era, tennis had a lot of boring personalities. Agassi basically hated tennis, by his own admission if you read his book, now Agassi is playing exhibitions, thought he hated tennis-boring. Courier was a bore, reading novels during changeovers, surprised he's still involved with coaching tennis, not an inspiring attitude, to me. Chang had a brief moment during the French Open, but really had a boring personality. Sampras is great, but some call him the Tim Duncan of tennis--boring. Sampras serves volleys a winner, picks up the balls "tongue droops over his lower lip" Sampras hits an over head winner "tongue droops over his lower lip" changeover. Sampras nets a return " tongue droops over his lower lip" and so on.

Give me Nadal, Djokovic, Federer anyday. These guys have a passion for the game and have the style and class.

[BTURNER]

Interesting tennis is unpredictable tennis. The fewer shots, spins and tactics employed, the more predictable each point becomes. Really interesting tennis has texture to it, and competing tempos, rather than two dimensional or flat tennis. Its not about a player, or a style its about a chemistry that goes on between two players the ball and the surface.

[Xavier G]

I agree with B Turner.

[Xavier G]

I prefer Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to Sampras, Agassi and Ivanisevic too.

[tennissportsrog]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

I prefer Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to Sampras, Agassi and Ivanisevic too.

Oh, really?

[ViscaB]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

Interesting tennis is unpredictable tennis. The fewer shots, spins and tactics employed, the more predictable each point becomes. Really interesting tennis has texture to it, and competing tempos, rather than two dimensional or flat tennis. Its not about a player, or a style its about a chemistry that goes on between two players the ball and the surface.

The chemistry is key indeed. A great match is often between players with a different style. That's why people loved all those big Federer-Nadal matches.

Two strong serve players is a bore as is having two counterpunchers play each other.

[tennissportsrog]

Originally Posted by ViscaB

The chemistry is key indeed. A great match is often between players with a different style. That's why people loved all those big Federer-Nadal matches.

Two strong serve players is a bore as is having two counterpunchers play each other.

Djokovic vs Nadal = boring or fun. Djokovic vs Murray = boring. Nadal vs Murray = boring. Pete vs Goran = boring. etc. Sampras vs Federer = that was fan. Federer vs Djokovic = fun. etc.


Fedal = overrtead.

[zagor]

Even though I completely disagree with Nadal on this topic it still remains one of my favourite things he ever said, the way he smacked down Sampras fanboys hanging on his Wilanders was beautiful to see.

Of course, Fed on the other hand has nothing but praise for Pete's game, too funny.

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Originally Posted by tennissportsrog

Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport.

"Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.
It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve." said Nadal.


http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx

I agree with Nadal I found the 1990s era of men's tennis extremely boring the whole serve and volley game is dry. The players weren't able to return Sampras serve but now with improved technology, talent and fitness the players would have a field day with Sampras. You just can't serve and volley these days the players returns are too good.

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Originally Posted by TennisDawg

Seems during the Sampras, Agassi era, tennis had a lot of boring personalities. Agassi basically hated tennis, by his own admission if you read his book, now Agassi is playing exhibitions, thought he hated tennis-boring. Courier was a bore, reading novels during changeovers, surprised he's still involved with coaching tennis, not an inspiring attitude, to me. Chang had a brief moment during the French Open, but really had a boring personality. Sampras is great, but some call him the Tim Duncan of tennis--boring. Sampras serves volleys a winner, picks up the balls "tongue droops over his lower lip" Sampras hits an over head winner "tongue droops over his lower lip" changeover. Sampras nets a return " tongue droops over his lower lip" and so on.

Give me Nadal, Djokovic, Federer anyday. These guys have a passion for the game and have the style and class.

The personalities of Sampras, Agassi, Courier were extremely boring but the USA media pumped these guys up. The other part nobody really mentions is how unattractive Sampras, Agassi and Chang, Courier were as well. Agassi had a weight problem one minute he was thin next minute he's fat. These guys didn't have the sex appeal that Nadal and Djokovic have.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

The personalities of Sampras, Agassi, Courier were extremely boring but the USA media pumped these guys up. The other part nobody really mentions is how unattractive Sampras, Agassi and Chang, Courier were as well. Agassi had a weight problem one minute he was thin next minute he's fat. These guys didn't have the sex appeal that Nadal and Djokovic have.

Boring? Sampras perhaps, but not the others.

Agassi unattractive? Are you kidding? He had girls swooning over him, and he was totally obsessed with his own image right up until January 1995, even to the point of wearing a wig. Agassi was vanity personified in his "Image is Everything" days. Bollettieri had a young Agassi down as a future superstar in every way, on and off the court. Big things were expected of Agassi, so there was pressure on him to live up to those expectations. When Agassi said that he "hated tennis", he is talking about the misery that this pressure gave him during the toughest moments of his career.

Courier had the attitude of an old fashioned boxer. Totally dedicated to what he needed to do both on and off the court, and with a strong, uncompromising mentality towards it. You could tell that he had been living in somebody elses shadow when he was younger (i.e. in Agassi's shadow). He faced a different kind of pressure from Agassi, that of not being noticed much until he started winning big things. And Courier was the first of those American players to have what it took to dominate tennis, even though Sampras and Chang had both won a major before him, and Agassi reached major finals before him.

Sampras was all about the majors, especially Wimbledon. That was always what he was totally dedicated towards. He had to gain experience and find his way, and he went on to become the dominant player of his era. I did find Sampras a bit boring, but he achieved phenomenal results on the court, and that's all he cared about. That was always his aim.

Chang was always at a disadvantage because of his short size and build, but made up for that with a very strong mentality, and he was the first of that American generation to win a major.

[hoodjem]

My mother used to hate men's S&V tennis back in the 60s and 70s because, for her, the points were over too fast: one serve, one return, one volley, point over. Boringly repetitive.

Others hate the present game of relentless backcourt rallies: over and over and over and over and over again. Boringly repetitive.

I most enjoy matches in which there is either something in between (great strategy between all-court players waiting for the opening to hit a winner--either from the baseline or at the net), or a contrast of styles: great volleyer versus a great passer.