Are Osaka's groundstrokes GOAT level?

[skaj]

Come on, tell us who "the other girls with forehands as good as" Steffi's were/are.
We all love to have a good laugh now and then.

Since you respond to uncomfortable truth with hysterical laughter(and talking about yourself in plural), and not something worse, I guess I can tell without causing you too much harm. Some of the women whose forehands were as good as Graf's are Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur, for example.

 

[skaj]

I think Mugu is in Serena's league for groundstrokes. Henin has a better backhand. I think Serena's forehand is bigger than Venus', but I think the Venus serve plus one (serve followed by forehand) is second to none.

I don't know about Muguruza, I wouldn't say her strokes are in the same league. Henin's backhand is the best one-handed backhand ever, in my opinion, but it's a bit hard to compare it with a two-hander.
As for the Williamses and their forehands, I think Serena's is clearly better. That's one of the main advantages she has over her sister, although Venus has improved hers a lot later in her career.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Since you respond to uncomfortable truth with hysterical laughter(and talking about yourself in plural), and not something worse, I guess I can tell without causing you too much harm. Some of the women whose forehands were as good as Graf's are Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur, for example.

Those three would laugh you in your face.
Just have a look here at some Graf, Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur matches and how many winners they hit with their forehand in important matches:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/meta.html

You are confusing "big forehand" with "good forehand".
My, oh my....

 

[Milanez82]

No! Osaka has 4 slams which is awesome, but only 7 titles overall, with a career record of 251-139 (64%). I would say she has overachieved.

Or took advantage of weakest era in a long time

 

[skaj]

Those three would laugh you in your face.
Just have a look here at some Graf, Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur matches and how many winners they hit with their forehand in important matches:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/meta.html

You are confusing "big forehand" with "good forehand".
My, oh my....

Thanks for being brave enough to share your opinion about how those players would react.

As for confusing, you are the one who is confusing - "good forehand" with " how many winners they hit with their forehand in important matches".

 

[Harry_Wild]

Osaka has excellent form in her forehand and backhand, excellent footwork too!

 

[gadge]

Come on, tell us who "the other girls with forehands as good as" Steffi's were/are.
We all love to have a good laugh now and then.

I think Ana’s forehand is a lot close to steffi but since her rest of the game wasn’t that potent, she didn’t win as much. In my opinion Ana is the biggest underachiever on the wta.

Also players in steffi’s era didn’t really have the same ground power as the ones after davenport and Williams, so steffi was outblasting her opponents.

Steffi’s forehand is the greatest forehand in the game as it was a stand out shot in her era like Serena’s serve is in her era.

 

[gadge]

Or took advantage of weakest era in a long time

Actually true!! Put her in the 2000s and she would struggle big time or even before 2017.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Thanks for being brave enough to share your opinion about how those players would react.

As for confusing, you are the one who is confusing - "good forehand" with " how many winners they hit with their forehand in important matches".

That is exactly the same.

 

[skaj]

I think Ana’s forehand is a lot close to steffi but since her rest of the game wasn’t that potent, she didn’t win as much. In my opinion Ana is the biggest underachiever on the wta.

Also players in steffi’s era didn’t really have the same ground power as the ones after davenport and Williams, so steffi was outblasting her opponents.

Steffi’s forehand is the greatest forehand in the game as it was a stand out shot in her era like Serena’s serve is in her era.

Exactly, and Ana's forehand is also very similar to Steffi's - flat, powerful, deep, and it's hard to say where it's gonna go. Plus, being more powerful, Ivanovic can generate more pace on it.

Not sure if she is the biggest underachiever on the WTA though. She could've won more, definitely, but she won a slam, went to number one, that's big.

 

[skaj]

That is exactly the same.

For people with poor logic, I am sure it is. You know, the people who say "Graf was called Fraulein Forehand in the 80s, so players who are not called that cannot have a forehand as good as hers", for example.

 

[R. Schweikart]

For people with poor logic, I am sure it is. You know, the people who say "Graf was called Fraulein Forehand in the 80s, so players who are not called that cannot have a forehand as good as hers", for example.

If a player had surpassed Steffi forehand we would of course have heard something about it and not only from a well-known Graf hater on TTW.
Why didn't they call Ivanovic "Miss Forehand"? Or Stosur??

 

[skaj]

If a player had surpassed Steffi forehand we would of course have heard something about it and not only from a well-known Graf hater on TTW.
Why didn't they call Ivanovic "Miss Forehand"? Or Stosur??

Because, as it was explained to you, at the time when they came along there were other great forehands already. Graf's stood out in the 80s, forehand like that was unseen on the WTA at that time.

And nobody said "surpassed", just as good.
As for the "hate" you see, I don't know what you are talking about. That's something that has to do with you.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Because, as it was explained to you, at the time when they came along there were other great forehands already. Graf's stood out in the 80s, forehand like that was unseen on the WTA at that time.

And nobody said "surpassed", just as good.
As for the "hate" you see, I don't know what you are talking about. That's something that has to do with you.

What genetic improvement did mankind undergo that in the late 80s and the 90s there was only one great forehand (Graf) - but suddenly in the 00s there were several ones (even though those players inexplicably didn't hit many forehand winners in their big matches)?
You seem to be reducing Steffi's forehand to raw power. In raw power a Stosur or Ivanovic was maybe as good. But that is not sufficient for having a great forehand.

 

[skaj]

What genetic improvement did mankind undergo that in the late 80s and the 90s there was only one great forehand (Graf) - but suddenly in the 00s there were several ones (even though those players inexplicably didn't hit many forehand winners in their big matches)?
You seem to be reducing Steffi's forehand to raw power. In raw power a Stosur or Ivanovic was maybe as good. But that is not sufficient for having a great forehand.

I really don't think that professional tennis can improve so quickly thanks to genetic improvements. But that's irrelevant, there is no need to bring genetics here.
What I do know is that tennis does improve by new players bringing new things to the game. Graf has changed the game by bringing a huge forehand. That is how it works, other players after her brought other things.
Again, hitting more forehand winners and having better forehand are two different things. Do I really need to explain this to you or can you figure it out yourself? It should not be hard, if you use simple(not simplified) logic.

I believe that it seems to you that I am "reducing Steffi's forehand to raw power", but I have no idea where you are getting that from. My posts say completely opposite, so please read them more carefully.

 

[gadge]

If a player had surpassed Steffi forehand we would of course have heard something about it and not only from a well-known Graf hater on TTW.
Why didn't they call Ivanovic "Miss Forehand"? Or Stosur??

Because they never stood out against their competition like Graf’s did. Graf forehand is royalty. She brought it when no one was hitting it but pushing it.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Because they never stood out against their competition like Graf’s did. Graf forehand is royalty. She brought it when no one was hitting it but pushing it.

Why were there so many great forehands in the 00s but only one (Steffi's) in the 90s?
Genetic manipulation??

 

[One Handed Dynasty]

HAHAHAHA no.

 

[Graf1stClass]

Osaka has excellent form in her forehand and backhand, excellent footwork too!

I can't remember you talking negative about any player. lol

 

[R. Schweikart]

I really don't think that professional tennis can improve so quickly thanks to genetic improvements. But that's irrelevant, there is no need to bring genetics here.
What I do know is that tennis does improve by new players bringing new things to the game.
...

So Steffi brought a great forehand to the game and other players said, gee, that's a good idea, let's hit a forehand like Steffi...?


And where were the big forehands of the early 2010s when Kimiko Date, a Japanese ball-pushing grandma in her 40s, beat slam winners of the decade left and right?
Your Samantha Stosur being among them?

 

[skaj]

So Steffi brought a great forehand to the game and other players said, gee, that's a good idea, let's hit a forehand like Steffi...?


And where were the big forehands of the early 2010s when Kimiko Date, a Japanese ball-pushing grandma in her 40s, beat slam winners of the decade left and right?
Your Samantha Stosur being among them?

And what exactly do you find funny? Of course young players watch the champions and get influenced by them, learn from them, and come up with new weapons so they can beat them and the rest of the field. That is how the game evolves, it's the most common process in professional tennis.

I have no idea what the second part of your post is all about. Are you trying to say that there were no big forehands in the early 2010s and that there were plenty of them in the 80s? And what does Kimiko Date have to do with what we are talking about - forehands(which is an element of a game, you know, one element).
Are you also suggesting that Samantha Stosur did not have a big forehand in the 2010s?
The only thing that is clear is that you think Stosur is "mine" for some reason. Of course, it is unclear why you think that, like with most opinions you've presented here...

Anyways, the short answer to your question- the big forehands were on the courts, many of them, the Australian being one of them. In the 80s it was Graf only, therefore the nickname.
Having a big/great forehand does not win you matches alone.
I hope these (obvious)answers will help you understand what you haven't so far.

 

[skaj]

Why were there so many great forehands in the 00s but only one (Steffi's) in the 90s?
Genetic manipulation??

It was explained to you already(in case you really can't think of a reason why), check the post #65.

 

[gadge]

Why were there so many great forehands in the 00s but only one (Steffi's) in the 90s?
Genetic manipulation??

Because the players in the 90s didn’t have any role models who hit FHs like steffi. They didn’t have a reference point, they can’t suddenly look at steffi in the middle of their careers and say to them selves “gee steffi hits a great FH let me change my game completely.”

Players in the 00s grew up watching and idolising steffi and steffi really did pave the way for a powerful FH like Serena did to the importance of serve.

Just to tell you in terms you understand me and @skaj aren’t anti steffi. We both agree that steffi’s forehand is one of the greatest and most influential shots in the wta.

 

[Milanez82]

Because the players in the 90s didn’t have any role models who hit FHs like steffi. They didn’t have a reference point, they can’t suddenly look at steffi in the middle of their careers and say to them selves “gee steffi hits a great FH let me change my game completely.”

Players in the 00s grew up watching and idolising steffi and steffi really did pave the way for a powerful FH like Serena did to the importance of serve.

Just to tell you in terms you understand me and @skaj aren’t anti steffi. We both agree that steffi’s forehand is one of the greatest and most influential shots in the wta.

Did Monika have a strong fh

 

[R. Schweikart]

Because the players in the 90s didn’t have any role models who hit FHs like steffi. They didn’t have a reference point, they can’t suddenly look at steffi in the middle of their careers and say to them selves “gee steffi hits a great FH let me change my game completely.”

Players in the 00s grew up watching and idolising steffi and steffi really did pave the way for a powerful FH like Serena did to the importance of serve.

Just to tell you in terms you understand me and @skaj aren’t anti steffi. We both agree that steffi’s forehand is one of the greatest and most influential shots in the wta.

It is not a thing of pro- or anti-Steffi.
It is simply not true that the Ivanovic or Stosur forehands are as good as Steffi's. They are/were far less precise.
And Pierce's forehand was completely different anyway.

 

[R. Schweikart]

And what exactly do you find funny? Of course young players watch the champions and get influenced by them, learn from them, and come up with new weapons so they can beat them and the rest of the field. That is how the game evolves, it's the most common process in professional tennis.

I have no idea what the second part of your post is all about. Are you trying to say that there were no big forehands in the early 2010s and that there were plenty of them in the 80s? And what does Kimiko Date have to do with what we are talking about - forehands(which is an element of a game, you know, one element).
Are you also suggesting that Samantha Stosur did not have a big forehand in the 2010s?
...

Pierce's forehand was at least as hard and "big" as Steffi's.
But so much worse.

Ivanovic and Stosur had big forehands, like Steffi.
But so much worse than Steffi's.

Kimiko Date is living proof how much women's tennis devolved from 1995 to 2015.

 

[skaj]

Pierce's forehand was at least as hard and "big" as Steffi's.
But so much worse.

Ivanovic and Stosur had big forehands, like Steffi.
But so much worse than Steffi's.

Kimiko Date is living proof how much women's tennis devolved from 1995 to 2015.

Thank you for being brave enough to share your opinion(without any arguments, of course) that Ana's, Samantha's and Mary's forehands were "so much worse" than Graf's.

And I don't know which statement is more baseless and bizarre, that the women's tennis devolved from 1995 to 2015, or that Kimiko Date is a living proof for it.

 

[skaj]

It is not a thing of pro- or anti-Steffi.
It is simply not true that the Ivanovic or Stosur forehands are as good as Steffi's. They are/were far less precise.
And Pierce's forehand was completely different anyway.

Stosur had an amazing placement on her forehand. Ivanovic could hit it wherever she wanted, it was such a natural shot for her.

 

[skaj]

Because the players in the 90s didn’t have any role models who hit FHs like steffi. They didn’t have a reference point, they can’t suddenly look at steffi in the middle of their careers and say to them selves “gee steffi hits a great FH let me change my game completely.”

Players in the 00s grew up watching and idolising steffi and steffi really did pave the way for a powerful FH like Serena did to the importance of serve.

Just to tell you in terms you understand me and @skaj aren’t anti steffi. We both agree that steffi’s forehand is one of the greatest and most influential shots in the wta.

I don't think we should bother, it was explained numerous times here, and the poster is still pretending not to understand what was obvious in the first place.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Stosur had an amazing placement on her forehand. Ivanovic could hit it wherever she wanted, it was such a natural shot for her.

Then why did they hit so few winners with their "big forehands"?

 

[skaj]

Then why did they hit so few winners with their "big forehands"?

They certainly hit more than a few winners with their forehands, which, among other great things, indeed were big. If you don't know that, people who follow tennis, as well as these girls' opponents, know that very well.

 

[Graf1stClass]

I would say the slice needs more credit too.. That is the most perfect shot in tennis it was so reliable. No contest.

 

[gadge]

Did Monika have a strong fh

Different as it’s a 2 handed shot but Monica brought aggression (on both wings) to the game.

 

[Graf1stClass]

Different as it’s a 2 handed shot but Monica brought aggression (on both wings) to the game.

Seles hit the better angles imo.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Quite a few? The only one I can think of is Davenport.

There are a few who are on the same level with Serena, but not many.

I would probably agree that Graf's forehand was better than the field's by a bigger margin than Serena's but that's just because you suddenly had Venus, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters all happening within a few years and all with ATG forehands. If you want to teach someone a forehand, you would rather Serena's than Graf's. Absolutely nobody even tries to hit it like Graf because only she could make that technique work. And who's to say even she wouldn't have been better off with more of a Pierce/Davenport forehand. If her wrists were so amazing as to make that late contact work again and again, she would still be able to generate plenty of power with a more calibrated and dynamic stroke. In fact, she did somewhat adjust her contact point belatedly in her last couple of years and it began to pay off too. At last she stopped looking like she had to hit a jerky shot each and every time, at least compared to before.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Both her forehand and backhand are odd looking. Not optimal IMO. She has probably over achieved already. She is definitely physically gifted but strokes wise not the best. Good and powerful but not optimal.

We could talk about GOAT level if her achievements corresponded to anywhere near Serena or Graf's level. Particularly with the weapon of a 120 mph serve in her arsenal (I think people forget how important the serve is in Osaka's game). For that matter, even her serve doesn't look as fluid as Serena's. But as with her forehand and backhand, she makes it work. And in comparing with her peers, you can't argue with four slams. She is out of the game due to personal troubles but nobody had yet even begun to figure out her game. I think pointing to things that make it different from the coaching manual is different from finding a way to counter the ball she hits, which when she's on song, is damn good alright. Who currently do you think can consistently match her power level (without the extraordinary effort someone like Brady has to put into every shot)? I don't think anybody today has Osaka's easy power so it's no surprise that whenever she decided to 'play', she won. And when she couldn't be arsed, she would crumble in early exits rather than losing in tough matches at the semi/final level. That makes her a more clutch version of Mary Pierce, in essence.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Because the players in the 90s didn’t have any role models who hit FHs like steffi. They didn’t have a reference point, they can’t suddenly look at steffi in the middle of their careers and say to them selves “gee steffi hits a great FH let me change my game completely.”

Players in the 00s grew up watching and idolising steffi and steffi really did pave the way for a powerful FH like Serena did to the importance of serve.

Just to tell you in terms you understand me and @skaj aren’t anti steffi. We both agree that steffi’s forehand is one of the greatest and most influential shots in the wta.

I am not sure the two things are connected. Yes, players breaking through from the mid 90s onwards idolized Steffi for sure. Serena certainly did. But even Davenport and Pierce already had significant technical improvements over Steffi's forehand. So I think it was just coaching as well as players taking time to catch up with the potential of graphite racquets. Maybe sports science influencing tennis was part of the equation too because posture is very important for the modern forehand and it can't be hit in a stand and deliver way like perhaps a wood racquet genius like McEnroe would have. If you look at the men's tour, Sampras hit a somewhat old fashioned Lendl-like forehand (and made it work with, again, his super-strong arms) but some of the clay courters like Bruguera or Berasatagui already had the prototype of the modern forehand. Agassi did to some extent as well and he was Sampras' contemporary. It was just getting put together in fits and starts. Some in fact attribute the beginnings of the modern forehand to Aaron Krickstein who was playing from the 80s and started out with wooden racquets.

 

[R. Schweikart]

... She is out of the game due to personal troubles but nobody had yet even begun to figure out her game. ....

Osaka has a career winning percentage of 64.4 %.

Manuela Maleeva had one of 71.8 %, Vera Zvonareva is at 66.2 %, Ons Jabeur at 63.6 %.
People have started to figure out Zvonareva's and Jabeur's game. With Maleeva they never did.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I am not sure the two things are connected. Yes, players breaking through from the mid 90s onwards idolized Steffi for sure. Serena certainly did. But even Davenport and Pierce already had significant technical improvements over Steffi's forehand. ...

Davenport and Pierce would have had a better forehand if they just had copied Steffi's.
And done without those significant technical improvements.

 

[R. Schweikart]

They certainly hit more than a few winners with their forehands, which, among other great things, indeed were big. If you don't know that, people who follow tennis, as well as these girls' opponents, know that very well.

I just looked up some of Steffi's stats in important matches at

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/meta.html

How many forehand winners she hit in relation to the total points that were played in a match.
The best numbers I found were her Wimbledon 92 semi against Sabatini with 27 forehand winners in a match with 112 points played (24.1 %). Also impressive her win against #1-ranked Seles in San Antonio 91, with 27/119 (22.7 %), or the Wimbledon 88 final win against Navratilova (33/174 = 19.0 %). All three opponents went down in a flurry of Graf forehand winners.
Steffi had tons of big matches with 15 % or more forehand winners in relation to the points played by both players, quite a lot even above 20 %.

Try to find even one match in that data base for Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic in which they broke the 15 % barrier.

 

[skaj]

I just looked up some of Steffi's stats in important matches at

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/meta.html

How many forehand winners she hit in relation to the total points that were played in a match.
The best numbers I found were her Wimbledon 92 semi against Sabatini with 27 forehand winners in a match with 112 points played (24.1 %). Also impressive her win against #1-ranked Seles in San Antonio 91, with 27/119 (22.7 %), or the Wimbledon 88 final win against Navratilova (33/174 = 19.0 %). All three opponents went down in a flurry of Graf forehand winners.
Steffi had tons of big matches with 15 % or more forehand winners in relation to the points played by both players, quite a lot even above 20 %.

Try to find even one match in that data base for Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic in which they broke the 15 % barrier.

Dude, for the millionth time - the number of forehand winners and the quality of the shot are two different things. You really don't need to be a tennis expert or a genius to realise that.
I even offered to explain it to you, if you really can't understand the obvious, but you obviously don't want to understand it.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Dude, for the millionth time - the number of forehand winners and the quality of the shot are two different things. ...

So you can also have a top-quality serve without hitting any aces....?


Or even better - being a complete player without winning matches??

 

[skaj]

So you can also have a top-quality serve without hitting any aces....?


Or even better - being a complete player without winning matches??

Yes, now you are changing the subject, so you don't want to understand the obvious, because it shows how wrong you are about the topic of the discussion - forehands.

To answer your questions and in the process to try to get us back to our discussion. In theory you can have a top-quality serve without hitting any aces, but that's not very probable. If you have a top-quality serve, you will probably hit plenty of aces - just like Pierce, Ivanovic and Stosur had top-quality forehands and hit plenty of winners off that side.

You can in theory be a complete player without winning matches(at all, if that is what you meant) if you for example don't play them, or get injured badly during your first professional match and can't play anymore, or you are a mental midget etc. But that analogy is completely wrong for our discussion, because Pierce, Ivanovic and Stosur, as I said before, and now, and as everyone who follows tennis knows - did hit plenty of forehand winners in their career.

Your emojis still don't make any sense by the way.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Yes, now you are changing the subject, so you don't want to understand the obvious, because it shows how wrong you are about the topic of the discussion - forehands.

To answer your questions and in the process to try to get us back to our discussion. In theory you can have a top-quality serve without hitting any aces, but that's not very probable. If you have a top-quality serve, you will probably hit plenty of aces - just like Pierce, Ivanovic and Stosur had top-quality forehands and hit plenty of winners off that side.
...

Again, in which match did Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur hit those "plenty of winners off that side"?
Let's take the greatest matches those three ever played:
Pierce vs. Graf 62 62 (FO 94 semis): 13 forehand winners and 108 points played (12.0 %)
Ivanovic vs. Safina 64 63 (FO 08 final) 15 forehand winners and 142 points played (10.6 %)
Samatha Stosur vs. S. Williams 62 63 (USO 11 final), 13 forehand winners and 102 points played (12.7 %)
(you are free to provide matches with better stats for them!)

And here is Graf in some of her greatest matches:
Graf vs. Zvereva 60 60 (FO 88 final): 13 forehand winners and 61 points played (21.3 %)
Graf vs. Navratilova 57 62 61 (Wim 88 final): 33 forehand winners and 174 points played (19.0 %)
Graf vs. Seles 60 61 (Wim 89 4th round): 19 forehand winners and 86 points played (22.1 %)
Graf vs. Seles 64 63 (San Antonio 91 final): 27 forehand winners and 119 points played (22.1 %)
Graf vs. Sabatini 63 63 (Wimbledon 92 semis): 27 forehand winners and 112 points played (24.1 %)
Graf vs. Sanchez 46 61 75 (Wimbledon 95 final): 35 forehand winners and 199 points played (17.6 %)

Steffi could utterly destroy opponents with her bazooka forehand.
To compare her forehand with Pierce's, Ivanovic's and Stosur's is an insult, nothing else. And I think it is meant as such.

 

[skaj]

Again, in which match did Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur hit those "plenty of winners off that side"?
Let's take the greatest matches those three ever played:
Pierce vs. Graf 62 62 (FO 94 semis): 13 forehand winners and 108 points played (12.0 %)
Ivanovic vs. Safina 64 63 (FO 08 final) 15 forehand winners and 142 points played (10.6 %)
Samatha Stosur vs. S. Williams 62 63 (USO 11 final), 13 forehand winners and 102 points played (12.7 %)
(you are free to provide matches with better stats for them!)

And here is Graf in some of her greatest matches:
Graf vs. Zvereva 60 60 (FO 88 final): 13 forehand winners and 61 points played (21.3 %)
Graf vs. Navratilova 57 62 61 (Wim 88 final): 33 forehand winners and 174 points played (19.0 %)
Graf vs. Seles 60 61 (Wim 89 4th round): 19 forehand winners and 86 points played (22.1 %)
Graf vs. Seles 64 63 (San Antonio 91 final): 27 forehand winners and 119 points played (22.1 %)
Graf vs. Sabatini 63 63 (Wimbledon 92 semis): 27 forehand winners and 112 points played (24.1 %)
Graf vs. Sanchez 46 61 75 (Wimbledon 95 final): 35 forehand winners and 199 points played (17.6 %)

Steffi could utterly destroy opponents with her bazooka forehand.
To compare her forehand with Pierce's, Ivanovic's and Stosur's is an insult, nothing else. And I think it is meant as such.

Sweetheart, for the millionth time - the number of forehand winners in a matches and the quality of the shot are two different things.

In my previous post I was explaining you why your analogies are wrong, it is a different topic from the one in my previous sentence in this post of mine.

Again, if you really don't get what is written in my first sentence in this post, do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[Winners or Errors]

Goaty groundies on display right now from Ostapenko. Not my favorite player, but no way could Osaka do this tossing in the average serve speed of like 70 mph.

 

[MotoboXer]

You'd have to ask her rapper boyfriend ..

 

[skaj]

You'd have to ask her rapper boyfriend ..

He's also an expert on tennis?

 

[MotoboXer]

He's also an expert on tennis?

Yes it takes skill to wave that mic around.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Sweetheart, for the millionth time - the number of forehand winners in a matches and the quality of the shot are two different things.

In my previous post I was explaining you why your analogies are wrong, it is a different topic from the one in my previous sentence in this post of mine.

Again, if you really don't get what is written in my first sentence in this post, do you want me to explain it to you?

Darling, you have been caught with your pants down. The numbers or forehand winners by Graf, Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur are evidence.
And now you use the usual tactics by little boys/girls here on TTW, saying "every expert knows what I mean".

Read that slowly and laugh your ass off - "the number of forehand winners in a matches and the quality of the shot are two different things".
So Pierce, Ivanovic, Stosur hit only 15 forehand winners per match maximum whereas Steffi could hit 30-35. But their forehands had the "same quality of the shot".

You are one of the worst pretenders here.
A fanboy/-girl who most certainly never held a racket in his/her hand.