Federer is not quite as good as he looks.
- Thread starter The Pusher Terminator
- Start date
L
laurie
Guest
You guys are right. It is a strange argument by Mr Terminator. Lendl got to two Wimbledon finals and at least three semifinals. Thats a much better record than Sampras, Becker and Edberg on clay. Besides, Lendl with his big serve, big groundstrokes and reasonable volleys could have won the tournament with a bit of luck, or been in the right place at the right time. Just look at Hewitt in 2002 for that.
The Pusher Terminator
Banned
laurie said:
Regardless of what Lendl did or didnt do, I think that we are getting off the topic. The bottom line is that todays game has become one dimensional. All I am saying is that the "whole game" of tennis should be played. Lendl came close to playing the "whole game" because as you said he had a "big serve, big groundstrokes and reasonable volleys"...which is exactly my point! Sampras & Federer are so dominating because they play the "whole game" while the vast majority of the tour are all one dimensional clones.
The Pusher Terminator
Banned
The tennis guy said:
I'm sorry maybe I didnt state myself clearly. What I was trying to point out is that its not simply their record that matters. Its quality not quantity that counts. Smaller tourmanemts are important but, lets face it it, I think even you would have to admit that pros get more geared up for grand slams than the smaller day in and day out "grind" tournaments. Now if you really look at their records you will note that Becker & Lendl met 6 times in Grand slams and Becker beat him five out of six times. Becker beat him at The Australian, Becker beat him at the US open, and Becker beat him three times at Wimbledon. I'm sorry, but I think that Becker completely dominated Lendl because he kicked his butt in almost everry grand slam encounter. When you look at their grand slam record its 5-1 in Beckers favor! Becker is the Lendl terminator...LOL.
In any event, I think we have strayed off the topic. The Bottom line is that todays game has become one dimensional. In this months Tennis week magazine Hank Pfister former #19 in the world and # 9 doubles, wrote a whole article on this very topic. He feels that todays players are clones & one dimensional. Be advised that you guys are actually disagreeing with Hank Pfister. I can't take credit for his ideas even though I agree with them.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Any bumper sticker description of today tennis is not accurate.
You are off your point yourself. Your examples just don't wash. Again, I just don't agree achievement is based on style of play, it is based on talent. Sampras and Federer are just two genius in the past 15 years. It happens. Tell me if Agassi had the big serve of Sampras, he wouldn't have dominated with his one dimensional style of play. Borg and Lendl did with so called one dimensional game.
As of Lendl and Becker, if you think only grand slam count, OK, who had more grand slam titles? who stayed at No. 1 longer? Your argument just doesn't hold up. You only used Wimbledon as benchmark which is flawed. It just says goodness of Lendl by getting far at Wimbledon which was obviously his weakest surface. They didn't get to play much on slower grand slam surface at Aus and French because Becker couldn't get far enough to even have a chance to play Lendl. All your argument comes down to Becker is greater than Lendl at Wimbledon. No one argues about that. It is your other conclusion you draw most people here have problem with, and rightly so.
You are off your point yourself. Your examples just don't wash. Again, I just don't agree achievement is based on style of play, it is based on talent. Sampras and Federer are just two genius in the past 15 years. It happens. Tell me if Agassi had the big serve of Sampras, he wouldn't have dominated with his one dimensional style of play. Borg and Lendl did with so called one dimensional game.
As of Lendl and Becker, if you think only grand slam count, OK, who had more grand slam titles? who stayed at No. 1 longer? Your argument just doesn't hold up. You only used Wimbledon as benchmark which is flawed. It just says goodness of Lendl by getting far at Wimbledon which was obviously his weakest surface. They didn't get to play much on slower grand slam surface at Aus and French because Becker couldn't get far enough to even have a chance to play Lendl. All your argument comes down to Becker is greater than Lendl at Wimbledon. No one argues about that. It is your other conclusion you draw most people here have problem with, and rightly so.
According to Pusher Terminator's scale of greatness/accomplishment, Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Cash who won Wimbledon are greater players than Ivan Lendl who only reached the final at Wimbledon!!! Even worst, Lendl is just on par with Kevin Curren, David Nalbandian, and Malivaï Washington who all reached the final at Wimbledon, like Lendl. What kind of severe brain damage does Mr Pusher suffers from?
If you go back to other eras there was more variety but less power all the way around. So it works both ways. If you'd put Federer/Roddick/Safin into the era of McEnroe and Connors.....I doubt those guys would have any luck returning their serves. They wouldn't have the time to scamper to the net for volleys because they'd be passed by the hard groundies.
I think the tour is actually tougher now than ever before because being a pro player is more profitable than ever before so it attracts more players world wide. The top 100 is better than ever before. There are far more clay court specialists than ever before also.
Federer is one who has been able to play a combination of modern and old school tennis and that's what makes him exciting.
I think the tour is actually tougher now than ever before because being a pro player is more profitable than ever before so it attracts more players world wide. The top 100 is better than ever before. There are far more clay court specialists than ever before also.
Federer is one who has been able to play a combination of modern and old school tennis and that's what makes him exciting.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
I dont agree. The only two guys in the top 10 with completely one-dimensional games are Roddick and Hewitt, only 2 out of the 10.
Fed also does not win everything. He failed to attain the year-end 1 in 2003, lost before the round of 16 in both the Olympics and French Open in his dominant 2003, and has failed to win the one major so far this year.
Fed also does not win everything. He failed to attain the year-end 1 in 2003, lost before the round of 16 in both the Olympics and French Open in his dominant 2003, and has failed to win the one major so far this year.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
The Pusher Terminator said:
You are ignoring the circumstances that they had these meetings in. They had no grand slam meetings on clay, the surface that most favors Lendl. They had 3 of those 6 meetings on grass, which most favors Becker. 2 of the 6 slam meetings were with Lendl clearly past his prime(91 Australian, and 92 U.S open). Their one meeting with both among their primes was the 89 U.S open which Becker won, yet Becker met Lendl past his prime at the 92 U.S open when Lendl had his lone grand slam win over Becker. So really, on a relatively neutral surface, at a relatively neutral point in time, Lendl is on par or slightly ahead of Becker.
Imagine had 3 of their 6 slam meetings been on clay instead of grass, greatly unfair to Becker as the grass court comparision is to Lendl, and two of their slam meetings on hard court been when Becker was 17 or 18. The head to head would either be 5-1 for Lendl, or 6-0 for Lendl, in all likelihood.
The Pusher Terminator
Banned
The tennis guy said:
Hello ANDFOR , I have really missed you. Finally a worthy opponent. These guys are pathetic...they need your help. Let me beat up a little on tennisguy and then you and I can play....
dear tennisguy,
Again: They are not my examples. They are not my points!! They are Hank Pfisters points... a former ATP professional and his article is in this months Tennis week!
1.Borg did not have a one dimensional game. He beat the great John Mcenroe at Wimbledon using a serve and volley tactic!
2.Some people here do not agree that Lendl was one dimensional ...a prior post here stated "lendl had a big serve, big ground stroke and reasonable volleys"
3.ummmm.....Becker beat Lendl at the US open and the at the Australian open in addition to beating him three times at Wimbledon. Their grand slam record is 5-1. Becker clearly was dominant over Lendl in my opinion.
4. Finally what the hell is your point? All Hank Pfister is trying to point out to you guys is that players should develop their "whole game". He further points out that players of the past could switch their styles as Borg did and decided to play serve and volley to beat Mcenroe. He points out that Federer and Sampras have the "whole game" and can switch to any style depending on the surface or the opponent. Now if you think that you know more than Hank Pfister then more power to you.....but please dont kill the messenger.
as for you my friend, ANDFOR...I know that we enjoy debating. I also know that you take the opposite view of whatever I say for the sheer joy of the "sport". However just think of the pwoer we could display if we joined forces. We would be like federer playing against the rest of the tour...purely one dimesional debaters......but you and I play the the "whole game"....lol.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
The Pusher Terminator said:
Lendl is at a higher level than Becker, I doubt there are many tennis experts,
that are detached from their own biases that would put Becker, who has 2 few slams, never ended a year #1(although I agree he should have in 89 but that would still be only once to Lendl's remaining three), only had a 2 year streak of winning atleat one slam(to Lendl's 4), only won 2 slams in one year once(to Lendl's 2), and does not even come close to Lendl's record of slam finals and slam semis reached, higher than Lendl.
Lendl, McEnroe, Conners? I dont know who would be considered better, I suspect there are split opinions. They are definitely all in the same league though.
The Pusher Terminator
Banned
federerhoogenbandfan said:
I don't know how this turned into Becker vs. Lendl... but this post is not about whether becker or Lendl was the better player. Its about whether Hank Pfisters argument is valid:
Todays tennis has become one dimensional and players like Federer are so dominant because they can play the "whole game" as opposed to the rest of the tour.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
The Pusher Terminator said:
It is you who put Becker vs Lendl as 'whole game" player vs one dimensional player.
His point is not valid simply because he picked one of the most talented players in history in Federer to make a point. OK, for argument's sake, let's say his point is valid, so doesn't it mean Sampras dominated because the rest of the tour players didn't play the "whole game"? That's simply not true. There were many more different style of players in first half of 90s, and Sampras still dominated. It is Sampras' talent, Federer's talent that enabled them to dominate. Why Lendl dominated in mid 80s? He didn't have the whole game as Sampras and Federer! Neither you nor him could explain. You tried to explain away by saying Lendl wasn't that great, not even as good as Becker, which most people don't agree, and rightly so!
His point can be valid only if two players with similar talent, one with "whole game" dominated the field while the one with one dimensional game couldn't.
Now, Lendl didn't fit in your argument, Lendl suddenly is not one dimensional player anymore! If Lendl is not one dimensional, then not too many players today are one dimensional. Of the current top 10 players, at least 5 of them volley better than Lendl.
The Pusher Terminator
Banned
The tennis guy said:
Lendls game was downright boring and robotic. Here is my point, Lendl would not know what to do against someone like Fed or Sampras (Didnt Sampras beat lendl at the US open?). Lendl had no answers because he only had one style of play. He has no plan "b" and thats the problem with the modern game. If the plan "A" game gets dismantled then what do you do? What can Agassi do against Fed? NOTHING! Agassi's baseline game plan obviously isnt working. But he is dead because he has no plan "b" . Hewitts "a" game is not working either....but he is dead because he has no plan "b". Roddicks "a" game is not working but he is also dead because he has no plan "b" (although he is trying to get a serve and volley game going). This is precisely why Fed is so dominant!
Now take a guy like Gasquet, He was able slice & dice and push at times and also bang the crap out of the ball....he won! In the old days you had a guy like Borg , who was a baseliner and he was losing to Mcenroe using that strategy...so what did he do?...he served and volleyed to beat Mcenroe at his own game in Wimbledon. He used a plan "B"! You just dont see that anymore today!...Its a one dimensional game today. Fed agrees with Pfister and so do I.
I am jumping in not reading the thread. My 2 cents. I have always said since the power game started with Lendl and then Agassi the following. "The tennis players will catch up to the power athleticly over time." Gasquet is one example of that, Fed is another. What I mean is that players will find ways through training to be able to thwart their opponents power by facing the power more often, developing better timing and becoming stonger and better trained. Look for example all the guys who serve 120 mph+ today. Ten years ago there was only a few guys who could do that and they lead the aces leaders board. Nowadays if you can't serve 120 you will have a hard time on the ATP succeeding. Nowadays 120 MPH serves get returned with authority. You'll see the game change. It's always is changing despite how it may appear.
Viva la return of the Serve and Volley player.
Viva la return of the Serve and Volley player.
activentures
Rookie
johnmcc516 said:
It wouldn't be so bad if they were pounding winners!! Unfortunately it seems to be more a case of grinding and waiting for opponents losers!!
L
laurie
Guest
andfor said:
Hi Andfor, I agree with you and I would like to see the return of the serve and volleyer. However, players serving 120mph these days is really misleading. Maybe because of rackets they are not serving with the same amount of spin like the players of before and even more galling for me is that these current guys do not have the ability to serve big second serves with spin in the corners.
Just imagine, what would you prefer to face, a player who hits a first serve at 140mph, misses it, then serves a second serve at 85mph to your backhand? Or a guy who serves a first serve at 130mph heavy with spin in the corner, misses it, then serves a second serve at 117mph in the corner, heavy with spin. I'm sure you'll say the former. As a package its easier to deal with.
The players serving now are not putting the same spin on the ball as the players from a few years back.......except Federer.
His serve, despite been a little slower than some others, is harder to return because of the spin factor. And he's willing to hit second serves in the corners with spin.
The reason Federer stands out is because he's doing things lots of players were doing ten years ago. But he's the only one doing it now.
Gasquet played well but lets see how far he can go now. Remember, Federer said not many players go for their shots now. It was very common just a few years ago. That includes the serve, its still the most important shot.
The Pusher Terminator said:
I totally agree that most today's players are one dimensional and boring. They have no way, no "B" plan to be adaptive to win. Agassi is done against Federer and there's nothing he can do. His game is his game. He doesn't need a coach because he is so robotic and predictable. What is he going to change against Fed the next 10 times they meet, serve & volley?
Gasquet beat Federer because Federer couldn't volley very well and his ball-bashing, movement and agility were hampered by the clay.
Federer and Sampras are really alike.
They are both conceited and overrated. Their fans cannot praise them without whining about other players.
They beat other overrated players. They stink on clay when the draw is difficult.
Neither of them is a genius god, but their serves, physical flexibility, fitness and body types enabled them to escape matches that they had no business winning.
Federer and Sampras are really alike.
They are both conceited and overrated. Their fans cannot praise them without whining about other players.
They beat other overrated players. They stink on clay when the draw is difficult.
Neither of them is a genius god, but their serves, physical flexibility, fitness and body types enabled them to escape matches that they had no business winning.
Andy Hewitt
Professional
These quotes make NO sense!
