Grass is obsolete

Is Grass obsolete


  • Total voters
    112

2good4U

Professional
In my opinion I'd rather see the better tennis player play well then the body builder. But I guess the OP likes all them muscles rolling in the dirt!
Beats watching a bunch of choir-boy wimps prancing around the lawn, for 3 shot rallies.

But I guess that's your thing.
 

2good4U

Professional
Or how about the fact the biggest tournament in tennis, the de facto world championships Wimbledon is played on grass?
It's the biggest bunch of de facto, pretentious pomposity, both your opinion and Wimby.

But I'll give you this, you've fallen for it's prestigious PR (and BS) well enough.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Grass has very few courts in the world, therefore no on can play on it.

This is an exhibition season.
When you read about all the hardship up and coming players have to endure to barely crack the top 200, grass is definitely obsolete.

Only an elite few will ever get the opportunity to train on grass, let alone become somewhat decent on it.

At the rec level, it’s 100% obsolete.

It’s about 1 tournament, not the surface.

For historical and aesthetic reasons I think we can still have some room in our hearts for Wimby no? You can’t deny it’s rich place in history, regardless of its role in modern day tennis.

I voted for “obsolete” because I think the grand slams hold tennis from evolving, Wimbledon most of all.

Tennis badly needs to reorganize or it’s just a bunch of individual tournaments.

The sport itself is dying.
 
This, after the swiss player barely touched him:
Im discussing that one right now in a chat :)
You got that photo from VG.NO.

That match opened my eyes to the Swiss team.Really boring football, but OMG heaven knows it was plenty of hot guys to watch there. The goal keeper f.ex. Was like a Maldini light.

I mean, Federer milos match is a waste of precious life!
 
Im discussing that one right now in a chat :)
You got that photo from VG.NO.

That match opened my eyes to the Swiss team.Really boring football, but OMG heaven knows it was plenty of hot guys to watch there. The goal keeper f.ex. Was like a Maldini light.

I mean, Federer milos match is a waste of precious life!
Hahaha :D
"One track mind" ;)

Didn't see it, either. I was at a festival and saw DumDumBoys for the first time in MANY years.
 
This has way more to do with the watcher than the watched.


Yep and sir, you should understand that first.
Nobody gets to tell any of who like grass that they are better off not liking it.Girly tennis? Go ahead try serving with 200+ kph with full concentration and placement of highest accuracy with the added pressure of knowing that when broken you can't get back the break for 3 hours.Or go ahead try serve and volley at breakpoint.It takes real heart and skill.Just as clay takes real skills and resolve.



Read the following carefully:

The very purpose of the sport is to evaluate a players merit in different aspects of the game.In no manner pure baseline gladiator style defines tennis entirely nor does skilled net play entirely.

If a player is unable to learn finer aspects of the game then it HIS FAULT.
It is not that he doesn't know how to play,JUST THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT.


If a player can't play physically brutal rallies,show consistency and construct point THEN IT IS HIS FAULT.

But in each case to say that the player doesn't have merit is wrong.H e does have it in the other aspect which shall be aptly evaluated on clay or grass



Tennis is amalgamation of several approaches.To say that one part of the approach doesn't matter is borderline disrespectful to the sport you watch.



I think people here either do not watch tennis or completely forget it

Watch Rafa at 2007 and 2008 F. Watch his volleys and his approaches.You see even your Idol understood that part of tennis
He actually excelled at it.See he did well in those tournament because he showed proper skills relevant to the surface.Even Borg did the same multiple times.


Watch Fred vs Nadal in 2007-08F ,Watch 2009 F, Watch 2012 Fred vs Murray. Watch 2004 F.Watch Sampras in full flow on it.
Watch Borg,the second greatest clay courter adapt completely to the surface.

Not that it makes the event any better,but Surely you know that Wimbledon final is actually on an average top 10 watched sporting event overall?More than other GS finals.So yes people like Grass.And Nobody gets to say it is an irrelevant surface just as clay isn't

If somebody is going around saying that skill of volleying and netplay or offensive ballstriking in general is better or worse than consistency or baseline solidarity doesn't truly understand the game.



Now go back troll in some different way, might actually end up being mildly successful.
 
When you read about all the hardship up and coming players have to endure to barely crack the top 200, grass is definitely obsolete.

Only an elite few will ever get the opportunity to train on grass, let alone become somewhat decent on it.

At the rec level, it’s 100% obsolete.

It’s about 1 tournament, not the surface.

For historical and aesthetic reasons I think we can still have some room in our hearts for Wimby no? You can’t deny it’s rich place in history, regardless of its role in modern day tennis.

I voted for “obsolete” because I think the grand slams hold tennis from evolving, Wimbledon most of all.

Tennis badly needs to reorganize or it’s just a bunch of individual tournaments.

The sport itself is dying.
Federer didn't grow up on grass, also.



:cool:
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster


Yep and sir, you should understand that first.
Nobody gets to tell any of who like grass that they are better off not liking it.Girly tennis? Go ahead try serving with 200+ kph with full concentration and placement of highest accuracy with the added pressure of knowing that when broken you can't get back the break for 3 hours.Or go ahead try serve and volley at breakpoint.It takes real heart and skill.Just as clay takes real skills and resolve.



Read the following carefully:

The very purpose of the sport is to evaluate a players merit in different aspects of the game.In no manner pure baseline gladiator style defines tennis entirely nor does skilled net play entirely.

If a player is unable to learn finer aspects of the game then it HIS FAULT.
It is not that he doesn't know how to play,JUST THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT.


If a player can't play physically brutal rallies,show consistency and construct point THEN IT IS HIS FAULT.

But in each case to say that the player doesn't have merit is wrong.H e does have it in the other aspect which shall be aptly evaluated on clay or grass



Tennis is amalgamation of several approaches.To say that one part of the approach doesn't matter is borderline disrespectful to the sport you watch.



I think people here either do not watch tennis or completely forget it

Watch Rafa at 2007 and 2008 F. Watch his volleys and his approaches.You see even your Idol understood that part of tennis
He actually excelled at it.See he did well in those tournament because he showed proper skills relevant to the surface.Even Borg did the same multiple times.


Watch Fred vs Nadal in 2007-08F ,Watch 2009 F, Watch 2012 Fred vs Murray. Watch 2004 F.Watch Sampras in full flow on it.
Watch Borg,the second greatest clay courter adapt completely to the surface.

Not that it makes the event any better,but Surely you know that Wimbledon final is actually on an average top 10 watched sporting event overall?More than other GS finals.So yes people like Grass.And Nobody gets to say it is an irrelevant surface just as clay isn't

If somebody is going around saying that skill of volleying and netplay or offensive ballstriking in general is better or worse than consistency or baseline solidarity doesn't truly understand the game.



Now go back troll in some different way, might actually end up being mildly successful.
And that is how you slay....
 
Big time Fed fan here but lets be honest, this surface has run its course...
Serve, max 3 shot rally, point ends.
It's unbelievably boring...
I think it could be an incredible surface IF the huge advantage of the serve these days was somehow taken out of play. Like others have mentioned in other threads, the rallies can be incredibly crafty and require so much more finesse on grass. Which I think provides a nice contrast to clay and hard. But as things stand now with guys bombing serves left, right, and centre, we don't get to see those "crafty" rallies on grass at least as much as we should. Wimbledon restricts players' outfits, why can't they also restrict the kind of racquet technology that they use? I'm not suggesting wooden racquets or anything, but somehow restricting racquet specs so that they're less powerful and explosive. However they did it, I think that players would still show up!
 
When you read about all the hardship up and coming players have to endure to barely crack the top 200, grass is definitely obsolete.

Only an elite few will ever get the opportunity to train on grass, let alone become somewhat decent on it.

At the rec level, it’s 100% obsolete.

It’s about 1 tournament, not the surface.

For historical and aesthetic reasons I think we can still have some room in our hearts for Wimby no? You can’t deny it’s rich place in history, regardless of its role in modern day tennis.

I voted for “obsolete” because I think the grand slams hold tennis from evolving, Wimbledon most of all.

Tennis badly needs to reorganize or it’s just a bunch of individual tournaments.

The sport itself is dying.

The first lines are wrong on so many,many levels.Superficial to say the least.Modernity is a solution when tradition is hollow not when it actually stands for something.

Tell me sir , do you actually think that it is better to completely do away with evaluation of a very very important part of the game that is actually bread and butter for many player.How is somebody like older Zverev like players supposed to survive.



It is ridiculous how superficial your proposal is.Let me make you understand what you're implying.YOU ARE SAYING LET US DO AWAY WITH AN ENTIRE SECTION OF PLAYERS.THOSE WHO ARE NOT MADE FOR GRUELLING RALLIES BUT FOR TOUCH AND SKILLS.NO SURFACE TO SUPPORT THEIR PLAY.NO GS TO GIVE THEM GLORY.

Sir,do you understand how many,many young players who are physically inferior will never make it or have a surface that actually expresses their game?Or that an entire section of players will never find a surface to support their skills.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Federer didn't grow up on grass, also.



:cool:
Ditto for Edberg who grew up on clay. Becker too if I'm not mistaken. Upbringing plays a part but pros have natural predispositions too, some will just learn to excel by adulthood in certain aspects of the game that translate well to grasscourt tennis (feel for the ball, athleticism, great reflexes, serving etc.).
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
The sport is dying because Wimbledon is still grass, how pathetic...

Translation...I don't want Federer to win anymore. It hurts too much. Good thing grass is going no where. :)
Methinnks Rusty cares a bit more about the slam race than he cares to admit.

He's behaving exactly as those fanatical Fed fans he's throwing accusations at/making fun of.

Let's do away with the surface because my boy's useless on it for the last 7 years and his rival is using it to distance himself. Oh and package it as genuine concern about plight of the struggling pros.

Anyone who doesn't like Wimbledon or grasscourt tennis, they're free to change the channel, tune in only if Nadal is doing well or watch his best shot compilation on youtube. Classifying everyone who dares to like grasscourt tennis (even in the current year, the horror) as some elitists and Nadal haters is slowly becoming stale.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
without the big4 the wimbledon finals could have been

2017: cilic-berdych
2016: raonic-berdych
2015: gasquet-pospisil
2014: raonic-dimitrov
2013: del potro-janowicz
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
I would have preferred to watch these hypothetical RG finals:

2018: thiem-del potro
2017: thiem- wawrinka
2016: thiem-wawrinka
2015: wawrinka-ferrer
2014: gulbis-ferrer
2013: wawrinka-ferrer
 
without the big4 the wimbledon finals could have been

2017: cilic-berdych
2016: raonic-berdych
2015: gasquet-pospisil
2014: raonic-dimitrov
2013: del potro-janowicz

Yep really means that top 10 outside the big 4 have lesser skills in terms of Focus,athleticism,instincts,volley skills,reaction time,serving ability,defense, footwork on a surface that actually has a GS on it,Mental fortitude to break even at slightest opportunity.Actually whip the ball, keep up with scoreboard pressure e.t.c.

Thank you for telling us that.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Methinnks Rusty cares a bit more about the slam race than he cares to admit.

He's behaving exactly as those fanatical Fed fans he's throwing accusations at/making fun of.

Let's do away with the surface because my boy's useless on it for the last 7 years and his rival is using it to distance himself. Oh and package it as genuine concern about plight of the struggling pros.

Anyone who doesn't like Wimbledon or grasscourt tennis, they're free to change the channel, tune in only if Nadal is doing well or watch his best shot compilation on youtube. Classifying everyone who dares to like grasscourt tennis (even in the current year, the horror) as some elitists and Nadal haters is slowly becoming stale.
It is obvious. A nice game of show and tell. You are telling me nothing, but showing me everything. It is all about Federer winning.

And yes, it is getting boring and stale. If you don't like it, flip the channel, or do something else. I am sure there are better things to do than just whine and complain about it.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Yep really means that top 10 outside the big 4 have lesser skills in terms of Focus,athleticism,instincts,volley skills,reaction time,serving ability,defense, footwork on a surface that actually has a GS on it,Mental fortitude to break even at slightest opportunity.Actually whip the ball, keep up with scoreboard pressure e.t.c.

Thank you for telling us that.
The first thing that stands out to me is they are all big/good servers.
 
Methinnks Rusty cares a bit more about the slam race than he cares to admit.

He's behaving exactly as those fanatical Fed fans he's throwing accusations at/making fun of.

Let's do away with the surface because my boy's useless on it for the last 7 years and his rival is using it to distance himself. Oh and package it as genuine concern about plight of the struggling pros.

Anyone who doesn't like Wimbledon or grasscourt tennis, they're free to change the channel, tune in only if Nadal is doing well or watch his best shot compilation on youtube. Classifying everyone who dares to like grasscourt tennis (even in the current year, the horror) as some elitists and Nadal haters is slowly becoming stale.
??
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I would have preferred to watch these hypothetical RG finals:

2018: thiem-del potro
2017: thiem- wawrinka
2016: thiem-wawrinka
2015: wawrinka-ferrer
2014: gulbis-ferrer
2013: wawrinka-ferrer
You're leaving Wawrinka on clay but taking out Murray on grass, doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.

The first thing that stands out to me is they are all big/good servers.
Raonic only and even he has some game outside his serve.
 
The first thing that stands out to me is they are all big/good servers.
And since when good serving is not a skill that requires years of hard work to master it? Tall players have natural advantage in it just as genetically gifted players have a natural physical lead.

Somebody as talented as djokovic took 10 years to get their serve to an acceptable level.(2015) after turning pro. Rafa now serves harder and riskier to prolong his career.His serve won him his first US Open
Fred relied on serving skills to make two GS finals and a SF in 2015-16.

This two data points prove Serve skills are relevant and very hard to master.


Editing to add a gem from MTF:

This is ATP,serve is supposed to be a weapon of destruction, not a garden party introduction like the wta
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
You're leaving Wawrinka on clay but taking out Murray on grass, doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.



Raonic only and even he has some game outside his serve.

Leaving Murray at RG:

2018: thiem-delpo
2017: thiem-murray
2016: thiem-murray
2015: tsonga-murray
2014: gulbis-murray
2013: ferrer-haas/nishikori/gasquet


Except Gasquet all those players heavily rely on serve.
 
Grass has very few courts in the world, therefore no on can play on it.
This is part of it, too. For most of your average rec players, grass is just something you see on TV during Wimbledon. 99% of them have never set foot on a grass court. I live in a big city with about 4 million people in the metro area, and to my knowledge there's not a grass court within 100 miles.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
And since when good serving is not a skill that requires years of hard work to master it? Tall players have natural advantage in it just as genetically gifted players have a natural physical lead.

Somebody as talented as djokovic took 10 years to get their serve to an acceptable level.(2015) after turning pro. Rafa now serves harder and riskier to prolong his career.His serve won him his first US Open
Fred relied on serving skills to make two GS finals and a SF in 2015-16.

This two data points prove Serve skills are relevant and very hard to master.


Editing to add a gem from MTF:

This ATP,serve is supposed to be a weapon of destruction, not a garden party introduction like the wta
Maybe the influence of serve means the level is low because players can't play the rally.
 
People, as it appears from the posts here, are more concerned about Roger - Rafa, what they win and what they don't!

Stefan Edberg was my first hero. I never used to like clay then. It was way too long for my liking. I was a huge fan of Pete Sampras, Goran Ivanisevic in the 90s.

As much as I like Roger Federer, and his epic French Open win in 2009, for me the greatest sporting story in Tennis is Goran winning Wimbledon in 2001. It was epic. It was like the climax of a Hollywood blockbuster, something that happened like a fairy tale.

No offence to anyone, but I started watching clay court Tennis after Guga stepped on to the court. I used to like Gustavo Kuerten, even though even now I need to Google to get his spelling correct. It's about preference.

I have never said, not even once that clay is obsolete or shouldn't be there in ATP. I never tried to say that it's not entertaining for sure. It may be entertaining for some but not for me, that's what my position is.

I love grass. And I prefer warm up events more. As those events are more in tune with the Wimbledon that I watched in the 90s.
For me, this is the most entertaining part of the season. It has always been like that form the late 80s and it will stay so.
 
Leaving Murray at RG:

2018: thiem-delpo
2017: thiem-murray
2016: thiem-murray
2015: tsonga-murray
2014: gulbis-murray
2013: ferrer-haas/nishikori/gasquet


Except Gasquet all those players heavily rely on serve.
WTF? Murray, Thiem relying on serve? Ferrer/Nishikori relying heavily on serve?

YOu my friend are so full of **** that it is not even funny. Try harder
 
When you read about all the hardship up and coming players have to endure to barely crack the top 200, grass is definitely obsolete.

Only an elite few will ever get the opportunity to train on grass, let alone become somewhat decent on it.

At the rec level, it’s 100% obsolete.

It’s about 1 tournament, not the surface.

For historical and aesthetic reasons I think we can still have some room in our hearts for Wimby no? You can’t deny it’s rich place in history, regardless of its role in modern day tennis.


I voted for “obsolete” because I think the grand slams hold tennis from evolving, Wimbledon most of all.

Tennis badly needs to reorganize or it’s just a bunch of individual tournaments.

The sport itself is dying.
I pretty much understand and agree with you on the bolded. I would like you to expand on the non-bolded part. I don't understand what you meant there.

I like Hardcourts the most because rallies aren't at all boring on HCs. There's a bit of everything a player can try on Hcs. All type of players can succeed on it and you have the best rallies(my opinion) on HCs. For me hard courts are the best above clay and grass. I am as fond of clay as I am of grass.
Clay courts are great for rallying and the matches are great but sometimes can get boring.
Similarly I can say that grass court tennis can become boring too at times because of the short rallies like this year in Stuttgart.
I like relatively slower grass courts like at Wimby. They make for some delicious rallies. All the Fedal, Fedovic, Fedrray, Djoko-Tsonga matches from Wimby have been great to watch.
Grass always looks the best out of the three surfaces. It's beautiful and have a classy look to it.
Basically to me all the three surfaces have something great to offer. So yes grass is obsolete but it's a nice change in the middle of the season as it promotes variety and a different kind of skill set. And that's why it needs to be preserved.
I say all this as a viewer and maybe there's another side to it as a player(which you will be knowing better) but the primary concept of sports is to promote competitiveness and to please the audience.
 
Last edited:
Back in topic, I love grass. I am south american and I play 100% in clay, and I also like clay a lot, but problem right now is Nadal, not that clay is boring. When Guga/Coria/Gaudio/Muster/Bruguera/Corretja were in the tour, clay was a lot of fun because there was a lot of competition, different styles and etc. Even my countryman Horna was a lot of fun - and he spanked Federer in RG like a drum LMAO those were the times. Now it is more and more ball bashing - not a lot different from HC, and in top of that, you have the GOAT of the surface who even at 32 years old is still ruling the place like there is not tomorrow. I prefer HC and grass way over clay right now because of this domination. Yes, Fed has a big domination in grass, but at least some matches got really close and are fun/dramatic. When was the last time Nadal was pushed in RG? Other than 2014 (awful) and 2015 (injured) and a couple of Djokovic matches, he has steamrolled RG all the time. How that is fun/good to watch? In fact I currently enjoy a lot more the warm up Masters because of the chance of a different result than Nadal lifting the trophy.

If you hate Federer, dont blame the surface - a lot of people like me loves it from the Ivanisevic/Sampras/Henman (man, that guy was a pleasure to watch). Even Philippousis was fun because that monster and accurate serve. That day against Sampras when he was redlining and got injured against Sampras was crushing to watch.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Yeah, except the super skilled Muster and Kuerten couldn't do jack on grass.
Guga reached WImbledon QF, Muster had some late career success indoors.

It was just a different era, you had to specialize more to have success (with the rare exception of Agassi, the best ballstriker ever).
 
Back in topic, I love grass. I am south american and I play 100% in clay, and I also like clay a lot, but problem right now is Nadal, not that clay is boring. When Guga/Coria/Gaudio/Muster/Bruguera/Corretja were in the tour, clay was a lot of fun because there was a lot of competition, different styles and etc. Even my countryman Horna was a lot of fun - and he spanked Federer in RG like a drum LMAO those were the times. Now it is more and more ball bashing - not a lot different from HC, and in top of that, you have the GOAT of the surface who even at 32 years old is still ruling the place like there is not tomorrow. I prefer HC and grass way over clay right now because of this domination. Yes, Fed has a big domination in grass, but at least some matches got really close and are fun/dramatic. When was the last time Nadal was pushed in RG? Other than 2014 (awful) and 2015 (injured) and a couple of Djokovic matches, he has steamrolled RG all the time. How that is fun/good to watch? In fact I currently enjoy a lot more the warm up Masters because of the chance of a different result than Nadal lifting the trophy.

If you hate Federer, dont blame the surface - a lot of people like me loves it from the Ivanisevic/Sampras/Henman (man, that guy was a pleasure to watch). Even Philippousis was fun because that monster and accurate serve. That day against Sampras when he was redlining and got injured against Sampras was crushing to watch.
Pete lost the first set and The Scud retired. Scud was very dangerous on the surface. He really made the great Pete struggle that day. IIRC, he lost to Pete in the previous Wimbledon i straight sets.

In this forum, of course, we can see some newbies ridiculing Roger saying that his first Wimbledon final was against Philippoussis without knowing what he was capable of on this surface.
 
I pretty much understand and agree with you on the bolded. I would like you to expand on the non-bolded part. I don't understand what you meant there.

I like Hardcourts the most because rallies aren't at all boring on HCs. There's a bit of everything a player can try on Hcs. All type of players can succeed on it and you have the best rallies(my opinion) on HCs. For me hard courts are the best above clay and grass. I am as find of clay as I am of grass.
Clay courts are great for rallying and the matches are great but sometimes can get boring.
Similarly I can say that grass court tennis can become boring too at times because of the short rallies like this year in Stuttgart.
I like relatively slower grass courts like at Wimby. They make for some delicious rallies. All the Fedal, Fedovic, Fedrray, Djoko-Tsonga matches from Wimby have been great to watch.
Grass always looks the best out of the three surfaces. It's beautiful and have a classy look to it.
Basically to me all the three surfaces have something great to offer. So yes grass is obsolete but it's a nice change in the middle of the season as it promotes variety and a different kind of skill set. And that's why it needs to be preserved.
I say all this as a viewer and maybe there's another side to it as a player(which you will be knowing better) but the primary concept of sports is to promote competitiveness and to please the audience.



Time for yet another account.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Pete lost the first set and The Scud retired. Scud was very dangerous on the surface. He really made the great Pete struggle that day. IIRC, he lost to Pete in the previous Wimbledon i straight sets.

In this forum, of course, we can see some newbies ridiculing Roger saying that his first Wimbledon final was against Philippoussis without knowing what he was capable of on this surface.
I remember clearly that match, Pete was being schooled in that first set, with Scud connecting bombs like nothing. The aussie was almost in tears when he abandoned the court.

Guga reached WImbledon QF, Muster had some late career success indoors.

It was just a different era, you had to specialize more to have success (with the rare exception of Agassi, the best ballstriker ever).
That era was not homogenized-surface era. That was the main difference, and also the reason why you cannot state Muster or Guga were scrubs in grass, because grass was completely different to what is now. Dont forget Guga, also, won a Masters Cup at the end of the year, indoors. He was a monster player
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I think it could be an incredible surface IF the huge advantage of the serve these days was somehow taken out of play. Like others have mentioned in other threads, the rallies can be incredibly crafty and require so much more finesse on grass. Which I think provides a nice contrast to clay and hard. But as things stand now with guys bombing serves left, right, and centre, we don't get to see those "crafty" rallies on grass at least as much as we should. Wimbledon restricts players' outfits, why can't they also restrict the kind of racquet technology that they use? I'm not suggesting wooden racquets or anything, but somehow restricting racquet specs so that they're less powerful and explosive. However they did it, I think that players would still show up!
And why exactly is the serve such a horrible shot? It's a skill too.

Just because Nadal can't hit that many aces, doesn't mean the serve should disappear.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
This is part of it, too. For most of your average rec players, grass is just something you see on TV during Wimbledon. 99% of them have never set foot on a grass court. I live in a big city with about 4 million people in the metro area, and to my knowledge there's not a grass court within 100 miles.
So? Hasn't stopped Wimb from giving birth to some of the greatest tennis players ever.
 
Top