Overpowering strengths of Great Players

pc1

G.O.A.T.
With a number of threads discussing weaknesses in players I'd thought I'd start a thread discussing the overwhelming strengths of players.

For example let's use Pete Sampras against Andre Agassi as an example. If you compare stroke by stroke some may give Andre the advantage overall. Sampras had a great forehand but some (not me) may give Andre the edge there as well as the forehand etc.

Andre may not have a huge stroke weakness and some may say that Sampras has a relative weakness on the backhand.

However Sampras has that super serve of his that can overpower even one of Agassi's great strengths, his great return of serve. Pete can play very badly for most of the set and still be even with Agassi. And then Sampras can hit a few decent returns and suddenly the set is his despite Agassi outplaying him for the set!

Sampras' strength overpowered Agassi's strength.

My analysis in the above example may have not been the greatest but it was to establish the point of the thread.

My point is that some players have some really powerful weapons in tennis that can mask some relative weaknesses or even real major weaknesses. So despite the weaknesses, the player's great strengths can make them an overall great player.

Another example is Roger Federer's forehand. Not that Federer's backhand is a weakness but only a fool would say his backhand is superior to his forehand. Federer can use that forehand to overpower his opponents off the ground and on serve return. Some players like Djokovic, Murray and Nadal may have better backhands than Federer but none of them can say for sure that they have a better forehand than Federer. Federer's forehand is the major weapon in Federer's arsenal that has allowed him to be one of the all time greats.

Goran Ivanisevic is another example of a player with an overwhelming serve that covers any weakness. Now I'm of the opinion Goran had great talent but mentally he could wander a bit. However Goran's games on serve often amused me, especially at Wimbledon. His mind could wander a bit and yet he would win his service games because of his great serve, perhaps the best in tennis in his time.

No one ever thought Goran had the best volley in the world so sometimes I would think that Goran decided to eliminate the volley portion of the serve and volley game when he played on grass. So often I would see Goran playing a service game in which he never had to hit the ball (outside of hitting the serve) to win the point. His awesome serve compensated for the fact that his volley wasn't as good as an Edberg or a Sampras.

Pancho Segura's two handed forehand, called by many to be the best single stroke in the history of tennis allowed him to compete with greats like Pancho Gonzalez, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Frank Sedgman etc. To get an idea of how Segura's two handed forehand was, it's almost the same stroke as Jimmy Connors' two handed lefty backhand. But many who have seem both hit their shots have called Segura's two handed forehand the superior shot. They said, like Federer's forehand today that any return just pass the service line and in would be put away by the Segura forehand. That Segura's disguise, power and consistency on that shot was incredible.

My general point here is that while some players may not have exploitable weakness and of course that's great. That some players who may have a small weakness may be superior players if these player's strength can be used properly.


Can we discuss some players in tennis history with great overwhelming strengths? It doesn't have to be strokes. It could be Nadal's mobility for example.

What I would like to discuss is how these players integrated their great strength or strengths into their overall games and how it may have covered any relative weaknesses (if any) and made them great.

I'll throw out a few. Currently Federer's forehand, Nadal's forehand, Roddick's serve, Serena Williams' serve, Murray's backhand, Djokovic's backhand, Clijsters' mobility.

In the past--
1. Pancho Gonzalez's serve
2. Ken Rosewall's backhand
3. Rod Laver's backhand
4. Edberg's volley
5. Ivan Lendl's forehand
6. Jimmy Connors' backhand
7. Pancho Segura's forehand
8. John McEnroe's volley
9. Bjorn Borg's groundies
10. Don Budge's backhand
11. Pete Sampras' serve
12. Andre Agassi's return.
13. Jimmy Connors' return
14. Ken Rosewall's return
15. Rod Laver's return
16. Goran's serve
17. Borg's return
18. Tilden's forehand
19. Perry's forehand
20. Sedgman's volley
 

SusanDK

Semi-Pro
A few that come to mind:

Stefan Edberg's footwork
Boris Becker's serve
Bjorn Borg's speed
Mats Wilander's mind
Ivan Lendl's work ethic
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
A few that come to mind:

Stefan Edberg's footwork
Boris Becker's serve
Bjorn Borg's speed
Mats Wilander's mind
Ivan Lendl's work ethic

Great choices Susan. I like it that you mentioned Mats Wilander's mind and Lendl's work ethic.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Nice topic.

One that comes instantly to mind, is Boris Becker. Becker once said that he was "the best player in the world in a 3-stroke rally". What Becker meant was that when serving, his serve and first shot after the return was better than anyone else, or that his service return and shot after that was best in the world. But, if Becker was drawn into longer rallies than that, he didn't fare as well.

Becker knew the limits of his own mobility. He said once that on clay, he was twice as big as most claycourters and he knew that was a liability. But, moving forward as in Wimbledon, it was an asset.

To complement this, his power off the serve and off the ground is legendary. I asked Mats Wilander who the hardest hitter he'd ever played was fully expecting him to say Lendl. Without hesitation, he said Becker. He'd never seen anyone before or since who hit the ball as hard. John McEnroe, after playing a 17 or 18-year old Becker claimed it was the racquet Becker used. McEnroe even went so far as to ask Dunlop to build him a racquet like Beckers so he could get as much on the ball.

I think the other part of this, going along with your Sampras/Agassi example, is match up. While Agassi had the edge on paper, and Brad Gilbert completely agrees with your assessment, he couldn't duplicate it in results. There was an ingredient in Sampras' game that just didn't match up well for Agassi.

The same can be said of Federer/Nadal. It may be much more surface depependent in their head to head, but still, there is something in Nadal's game that very much bothers and puts Federer on the immediate defensive.

But I do agree that a dominant champion has a facet of his/her game that they are able to exploit further than the rest of the field. The ability to maintain that edge and improve the rest of their game is what separates the greats from the transients.
 

SusanDK

Semi-Pro
Becker once said that he was "the best player in the world in a 3-stroke rally".

What always impressed me about Becker was how well he served big points to get out of trouble. He could be serving 0-40 or 15-40 repeatedly throughout a match, and always seemed to come up with aces, or huge serves plus put-away volleys to get out of trouble.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
What always impressed me about Becker was how well he served big points to get out of trouble. He could be serving 0-40 or 15-40 repeatedly throughout a match, and always seemed to come up with aces, or huge serves plus put-away volleys to get out of trouble.

Becker had a presence on the tennis court that made it seem like he was always in control of the match. Very few have it.

Arthur Ashe mentioned that in his time players like Borg and John Newcombe had it but Laver and Rosewall did not.

It's always a great strength when your opponents don't feel they have much of a chance.

I think Connors had it also.
 

cristiano

New User
My general point here is that while some players may not have exploitable weakness and of course that's great. That some players who may have a small weakness may be superior players if these player's strength can be used properly.

perfect

I don't understand why for so many people it is important to be more complete, and to have less weaknesses, for a champion. It's important of course, but it is more important how good are their best strenghts.

Almost all players had a head better than Ivanisevic's, better footwork, better work ethic, and many players also better forehand, backhand, and volley. Or lob and drop volley. But many of them don't have 4 finals at Wimbledon.

Even in head to heads between champions, there is no evidence that the more complete is the one who wins more.

c.
 
Lendl had it till you fought back.

I think Federer and Nadal have it in spades.

Becker was one of my favorites growing up. One thing I notice about his game was that he put himself on the OFFENSIVE instead of the defensive during his opponent's serve. Very few can do that.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
What always impressed me about Becker was how well he served big points to get out of trouble. He could be serving 0-40 or 15-40 repeatedly throughout a match, and always seemed to come up with aces, or huge serves plus put-away volleys to get out of trouble.

Yes, exactly, Becker had one of the heaviest serves in the history of the sport. Mary Carillo once opined during a DC match that if Becker "would get 70% of his first serves in and follow them to net, he'd never lose a match". Cliff and Fred agreed with her.

Becker's problems or decline began when he played from the baseline thinking he could hang with Rios and Agassi type players. He couldn't and lost his biggest strength/edge over that type player.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
to add to your list and one that just came to mind,

Marcello Rios' complete unpredictability and ability to not only put the ball where ever he wanted but also to, as Agassi put it, "Dr. Feelgood" his opponent's power.
 
Remember that Becker was starting to have injury issues too, and wasn't getting to the net as freely anymore either.

That said, he could've rested and come back to play his game, you are right. Very few could stand with Agassi with his forehand.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Remember that Becker was starting to have injury issues too, and wasn't getting to the net as freely anymore either.

That said, he could've rested and come back to play his game, you are right. Very few could stand with Agassi with his forehand.


Not to turn this into a Becker thread, but Becker did so some smart things in his career. One was to enlist Nick Bollitierri as his coach. NB said that one of the greatest memories he has is Becker's 1995 Wimbledon win against Agassi in the SFs. Becker went on to lose to Sampras, but the SF win avenged a previous loss. NB said that he basically got Becker back to his strengths.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Not to turn this into a Becker thread, but Becker did so some smart things in his career. One was to enlist Nick Bollitierri as his coach. NB said that one of the greatest memories he has is Becker's 1995 Wimbledon win against Agassi in the SFs. Becker went on to lose to Sampras, but the SF win avenged a previous loss. NB said that he basically got Becker back to his strengths.

Was Bollitierri his coach when he beat Chang to win the Australian?
 

Jack Romeo

Professional
i think one of the best examples i can think of are monica seles' groundstrokes. in particular, her racket work on both forehand and backhand, while not at all graceful or pretty, enabled her to create shots that no one else could hit. she didn't need to be in perfect balance to hit a winner, she just somehow found a way to hit winners. seles was no athlete like graf or navratilova or even sabatini. but throughout mid 1990 to early 1993, she had the best results of out of everyone. she didn't serve like navratilova although she did improve it especially from 1992 onwards. but she hit the ball so cleanly off both sides and made the shots when it mattered most. i will never forget her performances in the season-ending championships from 1990-92. she faced sabatini in 1990 and navratilova in 1991 and 1992. these were players with far more complete games than her. but she won all of those matches. in the 92 final, martina's serve-and-volley game had seles running all over the court. as she was not particularly graceful, there were inevitably some moments when she would be really hitting off balance. she nailed the ball anyway, time after time. the score was something like 7-5,6-3,6-1 (they played best of five finals back then).

after the stabbing, it was just a totally different story. her strokes were easier to break down - mainly due to her poor conditioning, injuries and inability to maintain shape.
 
Last edited:
Not to turn this into a Becker thread, but Becker did so some smart things in his career. One was to enlist Nick Bollitierri as his coach. NB said that one of the greatest memories he has is Becker's 1995 Wimbledon win against Agassi in the SFs. Becker went on to lose to Sampras, but the SF win avenged a previous loss. NB said that he basically got Becker back to his strengths.

Yup.

For about a 3 year stretch between 92-94, I thought Becker was finished. Then 95-96, he started playing some of his best tennis again.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
i think one of the best examples i can think of are monica seles' groundstrokes. in particular, her racket work on both forehand and backhand, while not at all graceful or pretty, enabled her to create shots that no one else could hit. she didn't need to be in perfect balance to hit a winner, she just somehow found a way to hit winners. seles was no athlete like graf or navratilova or even sabatini. but throughout mid 1990 to early 1993, she had the best results of out of everyone. she didn't serve like navratilova although she did improve it especially from 1992 onwards. but she hit the ball so cleanly off both sides and made the shots when it mattered most. i will never forget her performances in the season-ending championships from 1990-92. she faced sabatini in 1990 and navratilova in 1991 and 1992. these were players with far more complete games than her. but she won all of those matches. in the 92 final, martina's serve-and-volley game had seles running all over the court. as she was not particularly graceful, there were inevitably some moments when she would be really hitting off balance. she nailed the ball anyway, time after time. the score was something like 7-5,6-3,6-1 (they played best of five finals back then).

Wow, I didn't think of Seles but she is a perfect example of what I mean. The ball striking ability of Seles more than compensated for any weaknesses she had.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Was Bollitierri his coach when he beat Chang to win the Australian?

I'll have to revisit his book to make sure, but I believe so. Bollitierri and Becker hooked up pre-Wimbledon '95 and I think they stayed together until Becker retired on an as needed basis.

NB goes on at some length about Becker in his book. Apparently Becker wrested him away from Stich who Becker had a great deal of dislike for.
 

The-Champ

Legend
Why did Becker hate Stich? Rivalry or personal?



I've been wondering about this as well. My gues is that Stich has always been in the shadow of Boris' popularity and that contributed to some sort of jelousy from him. It's all about who the tennis hegemon in Germany is.



On the topic at hand, Stich' amazing serve trumps all his other good qualities. For me his serve is better than Boris' or Krajicek's. Aside from Ivanisevic, Stich is the player that Edberg feared the most.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
If we're talking about shots, IMHO, Federer's forehand is the best shot in the history of tennis. There isn't a whole lot of room for debate about that.

After that, Sampras' serve, Gonzalez serve, Connors' backhand, Lendl's forehand, Rosewall's backhand, Roche's backhand volley, Segura's forehand, Kramer's forehand, Agassi's forehand and backhand, etc., etc., are all debatable.

If we're talking about intangible attributes of a player, then, again, IMHO, there's not much room for debate that Borg's mental toughness stands alone. Again, JMHO!
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Why did Becker hate Stich? Rivalry or personal?

I've been wondering about this as well. My gues is that Stich has always been in the shadow of Boris' popularity and that contributed to some sort of jelousy from him. It's all about who the tennis hegemon in Germany is.



On the topic at hand, Stich' amazing serve trumps all his other good qualities. For me his serve is better than Boris' or Krajicek's. Aside from Ivanisevic, Stich is the player that Edberg feared the most.

Well, Becker pretty much owned the corner of public opinion in Germany until Stich came along. Stich's results began to rival Becker's. In 1991, Becker pretty much intimated that it'd be him and Edberg in the finals. Edberg lost to Stich and Becker was a little loose in the excuse department after Stich beat him in the finals. I think Becker said he had a let down because Edberg wasn't in the final. It was reminiscent of the kind of stuff Sampras and Rafter had going on.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Was Bollitierri his coach when he beat Chang to win the Australian?

No, he wasn't.

Nick Bollettieri resigned as Agassi's coach in July 1993 after Agassi's Wimbledon defence had ended in the quarter finals against Sampras. Bollettieri was Boris Becker's coach from December 1993 until August 1995. Bollettieri and Becker parted company before the 1995 US Open.

http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/nick-bollettieri
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Boris had a big ego, Stich was no slouch either, He was a late bloomer, and all of nowhere challenged Beckers lofty status in Germany. The media played a role too, and there wan no love lost between these two. I remember a match in Frankfurt, when Becker played the crowd, and they booed Stich away from the court. Another stunning match was a Hamburg semi, when Stich beat Boris on clay 1 and 1, and Boris kneed before him. But the crowd and the media were always on Boris' side, their first love, hailed as a saint in Germany. In Stich's finest hours, when he won the DC and the Masters cup in 1993, Boris stole the limelight away, by marrying suddenly under great media attention.
 

yemenmocha

Professional
I think a lot of these are circumstance-dependent, especially court surface.

Roddick's serve would be a much greater weapon if today he was playing on the much faster court surfaces of the 90's. Likewise Sampras' serve wouldn't have helped him as much today with all of the slow hardcourts and slow grass.

On the flip side of that are some strengths such as Nadal's athleticism, especially footspeed. That wouldn't be as helpful on the very fast courts in the 90's because the surface favored the serve so much, and consequently the first volley of the S&V'er. The size of the court and the angles make it so nobody, even Nadal, can run down a properly executed S&V on a very fast court. But with slow courts today, even the best of serves are realistically returnable, and good first volleys sit up & slow down for a fast baseliner to have a decent shot at making the pass.

Court surface changes over the last decade are an understated factor. Heh, reminds me of how I easily beat my buddy in golf. I insist we play at the Par 3 course in town. What, then, of his massive yardage with his Driver? His strength is handicapped by the features of the course.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
What's happened in the last decade or so has been the narrowing of the gap between the contrast in surfaces. There's still differences, but not as extreme.

It's obvious that the ATP didn't think it was good for tennis to have the tour divided into specialists on each given surface like it was in the 1990s.
 

yemenmocha

Professional
What's happened in the last decade or so has been the narrowing of the gap between the contrast in surfaces. There's still differences, but not as extreme.

It's obvious that the ATP didn't think it was good for tennis to have the tour divided into specialists on each given surface like it was in the 1990s.

Well, but their "fix" is to engineer it so that only one major playstyle exists at all today: baseliners.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Yep, they completely 'overfixed' the era of serving contests. Now it's pretty much ping pong standing on the table.

Since Lendl made the comment recently about he could attack from defensive positions now I wonder how Lendl would do now in his prime.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Since Lendl made the comment recently about he could attack from defensive positions now I wonder how Lendl would do now in his prime.

Lendl would do fine. He wasn't as mobile as Nadal, but he was stronger off the ground than about anyone else. Give him a Babolat Aero Pure Destroyer and he'd be hitting about a million miles an hour off the ground these days.
 

maxplymac

Banned
A few that come to mind:

Roddick's spontaneous shot selection

Lendl's passing shots from both wings

Nalbandian's drop shot, lobs, improvisation, and bh passing shot

Edberg's bh volley, second serve, anticipation and bh topspin lob

Mac's fh volley and improvisation

Fed's forehand

Connors' stutter steps

Agassi's return and overhead smash without a bounce

Courier's inside-out fh and competitiveness

Everts' poise and grace under pressure

Borg's court-gobbling ability
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Lendl would do fine. He wasn't as mobile as Nadal, but he was stronger off the ground than about anyone else. Give him a Babolat Aero Pure Destroyer and he'd be hitting about a million miles an hour off the ground these days.

I would think so also. Lendl had that powerful serve, who may not have been as fast as Becker's but Brad Gilbert thought Lendl's serve was tremendous because of the variety. You combine that with his putaway forehand and his consistency off the ground and he'd be very tough today in my opinion.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Evert was never the fastest woman on the tour, but her great anticipation and flawless racket preparation made up for the half step loss to the very quickest. She got an earlier start and and was always ready when she got there to maximize her options on shot selection.
 

piece

Professional
I know he's not a great, but never has a stroke taken a player so far beyond his means as has the Karlovic serve.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
Well, Becker pretty much owned the corner of public opinion in Germany until Stich came along. Stich's results began to rival Becker's. In 1991, Becker pretty much intimated that it'd be him and Edberg in the finals. Edberg lost to Stich and Becker was a little loose in the excuse department after Stich beat him in the finals. I think Becker said he had a let down because Edberg wasn't in the final. It was reminiscent of the kind of stuff Sampras and Rafter had going on.

imo nobody was beating stich in that final. everything he could do well, he did well that day. stich always had consistency issues, injuries, etc., but if you make a short list of great players playing at their highest level, and what sort of top-line potential that represents, there's an argument for putting him rather high up on the list.
 

The-Champ

Legend
imo nobody was beating stich in that final. everything he could do well, he did well that day. stich always had consistency issues, injuries, etc., but if you make a short list of great players playing at their highest level, and what sort of top-line potential that represents, there's an argument for putting him rather high up on the list.


I agree except when he plays agassi, who according to Stich himself is a nightmare opponent. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't even think he's won a set against AA.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I agree except when he plays agassi, who according to Stich himself is a nightmare opponent. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't even think he's won a set against AA.

I remember when I saw that US Open final against Agassi. Stich seemed scared against Agassi. I haven't seen the match since that time but that was my impression.

Ironically Sampras wrote that Stich was a very tough opponent for him.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I agree except when he plays agassi, who according to Stich himself is a nightmare opponent. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't even think he's won a set against AA.

Stich won 2 sets against Agassi in 6 meetings.

Andre Agassi 6-0 Michael Stich
1990 Toronto R32: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
1991 Davis Cup SF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-1, 6-4)
1991 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (7-5, 6-3)
1993 Cincinnati QF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-2)
1994 US Open F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-1, 7-6, 7-5)
1994 Vienna F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (7-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)

Hardcourt: 3-0 to Agassi
Clay: 1-0 to Agassi
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 2-0 to Agassi
In Slams: 1-0 to Agassi
 
Any tall tennis player can do that. Ivanisevic was, what, 6'4"?

Monfils is 6'4"

Querry's 6'6"

Isner's 6'9"

Any and all of them can use their height to their advantage, including kick serves. But what about using the whole court? Ivanisevic was very good with using his wing span to his advantage throughout the whole court. Querrey's pretty good also. I like how he uses it all.

Karlovic? No. I've always said that, from taller players, the closer you get to the net, the most dangerous and inpenetrable you should be. Yet, he gets passed a ton, and from guys a foot shorter than he is.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Becker had a presence on the tennis court that made it seem like he was always in control of the match. Very few have it.

Arthur Ashe mentioned that in his time players like Borg and John Newcombe had it but Laver and Rosewall did not.

It's always a great strength when your opponents don't feel they have much of a chance.

I think Connors had it also.

Some guys had a real presence out there....you knew you were facing someone other than the rank and file player...definitely true with Becker, Connors and Mac, I would say. They impressed themselves upon their opponents and could intimidate, even when they were well past their prime.

The '91 USO quarterfinal Connors played against Harhuis was an example of mind over matter; Harhuis was clearly playing better, but Connors stuck with him, hit some amazing shots to steal the 2nd set, deflating Harhuis completely. Jimmy then got on a roll and crushed him in sets 3 and 4. Yet, Paul had the better game that day, no doubt.

These kinds of guys just had spines of steel and great willingness to win, no matter what the cost.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Stich won 2 sets against Agassi in 6 meetings.

Andre Agassi 6-0 Michael Stich
1990 Toronto R32: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
1991 Davis Cup SF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-1, 6-4)
1991 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (7-5, 6-3)
1993 Cincinnati QF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-2)
1994 US Open F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (6-1, 7-6, 7-5)
1994 Vienna F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (7-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)

Hardcourt: 3-0 to Agassi
Clay: 1-0 to Agassi
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 2-0 to Agassi
In Slams: 1-0 to Agassi

stich had a lousy record against Andre, which never made sense to me. Could be the early, aggressive ball striking style. Shoot, Connors gave him a good scare at the FO in '92 before he ran out of gas. A few points here and there in the first 2 sets and Jimbo would've nailed him.
 

Greg

Rookie
To complement this, his power off the serve and off the ground is legendary. I asked Mats Wilander who the hardest hitter he'd ever played was fully expecting him to say Lendl. Without hesitation, he said Becker. He'd never seen anyone before or since who hit the ball as hard. John McEnroe, after playing a 17 or 18-year old Becker claimed it was the racquet Becker used. McEnroe even went so far as to ask Dunlop to build him a racquet like Beckers so he could get as much on the ball.

My God.

I didn't realize that McEnroe has been doing the whole blame-the-racket thing since day one. He honestly thought that Becker's racket giving him all the power? Not the fact that Becker was twice McEnroe's size?

I get that McEnroe is one of the greatest players to ever swing a tennis racket, but sometimes the stuff he says absolutely drives me up the wall.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
My God.

I didn't realize that McEnroe has been doing the whole blame-the-racket thing since day one. He honestly thought that Becker's racket giving him all the power? Not the fact that Becker was twice McEnroe's size?

I get that McEnroe is one of the greatest players to ever swing a tennis racket, but sometimes the stuff he says absolutely drives me up the wall.

Well, it really isn't that far fetched. Martina Navratilova, in awe of John McEnroe's 1984 season, began playing with a Dunlop 200G stenciled with YY. She thought the 200G was responsible for his season. She emplored Yonex to build her a racquet and the pearl white widebody came out of that I believe.

And, I certainly didn't mean to mislead, McEnroe may have realized Becker's physique was part of his power, but he honestly did think some portion (again, not sure of the percentage) was due to his racquet.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
stich had a lousy record against Andre, which never made sense to me. Could be the early, aggressive ball striking style. Shoot, Connors gave him a good scare at the FO in '92 before he ran out of gas. A few points here and there in the first 2 sets and Jimbo would've nailed him.

And that match was a few months after Jimbo had beaten Stich at 1992 Memphis, saving match points to win 5-7, 7-6, 7-5. Stich was still the Wimbledon champion at the time.
 
Well, it really isn't that far fetched. Martina Navratilova, in awe of John McEnroe's 1984 season, began playing with a Dunlop 200G stenciled with YY. She thought the 200G was responsible for his season. She emplored Yonex to build her a racquet and the pearl white widebody came out of that I believe..

Actually Martina did that in 1987, because she was being overpowered by Graf who was using the 200G. Martina wanted a power boost to fight back.

The Yonex widebody was Yonex attempt to bring Martina back after she had left.....the Yonex founder felt it was his duty to bring her back to the family even though she had embarrassed them badly with her hokey black-out racquet. He sent her prototype after prototype after she left the company until they delivered one she finally liked.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Actually Martina did that in 1987, because she was being overpowered by Graf who was using the 200G. Martina wanted a power boost to fight back.

The Yonex widebody was Yonex attempt to bring Martina back after she had left.....the Yonex founder felt it was his duty to bring her back to the family even though she had embarrassed them badly with her hokey black-out racquet. He sent her prototype after prototype after she left the company until they delivered one she finally liked.

Oops...thanks for the catch.
 
Top