Yes, but even Fischer Random Chess could expect to be solved using much the same methods as employed in solving regular chess (although it would require much more computation). But the suggestion is still a good one, as no human could memorise sufficiently the required plays for so many different possible starting combinations. Memorising perfect play for even one starting combination is probably not feasible for any human (unless perfect play turns out to be based on rules or patterns that admit of easier memorisation than long mindless sequences and contingent sequences and so on).
Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown
- Thread starter ProCoach
- Start date
Yes, but even Fischer Random Chess could expect to be solved using much the same methods as employed in solving regular chess (although it would require much more computation). But the suggestion is still a good one, as no human could memorise sufficiently the required plays for so many different possible starting combinations. Memorising perfect play for even one starting combination is probably not feasible for any human (unless perfect play turns out to be based on rules or patterns that admit of easier memorisation than long mindless sequences and contingent sequences and so on).
abmk
Bionic Poster
that was because ivan wasn't a good enough big match player those days - a choker in slam finals tbh !
As far as connors dominating at the Open like no one else, you couldn't be further from the truth - federer has been more dominant and sampras arguably as much as connors, if not more. mac wasn't far behind either (4 USO slams, 3-1 vs connors at the Open )
connors lost in straights to orantes in 75 F, fell apart after a great opening set vs vilas in 77 F, lost in straights to mac ( 79 ) * and borg (81) ...
* though this wasn't such a good year for connors
thalivest
Banned
All true but considering the demanding changes in surface, and the great variety of suberb opponents, one could still say Connors owned the U.S Open like no else in the Open Era. Sampras won 5 U.S Open spread over 12 years, all on fast decoturf, and he had more narrow escapes than Connors did in winning them. Federer never faced the challenges of surfaces nor competition anything like what Connors faced.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
How do you explain courier or chang not doing as well as sampras or agassi? I don't think you can assume every great player in the past would be competitive in any generation. Especially the serve and volleyers. Sampras would for sure be a force. But laver-mcenroe etc? I also don't assume every great pro in the past would be able to automatically adjust to the pace of the current game. Maybe they could, i just have a hard time visualizing someone like borg would be hitting the pace of current play against someone like nadal or fed. You could make the same argument for wood racquets..
The great baseliners of the past would have the best chance. Who really cares though, i don't think anybody looks at the great pro's of the past and thinks any less of them.
Last edited:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I don't quite get your question. I said Agassi was more a cross generational player, not Courier or Chang. Courier simply lost interest in the game. Chang tried to change his fundamental game too much.
The results of the pros I listed are in themselves proof that their games survived evolution. I didn't mean to imply, nor would I agree, that a top tenner is necessarily a top tenner anytime. But there are pros, Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi, who exemplify a game that is competitive over a twenty year career.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Interesting question. I don't think it can be answered by a purely physical size statement. Chang was shortier and fast (5'9" and 160 lbs.), whicle Courier was taller and beefier (6'1" and 180 lbs.). So no easy similarity there.
I think it can better be answered by play and abilities. Chang was essentially a baseliner with minimal volleying abilities. Same for Courier. And the record would seem to demonstrate that these work better on clay.
Sampras (6' 1", 170 lbs.) was a mostly serve-and-volley player. Agassi (5' 11", 180 lbs.) is what? mostly a baseliner, but with some volleying abilities.
I believe that the answer is in the details here. Courier and Agassi (to utilize a quick shorthand measurement) have five slam titles and four runners-up between them. Sampras and Agassi have 22 slam wins and 12 runners-up between them--a clearly wide margin.
I believe that the margin can be best explained by the degree to which each player or group could move out of their comfort zone or away from their core styles and abilities, and adapt better to the opposing style of play. In other words to what degree were Courier-Chang all-court players? To what degree were Sampras-Agassi all-court players? Who could change to engage in serve and volley--Courier-Chang or Sampras-Agassi? Who could adapt to become a baseliner--Sampras?
I believe that one could make a better case that the more varied and three-dimesional games of certain players correlates better to more success and achievements.
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
We never saw many past players with modern racquets, strings and shoes for starters. So, perhaps that's why certain things are hard to fathom. As far as past players, I think that several traits would make Borg and Lendl two guys extremely tough even in today's era. They would be fascinating to watch, in my opinion, playing with modern equipment. Overall, I think the Defense would be a bit harder for them (relative to what they have experienced), but the Offense would be easier due to the differences the Game's changed dynamics. Modern equipment has made shotmaking and "retrieval shots" easier, and we would be able to see that change if Borg and Lendl had played with modern equipment. At the same time, the modern Game would also cause them to face more firepower from the baseline. In my opinion, they could both hold their own quite nicely, especially due to theie superb fitness. Lendl would be toughest at the US Open and the FO, while Borg would be toughest at Wimbledon and the French Open. Don't forget that both were also excellent indoors as well. Those are the two guys who brought many "modern elements" to the Game, such as great fitness, power from the baseline, consistency, as well as the use of substantial topspin. Borg hit more than topspin than Lendl. Lendl tended to hit it flatter, but very hard at times. Meanwhile, both had excellent serves.
Datacipher
Banned
UHHA>A>A>>A>>??A??A?A
Oh man. What is happening to this place?
Thank goodness at least you are pointing this out PC. OF COURSE, this is true. Neither Courier or Chang were doing nearly as well against players from their generation that they had previously wiped the court with. It can't be any more obvious that their level of play dropped.
Are we actually arguing whether they couldn't adopt their style/talent to their within their own generation??? Oh man..where to start with the flaws....
Even in Chang's last years when he had fallen off the map, he was beating Fed on grass, while getting beaten by journeymen who wouldn't have made him bat an eyelash 7 years before. I mean that year Chang was losing to people like Henman, Sebastian Lareau, Byron Black, Tillstrom.....Enqvist, Cecil Mammitt.....could anyone believe this was the same Chang as the one form 92-96????
I dont' even know what to say...to think that Chang/Courier who played a very similar game to Agassi didn't have the talent to adjust while say...Tim Henman did?? Couldn't adjust to power??? WHat planet is this?? Power is the last of their adjustment worries....players at that level can handle the hand-eye and reflexes...they stop being able to "handle" it when they get slower. And in their prime, they handled the power of Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Flipper, Krajicek, Rusedski, Stich, Ivanisevic,
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
Don't quote me but i believe i heard the power of the game passed up courier-chang-and mcenroe. Is their any truth to that?
That's true, but people seem obsessed that many of those pro's would get blown away with todays power game or they could still hang or even win.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I concur.
I don't think it can apply to any of a top-10 at any time, but only to a top-three or top-four over a number of years.
Can anyone imagine Fernando Gonzales or Davydenko being truly successful in a more serve-and-volley, more grass-court era?
Last edited:
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
They are all going to play their same game. Agassi would always be a baseliner and sampras a serve and volleyer/all court. Could sampras pull a federer and play mostly baseline? I don't think nowhere near as good as federer can play baseline.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
True, I agree. But now you've brought in a new variable--Federer.
This is a new question: who has a more three-dimensional game--Federer or Sampras?
Or, is Sampras able to be a baseliner as easily as Federer is able to be a serve-and-volleyer? (I think you know the answer. It may be that it is very close, as is 16-14.)
But ultimately, I think Federer can pull a Sampras and play pretty good serve-and volley better than Sampras can "pull a Federer" and play excellent baseline.
Last edited:
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
Federers serve is not quite as good as sampras but it's still very good. I think we agree fed could be a great serve and volleyer if he wanted to. He already is but just does not do it very often.. Would he be as good as sampras? Probably not but he would have a better chance than sampras playing baseline. It's a shame we don't see enough serve and volley from federer but it's obvious, from his records, he does not need to. And that baselining works better in todays game. Until a serve and volley specialist can dominate on the scene again, i beleive many think we will never see it again at the top in mens or womens.
Last edited:
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
I remember people talking about becker and how much more powerful he hit the ball then anyone else. Then i remember becker saying how much harder sampras hit than him. Connors called agassi a haircut and a forehand lol. Did agassi blow connors away in comparison after all is said and done? Maybe.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
McEnroe recently said the biggest mistake he made when he was a top tenner was trying to change his game to play the power game of Becker. He said this in reference to another pro who is currently trying to change their game. So no, I don't think McEnroe's game was passed up by power. He still competes quite well, even at 51.
Courier was one of the hardest hitters in the game. His forehands were every bit as hard as anyone today. For reference, at the French, Courier's forehand was clocked faster than Agassi's so no, I don't think Courier was passed up either.
Chang pulled a McEnroe and tried to hit bigger. He left the centerpiece of his game which was footspeed and courtsense. He also suffered from injury as noted previously.
And, it truly amazes me how people forget how well Sampras hit his groundstrokes. Sampras could hang with anyone, including Andre Agassi, from the baseline. Reading the opinions around here, you'd think he was Paul Annacone's equal off the ground. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sampras was possessed of an excellent ground game and watching him play Rafter in the finals of Wimbledon the other night, he could knock the felt off the ball on the backhand side as well. Sampras' running forehand is still among the best shots ever.
Sampras' serve is hands down better than anyone today, including Federer.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
WHAT? The power of the game has passed up Courier? Good grief!
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
No, not at all in my opinion. Connors was about 37 years of age during that match and the young Agassi won that match. Could you see almost anyone else competing at the US Open in their late 30's? Connors at 20-25 was a far superior player. No surprise there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WShBaHxLmpk
As to Becker and Sampras, Sampras was just better overall than Sampras, with more variety, and even heavier and more consistent groundstrokes. There was hardly anything Becker could do that Sampras could not do better.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Federer is not a great net player. He's not comfortable at net and doesn't play the net game with confidence, especially if he has to hit more than one volley. I have no doubt he could have been if he concentrated on it. And, if he had, Nadal would not hold a Wimbledon title. But, he didn't, and he doesn't.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
I believe agassi was the better baseliner and better return. Do you think federer can compete until his late 30's? If he can't does this mean connors is better?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I keep reading that Federer could be a great serve and volleyer. I suppose it's possible but it seems to me that he does miss a lot of easy volleys. I really think Nadal has a more solid volley than Federer.
Now given practice I think Federer can definitely be a good serve and volleyer but I'm not sure we can automatically say he'll be a serve and volleyer on the level of Edberg, McEnroe, Sampras, Newcombe for example.
This isn't an insult to Federer. Federer would do well in any era but I think he would have to rely on his other great assets, like his speed and forehand. I'm not convinced his volley would be great.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
Fed is still a great net player, he has the technique but just does not come in enough to be confident at it. And when nadal is rifleing shots at him it's tough for anyone. Not many can play mostly baseline throughout a match and expect to serve and volley and play the net well when they do not come in that much. Nadal comes to net on easy shots, fed has to work much harder to win points at net. It's funny if anyone thinks nadal can volley better than federer.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's really hard to say that Agassi was a better baseliner than Connors. I suppose you can argue return since we don't have the stats but I think Connors may have it there also.
I think we can all agree both Agassi and Connors have great groundstrokes. But we have to put speed and mobility into the equation also and that's when Connors is much better than even a young Agassi. Mobility was never one of Agassi's strong points.
Being a great defensive player is also a part of being a great baseliner and I would say Connors was superior there also. Connors mobility and lob was superb.
Remember Connors won over 100 tournaments in his career and was very competitive up into the early 1990's. He didn't do it by serve and volleying but by his great baseline play.
I'd have to go with Connors as the better baseliner for his career and at his peak versus Agassi's peak.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Let's put it this way, both have the potential to be great net players but no one approaches the net much today.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
borg number one
Legend
It would have been a great match, between Agassi and Connors on hard courts, or even at Wimbledon or RG. Let's not forget though, you have to equalize for both age and technology when trying to assess their play. So, it's either Agassi and Connors, both in their 20's, and with graphite frames, or both both playing with "old frames", for example Connors could use a T-2000, while Agassi played with a wood frame.
I would have loved to have seen how Connors would have fared if he had an array of modern frames to choose from while he was still a teenager. On all surfaces besides perhaps clay, I would give Connors the edge. Yet, even on red clay, Connors may very well trouble Agassi. There would be some great flat hitting and superb hand eye coordination if we ever had the chance to see those two face off. Even in 1989, Connors took Agassi to five sets, so I just don't see how Agassi would have consistently beaten Connors when Connors was 20, instead of about 37 years of age (1989).
As to Connors vs. Federer, Connors does have the "longevity edge", but in terms of peak years (prime years), Federer has the overall edge there in terms of accomplishment. Although, I don't think Federer is leagues ahead of Connors in terms of "peak play". Connors had some years, like 1974-79 (and 1982) for example, when he was so difficult for anyone to beat. If anyone disagrees with that, you have too adjust for technology, before asserting that Federer or Nadal are now clearly superior to "prime Connors".
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
when you say like "no one else" there needs to be a vast difference - there clearly isn't - neither in the competition ( all 3 generations ) nor in the level of dominance ( where fed is clearly ahead )...
he's lost in straights not once, not twice, but thrice in a period of 7 years and once in 4. How is that signs of being that dominant ?
Its one thing to say he was great on the basis of winning on all - grass/clay/deco, but another to say he was "dominant" like no one else . The term dominant just doesn't fit
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Let's put it this way, both have the potential to be great net players but no one approaches the net much today.
yes, because nadal def. a 4-time defending wimby champion by SnVing consistently, because he won a wimbledon by SnVing a lot . :roll:
nadal's a decent volleyer, but nowhere close to federer. he just cames to the net mainly to put away easy volleys . He can pull off some difficult ones, but he'll fluff those much more than make them.
he has shown nothing that indicates he could be a great net player.
That's typical bias and double standard from thalivest. He support Serena by saying Martina had weak competition. However Connors had better competition than Federer. So what he's saying is the strength of the WTA got better but the ATP got worsen. LOL
borg number one
Legend
Thanks Rabbit. I appreciate that. I just don't see Agassi as someone that rendered Connors' game "obsolete" in some fashion by overpowering him or basically "blowing him off the Court" with a "new" style or standard of play. Perhaps it made for "good Television" to make the observation that perhaps, this new young, brash player from the U.S. represented a "changing of the Guard", yet by 1989 you had Connors in his late 30's, while McEnroe had also dropped off severely. They were not the same as they were int he early 1980's.
In Tennis, much can change in just a few years, and that tends to get glossed over now that we are about 20+ years removed from those times. It's like comparing the state of the Game today versus just a few years ago. Things change rapidly, expecially in the top 10 or so, when any "weaknesses" become exploited by other top players.
Yes. I fully agree with all the above. Sampras could stay with anyone from the baseline if he had to. People tend to forget simple things. Sampras was perfectly capable of hanging with Lendl, and beat him to a great extent with power play from the baseline in the 1990 USO. On the other hand, Agassi, who by then was already much better known than Sampras, had lost all 6 encounters with Lendl at that point, and was not able to beat him until 1992. I also agree that Sampras´ serve was better than than anyone today, with the exception of Karlovic.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree. The few times Nadal comes to net, he always surprises me with his touch and, what appears to be, a certain amount of comfort at net that Federer doesn't have. If Nadal had a big serve, he'd probably be unbeatable on any surface. Conversely, if Federer was as good at net as he is in the backcourt, he'd probably have 8+ Wimbledon titles, and Nadal wouldn't have a Wimbledon title. Likewise, I'm fairly certain that Federer could have been as good at net as any of the greatest net players (Laver, Emerson, Roche, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Edberg, McEnroe, et al.), if he had chosen to be. But, he didn't, and he isn't, and is not likely to be at this late stage. (But, you never know).
As a result, I can never consider Federer the best grass court player ever, no matter how many titles he wins. Now, if Federer demonstrated that he could consistently beat true championship level net players, in championship matches on grass, that would be another matter. But, since there are no true serve and volleyers who play championship level tennis currently, that opportunity is unlikely to present itself.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'm a huge Sampras fan. I maintain that, at his prime, he may have played better than Federer's best. His running forehand was the best ever, even better than Laver's, and that's saying a lot. But, I also understand his limitations - like Laver, he's an attacker who lacked the patience to stay back and rally. That's why both had records of loosing to players of lesser abilities on any given day that they weren't "on."
From my observation, Laver finally learned patience after he was no longer playing on the tour full time. I saw him beat Borg in straight sets on red clay in a televised pro tournament in the U.S. by staying back and and just rallying with Borg. Laver still had the speed and power to beat Borg at his own game by employing a little patience. IMHO, Sampras never learned such patience. Which is just as well because, when he was on, like Laver, his level of play was among the top 5 ever, also IMHO.
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
Limpinhitter, on that Laver- Borg match, was that at River Oaks in Houston? I think Laver won that in about 1974-1975 or so? Was that the match perhaps? Borg was about 17 and Laver was about 34-35, but I know Laver did win here in Houston at about that time, on red clay. That's impressive, as Borg won the FO in 1974 at about 18 years of age. Thanks.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
IMO the best player of all time would be the most complete player of all time, that is with an all-court game that can most readily adapt to any style that works, whether it be baseline or serve-and-volley or any combination in between.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Federer fluffs more easy volleys than Nadal does. I would say they are pretty close in the net game stakes.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Connors played "power tennis" before the age of power tennis--without the benefits of poly strings, graphite, and topspin.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I really don't think so, not play for play based on difficulty anyway. Nadal usually comes in when he is absolutely certain he will get an easy volley. I don't think it's close at all between Nadal and Federer in the volley stakes. Federer is far more capable of making the more difficult volleys and equally or more adept at putting away the easy ones. He also sits his volleys up WAY less often.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Looks like somebody already more or less stated what I just posted above...
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Possibly! I can't recall the name of the tournament at this point. I thought it was later than that, after Borg was on top and Laver wasn't playing full time. What I do recall was that it was on red clay, and Laver, uncharacteristically, stayed in the back court and traded looping topspin groundies with Borg and, ultimately, out hit him from the baseline.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Cool. What about Federer playing 'excellent' S&V and Sampras playing 'excellent' baseline? Or are you suggesting that the distance for Federer to achieve a 'pretty good' standard of S&V play is the same as the distance for Sampras to achieve 'excellent' baseline play? Or are you just being inconsistent?
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, of course - it goes like this - federer comes to the net about a 100 times and fluffs about say 15 easy volleys , nadal comes to the net about a 30 times and fluffs about say 10 easy volleys. So yeah, you are right, federer fluffs more easy volleys than nadal does
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I do not think their differing abilities are equal in these two different departments. I think there is less distance for Fed "to achieve a 'pretty good' standard of S&V play" than for Sampras to achieve pretty good baseline play. (I guess that means that IMO, Fed is a better baseliner than Sampras was as a pure volleyer (no serving).)
Though I must also admit two other attributes: 1) Sampras's groundstrokes were occasionally excellent, and 2) IMO a pretty good volleyer is always better than a pretty good baseliner, because the volleyer can conclude the point in a positive manner quicker.
P.S. I should also add that Fed used to be (maybe five years ago) a better volleyer than he is today.
Last edited:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
And you're absolutely correct. Folks around here need to watch the '76 Connors/Borg final at Forest Hills on clay. Both men were absolutely murdering the ball.
You bring up a great point. When Sampras was an up and comer, who flew him to Connecticut to practice? None other than Ivan Lendl. I think Sampras learnt quite a bit about being a professional from Lendl. He also probably had to rally quite a bit with Lendl. And, there aren't many pros who ever played who hit harder than Lendl.
Yep. Connors laced 'em. He hit the ball so hard the majority of pros in 1975 tried or played with the T2000 to try and get the same edge as Connors.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Tina
Banned
A tennis couch? Is that like a couch especially made for watching Wimbledon?
Oops! Thank you
. Like Editing?I misssed most of the middle part of Sampras career, so this is pure speculation on my part. It seems to me that Sampras did have an excellent ground game from the start and the ability to rally well with anyone (except perhaps on clay), and that he gradually stopped using this ability for the reason that he simply did not need to use it, especially as he became more skillful at net. I mean, with the kind of serve he had it would have been absurd for him not to follow it to the net from the early days, unless his net game had been hopeless. It is in the return games that he seemed to become more aggressive and less patient as time went by, relying on those explosive approach shots that he could hit off both wings and from almost anywhere the moment he got a slightly short ball, missing a lot and getting passed, but knowing that sooner or later he would get the break, and that he himself was unlikely to get broken.
Federer seems to have followed a kind of opposite path in the sense that he reduced rather than increased, his net approaches as he matured. As if the highly unpredictable nature of unclear forays to the net became distasteful to his sense of control and perfection.
But these opposite tendencies are more than a matter of personal approach to the game. I think they both went in the direction that made the most sense given their abilities. Yet at the peak of their games early in their career, I believe Sampras could handle the baseline with more assurance and ease than Federer could handle the net. The opposite is probably true for the later stages in their careers, and this is probably what influences our assessment most: We remember older Sampras and can´t quite see him playing a baseline game at that stage. But he could earlier on.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I want a tennis couch!A tennis couch? Is that like a couch especially made for watching Wimbledon?
I need a tennis couch.
