The eye test: who impressed you the most among those you watched?

[Bambooman]

Agassi would be the first to tell you that he was not the most athletic.

 

[antony]

Seeing Mattek-Sands and Swiatek in doubles at the Cincinnati Masters was really good

 

[R. Schweikart]

Stats are useful and an objective measure of player comparison (to an extent)

But we also know its hard and really unfair to compare different generations with so many variables - surfaces, racket and string tech, prevalent trends of tournament prestige/importance Etc

Stats also tend to force us into binary choices among the top performers.

That’s why I think the ‘eye test’ - the ability of tennis fans to recognize extraordinary and sustained greatness having watched a lot of other tennis players in the same as well as different eras - is a better way to compare and appreciate past players.

It doesn’t force one into mutually exclusive scenarios and while completely subjective, the choices I reckon would come to parallel the same list as someone compiling purely from statistical data. Stats also get into subjective interpretation territory soon enough but with the pretense of certifiable clarity whereas with this approach we are clear frm the outset about the nature of the discussion.

So who are the best players you’ve watched?

To make it a bit more structured, how would you rate them across some parameters ( and this just a starter list, add your own): racket skills, athleticism, tactics, anticipation/court vision, endurance, mental strength, sportsmanship - that make these players and/or certain seasons of these players extraordinary to you?

examples of certain plays, achievements to illustrate your conclusions etc are always valuable.

The main condition is that you should have watched these players live (on tv/in stadium).

Merely citing stats from an era does not count and there are countless threads for that. Im aware this precludes older players whom most of us can only appreciate from achival footage but this keeps our discussions more ‘real’ rather than esoteric.

racket skills: Graf, Hingis, Henin
athleticism: Graf, V. Williams, S. Williams
tactics: Navratilova, Hingis, Barty
anticipation/court vision: Seles, Hingis
endurance: Graf, Sanchez
mental strength: Evert, Graf
sportsmanship: Graf, Clijsters
elegance: Graf, Henin
forehand: Graf
serve: S. Williams
slice backhand: Graf
topspin backhand: Henin
volley: Navratilova, Novotna

 

[R. Schweikart]

FOREHAND:
Federer for how natural the shot was. He hits it with such ease, yet it’s so deadly; on a top of it all a gorgeous stroke.
Stosur, I love the quick wrist action that results in great disguise, pace, depth and that nadalesque spin which gives the ball an unpredictable trajectory and hard to control bounce. Beautiful, compact, fierce shot.
Sampras’s running forehand( ka-boom!).
Nadal’s (in)famous banana passing shot on the run.

BACKHAND:
Henin, Gasquet(Basically, what I said about Federer’s forehand applies to those two)
Nalbandian. It’s just so good – powerful attacks, redirecting the ball so well, creating amazing angles, crosscourt, down the line, lobs, drops... all-around excellence, plus it was nice to look at.

SLICE:
Graf. It was so sharp, went super low and deep. A mean shot.
Federer, he places it so well, rarely misses and again he does it so (seemingly)easily.
Dologopolov, for its astounding spin.

SERVE:
Sampras, the first serve was a killer, just boom out of nowhere, superb disguise, perfect placement, great speed. Then the second was even more impressive, and the service motion is marvelous.
Serena for coming up with the right serve at the right time.

VOLLEYS:
McEnroe, his feel for the ball at the net was just unbelievable.
Edberg, so accurate and elegant when volleying.
Navratilova, that backhand volley was insanely good.

You forgot someone in your "forehand" department.

 

[skaj]

You forgot someone in your "forehand" department.

Nope, I have a good memory.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Nope, I have a good memory.

I don't think Samatha Stosur with her 57.5 % career match winning record was called "Fräulein Forehand".

 

[skaj]

I don't think Samatha Stosur with her 57.5 % career match winning record was called "Fräulein Forehand".

Why should an aussie be called "Fräulein" and what does her career match winning record have to do with this.

 

[Slicehand]

Rod laver and hugo gaston

 

[Graf1stClass]

Rod laver and hugo gaston

For slicehand, you know whom had the best slice stroke

 

[Slicehand]

For slicehand, you know whom had the best slice stroke

In fact, i just felt it would be really nasty to put those names in the same sentence

 

[R. Schweikart]

Why should an aussie be called "Fräulein" and what does her career match winning record have to do with this.

Think hard.

 

[Rosstour]

Fed is the most 'different' guy I've ever watched live. The dude was a cheat code unto himself. He knew where every ball was going and put them away effortlessly. No one else has ever looked like that, not even Djok-or-'dal.

 

[skaj]

Think hard.

I didn't think you knew.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I didn't think you knew.

You wrote about Stosur:
" I love the quick wrist action that results in great disguise, pace, depth and that nadalesque spin which gives the ball an unpredictable trajectory and hard to control bounce. Beautiful, compact, fierce shot."

A player with a 57.5 career winning percentage can't have a great forehand.
Unless we want to dilute the meaning of "great" into something unrecognizable.

But you are free to be impressed of course.
However - more than by Fräulein Forehand's forehand....?

 

[skaj]

You wrote about Stosur:
" I love the quick wrist action that results in great disguise, pace, depth and that nadalesque spin which gives the ball an unpredictable trajectory and hard to control bounce. Beautiful, compact, fierce shot."

A player with a 57.5 career winning percentage can't have a great forehand.
Unless we want to dilute the meaning of "great" into something unrecognizable.

But you are free to be impressed of course.
However - more than by Fräulein Forehand's forehand....?

Maybe in a head of a person who for some reason refuses to think, it can't. In reality it, of course, can.

Yes, I wrote that(without the odd underline though), I remember it well.

And yes, more than Graf's forehand which from this perspective, 30+ years, several other as good forehands and numerous improvements overall in the WTA later is not as impressive as it used to be.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Maybe in a head of a person who for some reason refuses to think, it can't. In reality it, of course, can.

Yes, I wrote that(without the odd underline though), I remember it well.

And yes, more than Graf's forehand which from this perspective, 30+ years, several other as good forehands and numerous improvements overall in the WTA later is not as impressive as it used to be.

Players like Graf and others of the 80s and 90s were technically so much better tennis players than the Stosurs of today it isn't pretty.
What do you think a young Steffi's forehand combined with modern racquet and string technology would do to today's top players?
Right, she would murder them.
Kimiko Date said it, Andrea Petkovic admitted it. Both know Steffi, have played against her or at least practiced with her.

I

 

[skaj]

Players like Graf and others of the 80s and 90s were technically so much better tennis players than the Stosurs of today it isn't pretty.
What do you think a young Steffi's forehand combined with modern racquet and string technology would do to today's top players?
Right, she would murder them.
Kimiko Date said it, Andrea Petkovic admitted it. Both know Steffi, have played against her or at least practiced with her.

I

I don't know what the idea of players in the 80s and 90s being "so much better tennis players than Stosurs of today" has to do with what we've been discussing.

As for the today's players if you are talking about prime Graf, she would win against them most of the time probably, the field today is terrible. Again I don't know what does that have to do with what we are discussing. Nor do I know what Kimiko Date and Graf's compatriot mentioned "admitted".

Even more do I not know why are you constantly posting hysterical emojis to posts that are not funny at all.

All in all, your posts here don't make much sense, perhaps you should think a bit more before you write. They seem like a bunch of digressions, and we shouldn't waste time on those.

 

[R. Schweikart]

...
All in all, your posts here don't make much sense, perhaps you should think a bit more before you write. They seem like a bunch of digressions, and we shouldn't waste time on those.

That from someone who thinks Stosur or some other players of today have a greater forehand than Steffi is really funny.

 

[skaj]

That from someone who thinks Stosur or some other players of today have a greater forehand than Steffi is really funny.

Again, thinking that something that isn't funny is funny, poor logic behind conclusions(or intentional fabricating, I'm not sure), plus ad hominem comments in the lack of arguments...

 

[R. Schweikart]

Again, thinking that something that isn't funny is funny, poor logic behind conclusions(or intentional fabricating, I'm not sure), plus ad hominem comments in the lack of arguments...

Ad hominem?
That from you is really funny.

 

[skaj]

Ad hominem?
That from you is really funny.

And yet again, poor logic, ad hominem, and calling unfunny things funny.

Do you know why you find it to be funny?

 

[R. Schweikart]

And yet again, poor logic, ad hominem, and calling unfunny things funny.

Do you know why you find it to be funny?

You are funny because you accuse people of things you do yourself.

 

[skaj]

You are funny because you accuse people of things you do yourself.

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about in my last two posts - nothing funny about that, I do not do that, you can't find an example of me doing that, and you are again talking about me in your post instead of the topic of the thread/discussion.

So, again, please lets get back to the topic, your digressions are highly unnecessary.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about in my last two posts - nothing funny about that, I do not do that, you can't find an example of me doing that, and you are again talking about me in your post instead of the topic of the thread/discussion.
...

Talking about me in your posts instead of the topic is exactly what you are doing here in this thread.
And that is funny!

 

[skaj]

Talking about me in your posts instead of the topic is exactly what you are doing here in this thread.
And that is funny!

Nope. As I said, and I will quote myself " you can't find an example of me doing that ".

And yet again, and I will quote myself from my last post here too: " please lets get back to the topic ".

 

[R. Schweikart]

Nope. As I said, and I will quote myself " you can't find an example of me doing that ".
...

Here are a few examples:
Posts #165, #167, #169, #171.

Which is really funny!

 

[skaj]

Here are a few examples:
Posts #165, #167, #169, #171.

Which is really funny!

Nope, those are not examples of ad hominem comments. Those are comments about your posts, about what you have said, not about you.
#165 comment on your " A player with a 57.5 career winning percentage can't have a great forehand. " (= it's illogical, the idea).
# 167 expressing my wonderment regarding your posts, suggesting what you should do - you should think more before you write and not write any more digression, so we wouldn't waste more time on illogical ideas and digressions.
#169 talking about your post, not you
# 171 again, talking about your post, what you wrote, not you.

I hope it is clear now.

I am not interested in you personally what so ever, I just respond to what you write.

Now can you please get back to the topic of tennis.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Nope, those are not examples of ad hominem comments. Those are comments about your posts, about what you have said, not about you.
#165 comment on your " A player with a 57.5 career winning percentage can't have a great forehand. " (= it's illogical, the idea).
# 167 expressing my wonderment regarding your posts, suggesting what you should do - you should think more before you write and not write any more digression, so we wouldn't waste more time on illogical ideas and digressions.
#169 talking about your post, not you
# 171 again, talking about your post, what you wrote, not you.
...

#165:
“Maybe in a head of a person who for some reason refuses to think…“

#167:
“…do I not know why are you constantly posting hysterical emojis…“
“…perhaps you should think a bit more before you write…“

#169:
“…poor logic behind conclusions(or intentional fabricating, I'm not sure)…“

#171:
“And yet again, poor logic, ad hominem,…“

 

[Antónis]

Fed is the most 'different' guy I've ever watched live. The dude was a cheat code unto himself. He knew where every ball was going and put them away effortlessly. No one else has ever looked like that, not even Djok-or-'dal.

The "thing" with him (and I saw him live too) starts with very fast and light with his feet. He moved effortless, and he reach the ball very early.
And he has very good hands, and the combination of both is what makes him better than most players
His FH is (or was) one of the best ever, period.
His serve is great (a bit lower level compared to Sampras, who had the best serve ever, at least for me), and he kills it if he runs around the BH
Very impressive, and I never was a fan of him

 

[skaj]

#165:
“Maybe in a head of a person who for some reason refuses to think…“

#167:
“…do I not know why are you constantly posting hysterical emojis…“
“…perhaps you should think a bit more before you write…“

#169:
“…poor logic behind conclusions(or intentional fabricating, I'm not sure)…“

#171:
“And yet again, poor logic, ad hominem,…“

Exactly, those I have explained in my previous post. #177

So, yet again, please get back to tennis.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Exactly, those I have explained in my previous post. #177

So, yet again, please get back to tennis.

"refuses to think…“
" you constantly posting hysterical emojis…“
“…perhaps you should think a bit more before you write…“
“…poor logic behind conclusions(or intentional fabricating, I'm not sure)…“

Textbook ad hominem attacks.

 

[skaj]

"refuses to think…“
" you constantly posting hysterical emojis…“
“…perhaps you should think a bit more before you write…“
“…poor logic behind conclusions(or intentional fabricating, I'm not sure)…“

Textbook ad hominem attacks.

- person who refuses to think could think what was written in your post, a poetic way of saying that that idea is illogical(as I explained in the post #177). If you have recognized yourself in that, that has nothing to do with me.
- yes, you are posting, your posts
- yes, a suggestion, as I have explained already(post #177), so that you wouldn't post unnecessary things and waste everyone's time here
- yes poor logic behind conclusions presented in your post

So, none ad hominem. I hope it is finally clear.

Now please get back to tennis. If you don't have any arguments for the tennis topics discussed, please don't write any more of your non-tennis related stuff.

 

[R. Schweikart]

- person who refuses to think could think what was written in your post, a poetic way of saying that that idea is illogical(as I explained in the post #177). If you have recognized yourself in that, that has nothing to do with me.
- yes, you are posting, your posts
- yes, a suggestion, as I have explained already(post #177), so that you wouldn't post unnecessary things and waste everyone's time here
- yes poor logic behind conclusions presented in your post

So, none ad hominem. I hope it is finally clear.

Now please get back to tennis. If you don't have any arguments for the tennis topics discussed, please don't write any more of your non-tennis related stuff.

I think you should switch your brain on before you post.
Your deluded posts are full of most probably invented stuff.
They are only suited for the trash bin actually.

I'm just describing your posts. No ad hominem, I hope that is clear.

 

[skaj]

I think you should switch your brain on before you post.
Your deluded posts are full of most probably invented stuff.
They are only suited for the trash bin actually.

I'm just describing your posts. No ad hominem, I hope that is clear.

Oh, it's been clear for a while now - you don't want to go back to the topic of tennis, but to continue with your obsessions with me and your silly ideas for which, like for your posts about tennis, you have no arguments what so ever.

Suit yourself.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Oh, it's been clear for a while now - you don't want to go back to the topic of tennis, but to continue with your obsessions with me and your silly ideas for which, like for your posts about tennis, you have no arguments what so ever.

Suit yourself.

Back to topic - tell us more about the fearsome forehand of a player who has a 57.5 winning percentage.

 

[skaj]

Back to topic - tell us more about the fearsome forehand of a player who has a 57.5 winning percentage.

I already did. Now would you, finally, tell us what one has to do with the other.

By the way, I think you have to learn how to use emojis. You are putting them where they don't belong.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I already did. Now would you, finally, tell us what one has to do with the other.

By the way, I think you have to learn how to use emojis. You are putting them where they don't belong.

You think so.
But you are dead wrong.

 

[skaj]

You think so.
But you are dead wrong.

I think what, that you still did not give your reasons why you are mentioning Stosur's career percentages in the context of what we are talking about? No, I am right, you didn't give it. At least not in this thread.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I think what, that you still did not give your reasons why you are mentioning Stosur's career percentages in the context of what we are talking about? No, I am right, you didn't give it. At least not in this thread.

We are talking about "The eye test: who impressed you the most among those you watched?"

You mentioned in the forehand department only one woman, Samatha Stosur and said:
"Stosur, I love the quick wrist action that results in great disguise, pace, depth and that nadalesque spin which gives the ball an unpredictable trajectory and hard to control bounce. Beautiful, compact, fierce shot."

I made fun of you thinking of Stosur's (!) forehand as the only women's forehand worth mentioning.
Samatha Stosur, a journeywoman from Australia, who has a winning percentage of only 57.5 and was for the vast majority of her very long career not even a top 20 player?
Really?

 

[skaj]

We are talking about "The eye test: who impressed you the most among those you watched?"

You mentioned in the forehand department only one woman, Samatha Stosur and said:
"Stosur, I love the quick wrist action that results in great disguise, pace, depth and that nadalesque spin which gives the ball an unpredictable trajectory and hard to control bounce. Beautiful, compact, fierce shot."

I made fun of you thinking of Stosur's (!) forehand as the only women's forehand worth mentioning.
Samatha Stosur, a journeywoman from Australia, who has a winning percentage of only 57.5 and was for the vast majority of her very long career not even a top 20 player?
Really?

The topic of the thread is, as you have written here, who impressed you the most, not “whose forehand do you think is worth mentioning”. I named the ones who have impressed me the most, and explained why. For some reason you have a problem with that. We still don’t know why.

And yet again you are unable to make the connection between the statistic and the topic of the discussion – the forehand.

Not only that making fun of people is childish and mean, but if you do do it you should make sure that you have something to make fun of, otherwise, like in this case and the case of your emojis, the joke is on you.

 

[R. Schweikart]

The topic of the thread is, as you have written here, who impressed you the most, not “whose forehand do you think is worth mentioning”. I named the ones who have impressed me the most, and explained why. For some reason you have a problem with that. We still don’t know why.

And yet again you are unable to make the connection between the statistic and the topic of the discussion – the forehand.

Not only that making fun of people is childish and mean, but if you do do it you should make sure that you have something to make fun of, otherwise, like in this case and the case of your emojis, the joke is on you.

I have no "problem" with your choice.
But I made fun of it because it was so weird.
For some reason you have a problem with that. We still don't know why.

Making fun of people is "childish and mean"?
Even more than a microaggression? Do you need a safe space? You think you might get reparations?

 

[skaj]

I have no "problem" with your choice.
But I made fun of it because it was so weird.
For some reason you have a problem with that. We still don't know why.

Making fun of people is "childish and mean"?
Even more than a microaggression? Do you need a safe space? You think you might get reparations?

There is nothing weird about it. And you gave no reasons for it being “weird”.
What is weird is your questions about “safe space” and “reparations”.
I do not have a problem with anything, I just comment on what I read, with arguments. People who make odd comments without any arguments for no reason, repetitively, have problems.

Don’t know what microaggression you are talking about, but microaggression is not childish. It’s quite the opposite, if anything. Making fun of people is.
Again, please stop with your attempts to move away from the topic.

 

[R. Schweikart]

There is nothing weird about it. And you gave no reasons for it being “weird”.
What is weird is your questions about “safe space” and “reparations”.
I do not have a problem with anything, I just comment on what I read, with arguments. People who make odd comments without any arguments for no reason, repetitively, have problems.

Don’t know what microaggression you are talking about, but microaggression is not childish. It’s quite the opposite, if anything. Making fun of people is.
Again, please stop with your attempts to move away from the topic.

The topic is that it is weird that someone would think of Stosur (!) as the female player who impressed him /her most in the forehand department.
If Stosur's forehand had been so impressive she would have had a higher winning percentage than only 57.5 and been in the top 20 more often than just 5 times in an almost 20 year long career.
So Stosur's forehand impressed you more than, say, Steffi Graf's forehand (whose nickname was "Fräulein Forehand")?
That is weird.

 

[skaj]

The topic is that it is weird that someone would think of Stosur (!) as the female player who impressed him /her most in the forehand department.
If Stosur's forehand had been so impressive she would have had a higher winning percentage than only 57.5 and been in the top 20 more often than just 5 times in an almost 20 year long career.
So Stosur's forehand impressed you more than, say, Steffi Graf's forehand (whose nickname was "Fräulein Forehand")?
That is weird.

It's weird to you. And how could it not be weird, if you use such poor logic.

I gave my reasons for Stosur's forehand being impressive(oddly enough you quoted them several times here). You have an opportunity to do the same for those who impress you. Yet you instead try to undermine others, unsuccessfully so.
Stosur had been primarily a doubles player up until her mid 20s, when she improved her singles game(and her forehand) and started winning big in the singles. She has been playing in her mid 30s for a few seasons now, far from her prime. Those are the main reasons for her singles career percentages but whatever those numbers are, they, of course, cannot measure her forehand, which is just one shots in tennis player’s game.
Graf was nicknamed "Fräulein Forehand" when her forehand stood out on the WTA, and there were no other forehands that were in the same league. That was more than 30 years and a handful of as great forehands ago.

If you feel an irresistible desire to make fun of someone, here’s an opportunity to do it to yourself. One of many.

 

[BorgCash]

He's TOO athletic.

Yeah, probably tries to show it to the public and get injured.