"They're just better"

[fishuuuuu]

why are you confused. Arias said 'theyre just better' than players from before, not better than players form the past era playing now. The technique and biomechanics of the shots of a lot of the players from before is even better than a lot of players from now, so its hard to judge whether the players from the last era would be even better than guys playing now if they used the same equipment.

You didn't answer my question

 

[helloworld]

If they're not better than shouldn't he should come back on tour?

Old people can't recover fast enough to play on tour. Plus Pete is a family man now. He's not going to spend his life on tennis like he used to anymore.

 

[CyBorg]

I never disagreed with that, it's a statistical fact. But longer doesn't equal harder. (Wow, that sounds dirty)

It doesn't? Well, that changes everything.

 

[CyBorg]

A Mecir clip just posted by Krosero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2bzlj4ypvw

Tennis isn't better without Mecir. I'd rather watch the man all day long than Federer.

 

[flyer]

You're a little obsessed there..now you're following me around begging me to respond to your other stupid posts in other threads.

so were you born stupid or did you get special training.:roll:

TNI why don't you, BreakPoint and Sampras get a hotel room and watch some replays of the exhibitions, I think you guys would like that, Im sure BreakPoint wouldn't mind wathcing the matches a 3rd time, maybe even the interviews, then you know who know maybe you'll get lucky...Im sure this would fulfill your lifelong fantacies

 

[Deleted member 3771]

answer my question, were you born stupid or did you get special training?

..and, you have serious issues dude, you need to see a psychiatrist.

TNI why don't you, BreakPoint and Sampras get a hotel room and watch some replays of the exhibitions, I think you guys would like that, Im sure BreakPoint wouldn't mind wathcing the matches a 3rd time, maybe even the interviews, then you know who know maybe you'll get lucky...Im sure this would fulfill your lifelong fantacies

 

[dh003i]

Maybe the matches were longer, and more 4-setters, but more of the points were played without a whole lot of court-coverage, making them easier points on the body. This because the rackets of bygone days didn't allow them to put as much into the shots and go for the lines and corners as much.

Also, talking about the tougher schedule, and lack of tie-breaks, may be true. But the AO was also not as widely respected, and many of the greats from the 80s regularly skipped it.

 

[dh003i]

A Mecir clip just posted by Krosero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2bzlj4ypvw

Tennis isn't better without Mecir. I'd rather watch the man all day long than Federer.

I watched that clip. Definately some great tennis.

But I wouldn't say I'd rather watch that than say the Federer-Ferrer Shanghai final this year. The game today is just so much faster (the racket-ball sound definately sounded different back then), and it's not just the technology. Also, it seems like the players are moving a lot faster. Compare the speed with which Federer moves to that of Wilander or Mecir from the youtube you posted; not just faster, but also much crisper footwork.

 

[FedForGOAT]

TNI why don't you, BreakPoint and Sampras get a hotel room and watch some replays of the exhibitions, I think you guys would like that, Im sure BreakPoint wouldn't mind wathcing the matches a 3rd time, maybe even the interviews, then you know who know maybe you'll get lucky...Im sure this would fulfill your lifelong fantacies

Nice, best post of the thread!

 

[flyer]

answer my question, were you born stupid or did you get special training?

..and, you have serious issues dude, you need to see a psychiatrist.

ok you answer all my questions, questions at are actually legitimate and are based on intelligence and the issues discused and i'll andress your stupid request...can you handle that little guy?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

has it sunk into your thick head yet that you need a psychiatrist?

Pestering people demanding answers to your pathetic posts shows what a mental case you are.

ok you answer all my questions, questions at are actually legitimate and are based on intelligence and the issues discused and i'll andress your stupid request...can you handle that little guy?

 

[flyer]

has it sunk into your thick head yet that you need a psychiatrist?

Pestering people demanding answers to your pathetic posts shows what a mental case you are.

Logically your the one who needs a psychiatrist for the stupid points you make, or maybe a kindergarden teacher would work to because your pretty far behind, and look back I didn't demand any answer you did, you even did it in bold!

 

[Deleted member 3771]

your A sad sad boy. Now make yourself redundant and p-off will ya ;-)

And see that Psychiatrist as soon as possible.

Logically your the one who needs a psychiatrist for the stupid points you make, or maybe a kindergarden teacher would work to because your pretty far behind, and look back I didn't demand any answer you did, you even did it in bold!

 

[flyer]

your A sad sad boy. Now make yourself redundant and p-off will ya ;-)

And see that Psychiatrist as soon as possible.

W/e dude I'll just stop I guess because this is getting old, just so you know though your considered the biggest joke on these boards...

 

[burosky]

Please take your p i s s i n g match somewhere else.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

If your whole aim of posting on these boards is to start directing personal abuse at peope who are talking about tennis and then chasing them down in other threads just to abuse them again and demand for them to respond to your posts you really need to get a LIFE, you IDIOT. you're polluting the board.

W/e dude I'll just stop I guess because this is getting old, just so you know though your considered the biggest joke on these boards...

 

[CyBorg]

I watched that clip. Definately some great tennis.

But I wouldn't say I'd rather watch that than say the Federer-Ferrer Shanghai final this year. The game today is just so much faster (the racket-ball sound definately sounded different back then), and it's not just the technology. Also, it seems like the players are moving a lot faster. Compare the speed with which Federer moves to that of Wilander or Mecir from the youtube you posted; not just faster, but also much crisper footwork.

The game is faster because the racket technology is completely different. Obviously the players are moving their feet faster because their opponent is hitting the ball massively.

Frankly the new rackets are taking away from the game. You just don't see a well designed backhand anymore - it used to take a lot of effort to hit a precise backhand near the line; today the graphite lets you do it regularly. It is no longer special.

P.S. Federer-Ferrer was boring as shlt.

 

[drakulie]

Any thoughts?

Yeah, there hasn't been much "advance" in frames in the last 20+ years.

 

[dh003i]

The game is faster because the racket technology is completely different. Obviously the players are moving their feet faster because their opponent is hitting the ball massively.

Frankly the new rackets are taking away from the game. You just don't see a well designed backhand anymore - it used to take a lot of effort to hit a precise backhand near the line; today the graphite lets you do it regularly. It is no longer special.

P.S. Federer-Ferrer was boring as shlt.

So the fact that the ball was moving slowly somehow magically stopped them from moving faster? There's no reason to want to get there early and be able to plant and setup for a shot? They just liked getting to the shot in the nick of time? We could believe that convoluted theory, or we could believe that the tennis athletes of today are just faster and have to be faster.

And there are a lot of great backhands today. Gasqeut, Federer, Nadal, etc.

I don't think past greats, even if brought up in today's game in a non-Bollieteri camp, would be hitting the shots any better than Federer or Nadal do.

 

[djsiva]

Don't listen to Arias. He's a five foot four pip squeak, who's always saying stuff to stir up controversy.

Nick Bolleteri got rid of his butt long time ago and replaced it with Krickstein and then Agassi.

So you see, even Nick knows a loser when he sees one.

 

[CyBorg]

So the fact that the ball was moving slowly somehow magically stopped them from moving faster? There's no reason to want to get there early and be able to plant and setup for a shot?

Just think for a second and picture the way tennis was in the early days of graphite. Take hardcourts - the ball certainly didn't move as blindingly as it does now because of the technology, so guys didn't have to dart as violently side-to-side, but rallies were much longer hence the analogy that tennis was more like a marathon than a sprint. It was no less taxing on the body. Quickness was still essential, but there was more need for the conservation of energy.

They just liked getting to the shot in the nick of time? We could believe that convoluted theory, or we could believe that the tennis athletes of today are just faster and have to be faster.

Frankly I don't know what you're talking about. What's important is to get to the ball efficiently so that one's balance is fluent enough. When you can't create angles with rackets the way you do today obviously there will be fewer clear winners and surefire smashes. This extends rallies and makes it much more difficult to manifacture easy putaways.

And there are a lot of great backhands today. Gasqeut, Federer, Nadal, etc. I don't think past greats, even if brought up in today's game in a non-Bollieteri camp, would be hitting the shots any better than Federer or Nadal do.

Gasquet hits the best backhands when he has enough time to set his feet. That's why he looked so good against Roddick, who served everything to him on the platter. When you take away Gasquet's space and time his backhand disappears. Federer has a nice backhand on faster, low-bouncing surfaces, but it's mediocre on clay. I like Nadal's backhand - his forehand up the line is a bigger issue.

None of these guys have backhands as good as those of Rosewall or Borg. Rosewall had the best service return ever due in part to his backhand.

 

[Grigollif1]

Cyborg,

Repeat to youself enough time that Atlhetes today are just as conditioned and strong then before, maybe if you repeat many times It will become an ideology and people will start spreading around and believing it, as true. The fact is that tennis today compared to as you guys like to say it "20 years" ago. Is just a different ball game is becoming more and more Professional, globalized, detailed oriented and just overall stronger and deeper in all senses. There are no longer slackers around, and that goes from the top 10 to the top 300.


I dont know how many times this has been repeated but, in the 80s and in a big part of the 90s, players outside the top 20 were in a different class, even more evident were ones off top 50. Nowdays, there is no such a thing as clear holes in form. Is common place for a top 10 player to lose to lower ranked constantly, many times the difference in not even in the techinal but pure mental edge. Even guys at challenger Level, need a solid deal of professionalism to survive there. The top guys have Nutriocionist, Physical trainner, coach even some Phsychologists..you named it. The quantity of players around trying to make a living out of tennis has all but increased globally and as it is a common fact pure quantity, competetion to make it produces quality.

I mean you can be a critic of the type of game played today, the style but, to actually argue that guys in the 80s or so were just as fit Physically together with their Professional approach to the game is laughable....no offense.

 

[Azzurri]

During the dead rubber between Bob Bryan and Igor Andreev, Andreev hits a whipping topspin forehand pass on the run. Leif Sheiras says something along the lines of " Wow! Its amazing what these guys can do with the strings and racquets they have now compared to the 80's and 90's." And Jimmy Arias replies "Or they're just better. That's tremendous racquet head speed he's generating, I think he could hit that shot with anything. Well maybe not wood..."
I found that interesting, coming from an ex-pro with a big forehand. Any thoughts?

I heard him say that too, but the first thought that came to was what Agassi said about the Lux string. I don't remember the exact quote, but something to the effect when he first hit with it the string should be outlawed. He was amazed at how much harder he could swing and the control he had (hence more power and torque, more ball speed, faster rallies). Aria says some dumb stuff and he is an *** kisser. Many of the pros are using racquets from the early to mid 90's anyway.

 

[Azzurri]

Network propaganda. Most pros can't even last 10 years on the tour anymore. If guys are so well conditioned why are they getting hurt all the time?

What makes Federer a great player is not physical strength and it's not cardio. He almost never gets hurt because of the way he moves his body. He plays an efficient style, perfect for today's technology. And the sheer power and accuracy he generates on his groundies has a lot to do with his technique - particulary in regards to how early he hits the ball. The guy quite simply has a tennis body.

The whole conditioning argument is bunk. The networks need this to misinform viewers and keep them tuned in thinking that they're witnessing history. Marcos Baghdatis made the Aussie final in 2006 and was not a well-conditioned player for much of that year. I don't recall seeing guys cramp as much before as I have in recent years.

Agreed...Fed is a perfect example, to a point. But, he is a Lendl type...condition, condition, condition (You can't discount that) NOT muscles, brawn and big arms. I think players eat better and may be overall in better health (with today's science), but players are no better today than 20 years ago. Slwoing down the court, ball and poly string has had a great effect on tennis. Are these guys faster, maybe...but Borg could handle any one of these guys in his prime and he was a player from the early 70's.

 

[Azzurri]

So who's word would you take, Arias, who's been off the tour since the early 90s, or Agassi who just retired & has said, many, many times that the strings have allowed players to swing more freely, & allowed them to hit shots they could not hit consistently before.

Federer, Roddick, Haas & Blake(among others) have also said that the new strings have helped them greatly, reduced their margin for error.

Yeah, Arias knows more than they do about equipment changing the game over the last 15 years.

The fact that he said "maybe wood" is rather comical. See my sig. So many shots hit today are completely impossible with wood, as all the current players that participated in a hitting experiment earlier this year with wood racquets have said.

Yes, the racquet head speed that Andreev hits with is possible with any kind of racquet. The thing is he would hit more of those shots into the stands than into the court with other racquets/strings.

I generally think Arias is a great commentator, but he really is the only commentator around who doesn't acknowledge equipment(I've heard him say this before) when talking about todays' players which should tell you something.

Its funny, I've seen him hit shots on the senior tour that he never hit when he was in his prime, wonder if equipment had anything to do with that? or maybe he's just 'better' now?


average heights/weights of pro players today are no different than 10 years ago. look it up. and the difference between 20 years ago is minimal as well. much less than those other sports.

the difference with the sports you listed is that those are all athletic/strength based(tennis players aren't timed in any distances, which is probably a good idea) sports that use no equipment at all, while tennis is a skill-based sport in which equipment is very key. I never understand those that say players today could play the same way with any racquet. if so, then why don't they use older frames?

and I agree with Cyborg, its been a long time since I've seen this many players cramping(Gasquet is kinda a joke, yet he's top 10)
Guess he didn't get the memo that he's supposed to be better conditioned than the players of 20 years ago. And matches of 20 years ago were much longer on average, had longer rallies(except on grass), so why weren't they cramping as much as today?

LOL...this made me laugh. You actually remember Arias hitting a tennis ball? I rememeber he was a pukey, skinny guy, but to remember him hitting shots is a little hard to believe.

 

[Brettolius]

I heard him say that too, but the first thought that came to was what Agassi said about the Lux string. I don't remember the exact quote, but something to the effect when he first hit with it the string should be outlawed. He was amazed at how much harder he could swing and the control he had (hence more power and torque, more ball speed, faster rallies). Aria says some dumb stuff and he is an *** kisser. Many of the pros are using racquets from the early to mid 90's anyway.

I took it to mean that he wasn't giving ALL the credit to the strings and frames. I don't think he was denying the advantages of newer gear, but he was giving todays athletes a little credit too.

 

[latinking]

Cyborg,

Repeat to youself enough time that Atlhetes today are just as conditioned and strong then before, maybe if you repeat many times It will become an ideology and people will start spreading around and believing it, as true. The fact is that tennis today compared to as you guys like to say it "20 years" ago. Is just a different ball game is becoming more and more Professional, globalized, detailed oriented and just overall stronger and deeper in all senses. There are no longer slackers around, and that goes from the top 10 to the top 300.


I dont know how many times this has been repeated but, in the 80s and in a big part of the 90s, players outside the top 20 were in a different class, even more evident were ones off top 50. Nowdays, there is no such a thing as clear holes in form. Is common place for a top 10 player to lose to lower ranked constantly, many times the difference in not even in the techinal but pure mental edge. Even guys at challenger Level, need a solid deal of professionalism to survive there. The top guys have Nutriocionist, Physical trainner, coach even some Phsychologists..you named it. The quantity of players around trying to make a living out of tennis has all but increased globally and as it is a common fact pure quantity, competetion to make it produces quality.

I mean you can be a critic of the type of game played today, the style but, to actually argue that guys in the 80s or so were just as fit Physically together with their Professional approach to the game is laughable....no offense.

I agree with you.

 

[Azzurri]

I took it to mean that he wasn't giving ALL the credit to the strings and frames. I don't think he was denying the advantages of newer gear, but he was giving todays athletes a little credit too.

Not me, based on what he said, he made it seem as if the players are so superior...Arias was a clown then and still is today. little *** kisser is what he is.:evil:

 

[superman1]

Go watch some old matches with McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Lendl, and the rest of them, and tell me that those guys weren't incredible players that would do great in this era or any other era. McEnroe could hit shots that would leave even Federer flat-footed. If they played in their primes, I'm inclined to think that Mac would have the edge.

The only advancement is that the field is deeper today than ever. Every former pro seems to agree on that.

 

[Azzurri]

Cyborg,

Repeat to youself enough time that Atlhetes today are just as conditioned and strong then before, maybe if you repeat many times It will become an ideology and people will start spreading around and believing it, as true. The fact is that tennis today compared to as you guys like to say it "20 years" ago. Is just a different ball game is becoming more and more Professional, globalized, detailed oriented and just overall stronger and deeper in all senses. There are no longer slackers around, and that goes from the top 10 to the top 300.


I dont know how many times this has been repeated but, in the 80s and in a big part of the 90s, players outside the top 20 were in a different class, even more evident were ones off top 50. Nowdays, there is no such a thing as clear holes in form. Is common place for a top 10 player to lose to lower ranked constantly, many times the difference in not even in the techinal but pure mental edge. Even guys at challenger Level, need a solid deal of professionalism to survive there. The top guys have Nutriocionist, Physical trainner, coach even some Phsychologists..you named it. The quantity of players around trying to make a living out of tennis has all but increased globally and as it is a common fact pure quantity, competetion to make it produces quality.

I mean you can be a critic of the type of game played today, the style but, to actually argue that guys in the 80s or so were just as fit Physically together with their Professional approach to the game is laughable....no offense.

Better condition does not always make them better players and lets not forget the mental game. these modern players are too reliant on others...you forget this. why do you think Federer is so good and he has no coach....he has a brain and uses it. He's not a mindless ball pusher like Roddick, Blake, Davydenko and countless others. There has always been talent and there always will be, but just because today's players are in better condition (which I agree with) does not make them better.

 

[CyBorg]

Is common place for a top 10 player to lose to lower ranked constantly, many times the difference in not even in the techinal but pure mental edge.

This is a myth that has been popularly repeated on boards like these, but you're really going to have to do better and provide me with some evidence. I don't see a greater tendency for top-10 players to lose to lower-ranked players. This is a suggestion that hangs on a really thin thread and is not supported by anything.

 

[CyBorg]

Better condition does not always make them better players and lets not forget the mental game. these modern players are too reliant on others...you forget this. why do you think Federer is so good and he has no coach....he has a brain and uses it. He's not a mindless ball pusher like Roddick, Blake, Davydenko and countless others. There has always been talent and there always will be, but just because today's players are in better condition (which I agree with) does not make them better.

I very much doubt that today's players are better conditioned and there are many arguments in this thread that have been made about this, so I won't go over them again. Yes, I do think that the boys are bigger and stronger - they are lifting weights more than before and that is helping them out. Today's game depends more on strength than it does on precision and accuracy. Of course strength alone doesn't get you into the top 10, but if you can smack the ball like Korolev does you can be a top-100 player no problem. If you're built like that kid and you lift your weights you've got yourself a career. Conversely, that would have done jack squat 40 years ago, when you couldn't run around the baseline and play defense all of the time. The rackets and the balls wouldn't allow you - you actually had to come in and think.

Another silly argument is the globalization of the game. True - tennis is becoming more globalized, but has anyone actually looked into the results of this? Is tennis more recreational as a result or are the results actually pouring into the pro tour? The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the kids who make it are from well-off families and this is no different than what we saw decades ago. I do think that we're seeing more depth of capable tennis players right around numbers 200-500 (in the ATP rankings), but I see no indication of a considerable change in the cream of the crop (that being the top 50).

Tennis has been a truly global game for at least three decades now. We'd even had the Soviets produce the likes of Metreveli in the late 60s-early 70s. But things have changed in unexpected ways - four decades ago there was a surplus of great Australian players; today we have almost none. Three decades ago there was a surprlus of great Swedish talent. Today we have almost none. If people really wish to argue that tennis today is more global than before they should set their sights on the days of amateur tennis and argue about that.

 

[superman1]

Talent is still the biggest factor in tennis. It's like music - you can work your ass off and relentlessly condition yourself to become the best damn guitarist you can possibly become, but then a guy like Hendrix comes along, plays better than you possibly could, and then goes off to a party and takes 10 different drugs and has a foursome while you're sitting your basement trying to figure out his solo.

Don't think for a second that all of those greats in the past wouldn't have been incredible in this era. Except maybe some of those dudes in the early days of tennis who won Wimbledon in the afternoon and then went out and had a beer with a couple of buddies like any other day.

 

[CyBorg]

Talent is still the biggest factor in tennis. It's like music - you can work your ass off and relentlessly condition yourself to become the best damn guitarist you can possibly become, but then a guy like Hendrix comes along, plays better than you possibly could, and then goes off to a party and takes 10 different drugs and has a foursome while you're sitting your basement trying to figure out his solo.

Don't think for a second that all of those greats in the past wouldn't have been incredible in this era. Except maybe some of those dudes in the early days of tennis who won Wimbledon in the afternoon and then went out and had a beer with a couple of buddies like any other day.

No, no, no, no. It's all in the organic fruits they're eating. 40 years ago they were eating ordinary fruits.

 

[fastdunn]

The equipments definitely got better but tennis certainly evolved.

And then there is falvor of era. Current game focused on baseline game.

Ground stroke mechanism of current era is just geared for baseline game right now. So for example, current players maybe better at hitting passing shots but poorer and hitting ground strokes as a approach shot. Modern forehand is harder to hit moving/approaching. It's superior in some aspects but poorer in other aspects.

So they should be carefully observed. I wouldn't jump into conclusion that modern game is better than oldies in all aspects.

 

[CGMemphis]

Theyre just better? Off hitting one shot? It was just one shot?

Agassi hit the down the line shot during the USO from between his legs, the announcers went nuts.

Chang hit underhand serve and ticked off Lendl and people went nuts.

Its all one shot that announcers have to make a call on. Agassi played for 20+ years, I only see Federer playing that long again.

Better is relevant to the time and the talent and not the racquet or the lines you run. That my opinion.