single handed backhand will become history in the near future. In future all courts will be converted into clay which will have less impact on the knees and also will have longest playing time possible.
1. 16 + Counting Grandslams
2. 237 Continous weeks as No 1;
3. 23 Consecutive Grandslam semifinals (2004 Wimbledon - 2010 Australian Open)
4. 92-5 Win loss in the year 2006; 12 Titles ; Talk about almost total domination.
5. 44+ titles in Hard courts; 2 shy of tying all time leader Agassi.
6. 65 consecutive grass court match victories (2003 - 2008)
7. 56 consecutive hard court match victories (2005–2006)
8. 22 Grandslam Finals.
9. Only Player to win ATP WTF undefeated 4 times (2003, 2004, 2006, 2010).
10. The biggest of all; 5 Consecutive Wimbledons+ 5 Consecutive US Opens (Somebody defeat this feat!!)
single handed backhand will become history in the near future. In future all courts will be converted into clay which will have less impact on the knees and also will have longest playing time possible.
..
I haven't disagreed. Till now, it doesn't stand next to GS in the *checklist*. Yes, players' dream, great to have, competitive. Is it a main factor in our debate? I'm not convinced and the extreme reaction to relegate it to inter colony matches was because of the force with which you included this as a factor. I mean let's say Fed had won it this year, doesn't change much. I don't think you mean otherwise but just for the record, football WC is in a totally different league compared to Olympic tennis. Davis Cup, not convinced at all.Originally Posted by kid-glove
Borg excelling in the era of wooden racquets and s/v is fine but i don't agree with your point about Nadal doing well in previous eras. [nee yaaru agree panrathukku, McE-ku theriyaadhadha nu kekka koodaadhu. I wouldn't be able to post anything in the hub otherwise!]
I'm with TA on this. Fed doing this well in this era is quite something. Fast courts aren't only about big serves, right? What about finishing rallies with winners? Ungalukku long slow rallies la tactical acumen theriyidhu, but then winner-a irukkavendiyadhellaam fetch panni eduthutte irundha kaduppa irukku-num sollalaame?
Racquets vs courts: Having more powerful racquets - isn't it kind of an even change? Not rhetorical or a question to challenge you but i really want to know from you/Omeha/Feddy who i suppose have actually played a fair bit. Yes, it helped the big servers but as you have acknowledged, it has also helped the likes of Nadal right?
"Key here is that he immediately went in, to refresh and shower himself, saved us from a breakdown." -> Too much
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
What happened to Steve_Austin? He used to post in the tennis threads right?
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
Volleying with wooden racquets far easier than baseline passing shots. The current racquets are fine tuned for Nadal/Djokovic. Ask them to play in wooden racquets and hit a passing shot now.
Finishing rallies off a weak return off a powerful serve = boring for me.
I find Pistol Pete insufferably boring. A bully in a bullying era.
Question is balance. Balance Robots/Federer era to Goran/Sampras era, so that Rafter/Tsonga could be successful.Though this era is my preference, I see a sophisticaed form of s & v emerging.
...an artist without an art.
My problem with this era is the differentiation of courts have been minimized. For example with Nadal's game he could have won several titles in clay courts in old era but the question is about the other courts such as wimbledon and fast hard courts. He might have got few hard court titles like lendl and mats wilander but wimbledon would have been a big question. Don't get me wrong, I am big admirer of Nadal though not a big fan of him. The same case goes to Djokovic also he could have done extremely well on hard courts and may be one title at french open. But wimbledon? not sure. These guys would have to change their game drastically to serve and volley to win those wimbledon tournaments and it is very difficult to adapt. But look at Federer he beat Sampras on his own game though he was past his prime and Federer too before his prime. He volleyed several times even in the last wimbledon and I too agree that Federer won French open without Nadal but he was second best player on clay for several year so single upset was all he needed to get the french open title.Volleying with wooden racquets far easier than baseline passing shots. The current racquets are fine tuned for Nadal/Djokovic. Ask them to play in wooden racquets and hit a passing shot now.
Finishing rallies off a weak return off a powerful serve = boring for me.
I find Pistol Pete insufferably boring. A bully in a bullying era.
Question is balance. Balance Robots/Federer era to Goran/Sampras era, so that Rafter/Tsonga could be successful.
As I said earlier sampras had mentioned that he would have never lost to double handed backhand players at wimbledon during his era. For example there is no way Nadal could have beaten Sampras during his era at wimbledon.
Courts are changed for a reason but let us accept the truth.
I am not declaring Federer is all time great but he is the one I think who could have adapted to any era better than other players I have seen. Because he simply has too many options. Look at what other great players have to say about him, then do your diligence and be objective rather than just Federer bashing.
I want Maddy to answer this.
My primal grouse.
Very good post TA
Maddy is a Pete fanatic, I heard.
I do not like Pete's game, but I do see him being destructive in 'his' era vs Nadal. But I also see Nadal hitting more direct baseline winners than 'safer' (in non-believer's terms, but for me, it's more tactical punctuations to how he finally finishes the rally) ones to mid court expecting a return, he's perfectly capable of that. Also my point of Nadal changing his attacking game also extends to coming more to the net, I remember the first time Nadal met Federer, the kid won all his net points. Federer already looked suspect in his vision in approaching the net. I always found Federer tactically weak in that regard and too much a blind spot, agitated, in approaching the net vs Rafa. Something that's not quite natural s & v to my mind. Of course, the volleying itself is natural, as are all his strokes, but the general acumen to s & v is slightly missing there. I'm not surprised he lost in further rounds after beating Pete in that Wimbeldon, and to Tim Henman (another player, like Rafter, who is more based on 'vision' in s & v than siding more towards power servers like Goran, no wonder Tim & Rafter never won the Wimby in that bullying era). Also another thing to turn on its head is the Pete vs Roger game, in fact, the difference, is Roger's passing shots. Sampras got found out in that aspect. Roger's the all-court man, any era. I certainly see him being a cross between Baseliner and s & v than any puristic prism, never much of a pure s & v..
Last edited by kid-glove; 21st August 2012 at 10:17 PM.
...an artist without an art.
KG
Precisely the point (our point), that he is not a pure s/v, all rounder, which gives him the edge. Would have given him the edge. As for being circumspect in approaches/volleys, isn't that something you'd expect in this era? He is going to be tentative. There was an article posted here recently which made this point nicely
Also for the racquet, that's exactly the point I was trying to make and also find out/ascertain from you (when you asked "if you have a problem with the courts why don't you have a problem with the racquets too"). Racquet la oru vidhathula ellarukkum advantage dhaane? Having said that (as an extension of that) I do avknowledge the rise of the serve machines.
Court vishayathula oru style-a thaan favor pannudhu. Maybe I am refusing to come to terms with this "evolution"...
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
2004/05 US hard court, how is it uniformly applied to this era? Of course, more the sample space better. But on isolation, I found the vision in his approaches flawed.
Wooden racquets advantages volleying more than passing shot. What I mean here is that we still got a Borg here. How fascinating is that !
Some modern era great will emerge for s & v. Someone with superior vision in net approaches. Think Tsonga vs Nadal Ozzie open 2008 but with more consistency.
I love my borrowed Boris Spassky quote, It is to Nadal's advantage that his opponents never know when he is suddenly going to play like Roger Federer.
...an artist without an art.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks