Sports
25 Jan 09
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by shortcircuitI cant remember Laver, Newcombe etc but in federer and borg are two ofthe most complete players. Sampras would struggle today, slower balls less serve dominance.
While Federer is a great player, I am not ready to say he was the greatest, Pete Sampras would get a lot of consideration as would Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver. Each one was dominant in their respective era and each had at least one chief rival. Sampras had Agassi. Borg had Connors and McEnroe. Laver had Newcombe and Rosewall.
For me, it would come down to Sampras with Fed a close second.
But right now the game is more competitive than any other in the last 30 years.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19223
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by shortcircuitof that list i only got to watch sampras and federer. and i would say fed has an all round better game, the shot that that guy comes up with at times is unbelievable.
While Federer is a great player, I am not ready to say he was the greatest, Pete Sampras would get a lot of consideration as would Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver. Each one was dominant in their respective era and each had at least one chief rival. Sampras had Agassi. Borg had Connors and McEnroe. Laver had Newcombe and Rosewall.
For me, it would come down to Sampras with Fed a close second.
neither of them have won the french, if federer can ever beat nadal and complete he set there wouldn't be any doubt in my mind who the greatest player of all time is.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19223
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by Arrakthe serve isn't that important on clay as the ball dies. it's not about fittest or weight, it's a different game on clay that roddick just doesn't have. will he do better than the third round? maybe but as soon as he come up against a clay court player on decent form he's beat.
sure roddick hasn't done well at the french. but i think he will this year! his lost 17lbs and is looking super fit. his willing to play long grinding points. thats the type of game that wins on clay. look out for roddick this year. maybe the best server in the game, even if his motion isn't classical.
today he only had 3 break points against federer, the return of serve is as important than the serve and roddick just isn't good enough i'm afraid.
i like him but he wasn't the challenger to federer before nadal came along. safin was. he just didn't want it.
29 Jan 09
fed is better then sampras. first of all do you remember samprases last wimbledon when he lost to fed?
i'll break it down fed has a better forhand and backhand then sampras, fed just has more variety and better angles. the serve is a tie both sampras and fed have great serves. they can crank it up, mix it up and serve the angles. the volley may be the only shot that sampras was better at but fed still has a solid volley. they both can play offense but fed plays by far the better defense. and lastly fed just is fitter then even sampras in his prime.
if both of these players faced off, even if they where both in their prime fed would win for obvious reasons and also the fact that sampras liked to volley and fed is the best in the game at passing shots.
so fed is the greatest of all time. and guess what nadal is a close second. because sampras would lose to nadal too. so where living in a great era for tennis and the game just keeps getting better every year!
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by ArrakYes Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras was on his way out and Fed was on his way up. I will respect your opinion on Fed being better, however I am not ready to agree. I don't know if you ever watched Sampras play, but I watched him a lot, just as I have Fed. Sampras was a much more dominant server, he covered the court extremely well because of his huge stride and wingspan. Fed is more graceful and fluid than was Sampras, but I would have loved to have seen both play each others when they were both in their prime. If you recall the Wimbledon you spoke of, Sampras was back from a haiatus and had Fed on the ropes until Fed finally put him away because Sampras tired. I also saw Borg play a lot and he was the greatest pure tennis tactician that has ever played the game...period. He had the steely gaze and it was as if he was reading his opponent's minds and he knew when they would be at all times. I wish he hadn't elected to retire in his prime because he still had many more years left in him. Also remember, Borg did it on all surfaces with wood rackets. The light weight precision raquets of today allow for the tremendous additional pace the players put on the ball (along with much better nutrition and training available today). I suspect if Borg were an up and comer today, he would fare quite favorably with the best in the world.
fed is better then sampras. first of all do you remember samprases last wimbledon when he lost to fed?
BTW, my picks, Serena and Fed are both in the finals (I suspect Nadal will be ther as well.)
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by shortcircuitIMHO, Sampras and McEnroe were probably the best at serve and volley.. never giving their opponents the chance to return. I'd put Sampras up against some of the best returners, ie, Edburg, Wilander, etc.
With Sampras, his opponents didn't often make many returns of consequence.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by SmookiePYour right, when Mac was on nobody returned. It was a pleasure to watch him, especially when he got pissed at the refs.
IMHO, Sampras and McEnroe were probably the best at serve and volley.. never giving their opponents the chance to return. I'd put Sampras up against some of the best returners, ie, Edburg, Wilander, etc.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by SmookiePyeah but in todays tennis tennis the serve and volley is dead unless you like watching doubles... the reason being that the racquets can generate much better speed, spin and angles that its too easy to hit passing shots.
IMHO, Sampras and McEnroe were probably the best at serve and volley.. never giving their opponents the chance to return. I'd put Sampras up against some of the best returners, ie, Edburg, Wilander, etc.
given todays technology the great serve and volleyers of the past would not survive in todays game.
mind you i like watching serve and volley tennis, too bad though.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by ArrakYou think the racquets now are the reason now in play that they generate too much speed for serve 'n volley players?
yeah but in todays tennis tennis the serve and volley is dead unless you like watching doubles... the reason being that the racquets can generate much better speed, spin and angles that its too easy to hit passing shots.
given todays technology the great serve and volleyers of the past would not survive in todays game.
mind you i like watching serve and volley tennis, too bad though.
I think Martina might have something to say contrary to that...
30 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SmookiePyeah definetly, but its just not the speed its the spin too. on the modern racquets you can hold the ball on the strings much longer you can and because of this you can genertae better angles, make balls dip (forcing a very difficult shot low volleys), or hit topspin lobs. and of course when the player wants they can crank a hard one down the line. so the technology dosen't favor serve and volleyiers.
You think the racquets now are the reason now in play that they generate too much speed for serve 'n volley players?
I think Martina might have something to say contrary to that...
also keeping with the spin thing. its hard to hit spin with wood racquets their so much smaller and if you try to hit heavy topspin you'll end up shanking it against the frame. so during mcenroes and borgs era players used to just hit the ball basically flat. that meant that the balls would be coming over the net with the same trajectory making it very easy to hit volleyies, not only was it the perfect height to hit the volley but flat balls are the easiest and most effective shots to volley on. because the volley is a very short motion. you basically use your opponents pace to generate your own and theirs no spin to counteract that.
the game has changed quite a bit put a serve and volleyier against nadal or fed and they'll got smoked. especially if they play nadal because of his spin he can make the ball die once its over the net so not only are you hitting a low volley (one of the toughest shots in the game) but its got spin so its hard to generate any sort of pace off the volley.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by ArrakThe graphite racquets came about around 1978.
yeah definetly, but its just not the speed its the spin too. on the modern racquets you can hold the ball on the strings much longer you can and because of this you can genertae better angles, make balls dip (forcing a very difficult shot low volleys), or hit topspin lobs. and of course when the player wants they can crank a hard one down the line. so the t ...[text shortened]... shots in the game) but its got spin so its hard to generate any sort of pace off the volley.
topspin has been around since the 1930's..
Gabriela Sabatini won several BIG tournaments with a new racquet. Her top-spin has been unmatched.
THAT was a long time ago..
It's the talent that's changed in the sport, not so much the technology.
30 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SmookiePi beg to differ. the technology has made a negative impact on the serve and volley game.
The graphite racquets came about around 1978.
topspin has been around since the 1930's..
Gabriela Sabatini won several BIG tournaments with a new racquet. Her top-spin has been unmatched.
THAT was a long time ago..
It's the talent that's changed in the sport, not so much the technology.
but theirs also a side note. the technique has changed too. for example all the players up to macenroe's era (or before the 80s) and all the players before that era played tennis one way. players hit all their shots with one grip. the grip is called contintental (or handshake). they used that grip on all their shots, including serve, volley, forhand, backhand you name it. today that has changed. almost all players still use the contintal for serving and volleying. but the grip on the forhand is either eastern or western (the same way you hold a frying pan). this grip generates termedous amount of topspin. these types of grips wern't invented till the 80's and didn't become popular till the 90s.
try hitting some topspin with a contintal grip sometime. its vertually impossible!
sabitina used a more modern racquet and a western grip thats why she hit with so much topspin. by the way sabitina didn't turn pro till 1986.
30 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ArrakYou don't really understand the arguement, do you? You are comparing the greats of the past with their equipment and tactics of their time against the players of today with thier equipment and their tactics and making comparisons, which is utterly ridiculous. If you took the greats from the past, in their prime and put today's equipment in their hands, they would be just as lethal as the top players of today are because they would mold themselves to the game. They always did that because they were the best. The reason the game has changed is the equipment. If you put wood rackets into the hands of Federer and Nadal and played them against Borg and McEnroe, who do you think would get smoked? This is an apples and oranges presentation by you. It is your opinion about what MIGHT be. A great is a great...period. They would do what they had to do to excel in any circumstance.
i beg to differ. the technology has made a negative impact on the serve and volley game.
but theirs also a side note. the technique has changed too. for example all the players up to macenroe's era (or before the 80s) and all the players before that era played tennis one way. players hit all their shots with one grip. the grip is called contintental ( grip thats why she hit with so much topspin. by the way sabitina didn't turn pro till 1986.
I still stand on my comments that Borg or Sampras or Federer or Laver, et al would fare very well in any era if they were all of the same equipment and age.