i've seen both of them play and i must say federer has the edge. he would beat sampras on any surface, but on grass it would be a tie. anyhoos, i think agassi is still the best unless federer wins himself the french open coz he's already better than sampras. i admit federer plays a near perfect game, but agassi had won all the grand slams so he has this winning point over federer.
>You dont need anyone to tell you Sampras had a weak backhand...just look for
Everyone in my circle knew it. It was not reliable and was easy
>prey at Roland Garros with the long rallies. <
i've no idea wha your circle may be - all i know is that it goes around & eventually gets nowhere
pistol had no problem with the backhand, just that his mentality wasn't suited to the long rallies on clay
on grass, points last usually about 3 - 5 strokes on average ( providing return is good ), whereas on a hardcourt, they may stretch to 5 - 10
pistol had the speed/power/athleticism/etc. to "handle" this kinda scenario, but on clay, serves & powerful groundshots are nullified & it turns into a patience contest, with points maybe lasting 10 - 20 shots - pistol wasn't brought up on clay & didn't have the patience to rally away all day for just 1 point - his was a quick-point power game
however, 1y he did go for it & in '95 french he beat courier ( a great clay courter ) in 5 epic sets, after losing 1st 2 sets in their quarter-final
in the semi, he was spent & lost tamely to kafelnikov ( eventual tourney winner ) - a guy i wouda favoured him to beat ( even on clay ) if fresh
>He tended to lift it too much
>and go long when pressures. It was not a well controlled stroke. Compare him to
>Fed or Lendl with their singlehanded backhands. THOSE are waepons, not just
>means to keep the point going. How many winners did Pete get of the backhand
>against top players?<
pistol got tons of backhand winners against top players - go watch the '99 wimbledon final - he was fizzing backhand winners down/cross-court in the final
how the hell do you expect to win 7 time wimbledon/ 5 time US champions with a weak backhand ???
lendl was brought up on clay & had patience to rally on it all day ( regardless of his backhand ) & allied to his power did give him an edge over the opposition ( if both players have the patience, power can tip the balance )
federer hasn't impressed on clay - he won a masters tourney on it this year, but got soundly whupped on it by nadal in the semi of french & similarly, kuerten taught him a lesson on it the previous year
his "great" backhand has only got him to a french semi ( same as pistol ), so i don't see this as some "key" for him
fed to me, also doesn't have the patience for clay - to me, if all the guz are fit & ready, i'd back a nadal,ferrero,coria & nalbandian to beat him on it
>Rafters bserve came from a closed racket face and yes
>while he could get lift, it was not particularly angled or powerful. No one
>feared his serve...how many aces did he average???<
you know bugger all about tennis, if your going on aces
how many aces does rudeski serve ?
how may slams has he got ?
count how may aces fed serves - not in the rudeski/roddick/karlovic/ancic league - but count the no. of slams they have & he has
fed's acknowledged to be the best server around ( on the FAR more important criteria of how often he is broken in a match/tourney ), but he doesn't dominate aces count
>He was a decent volleyer
>but tended to 'pop up', a fatal flaw in my books. Lendl would have eaten him
>for breafast, lunch, tea and dinner.<
agassi, the best returner in the game coud do little with it in 2 succesive wimbledon semis ('00 & '01 ) & got beaten in 5 sets both times
if you had either a weak serve or weak volley, agassi wouda eaten you for breakfast !
Last edited by eldrick on Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
may i point out an overlooked performance this year
my tip for french this year was coria, who i believe has the best clay court game out there ( since ferrero has gone downhill following injury ) - maybe even better than nadal !
coria choked in last year's final, when it looked like he coudn't lose ( & taught agassi a lesson on clay in an earlier round ) & this year in run-up to french he'd lost only to nadal & fed ( but claimed those claycourts weren't ideal for him - too quick for him & more akin to a slow hardcourt, than the "true" slow courts of roland garros ( albeit, he couda beaten ginepri to get to US Open semi ! ))
well, to cut a long story short, i thought only nadal or fed wouda stood a chance to beat him in paris & then probably only in 5 hard sets
however, he lost this year to davydenko after winning the 1st set:
see story here ( it's towards the middle of the article ):
I don't watch all that much tennis, but am I the only one who thinks that the clay-court game is ridiculous? Not in and of itself (cue Paul Simon---slip-slip slidin' away), but because it's sooo different than the rest of the sport.
Seems to be a few historical tennis buffs here: if you get the cable channel Spike, they had a special bio on Pancho Gonzalez last night that was supposed to be pretty good. That's the kind of channel that replays things, so you might look for it.
>I don't watch all that much tennis, but am I the only one who thinks that the
>clay-court game is ridiculous? Not in and of itself (cue Paul Simon---slip-slip
>slidin' away), but because it's sooo different than the rest of the sport.
Clay court tennis is an unforgiving test of stamina, technique and balls. If the basics aren't there, one is doomed to failure. Sure ain't pretty to watch, bu it takes a special player to master it. Clay GOAT - Bjørn Borg.
>>Clay court tennis is an unforgiving test of stamina,
>technique and balls. If the basics aren't there, one is doomed to failure. Sure
>ain't pretty to watch, bu it takes a special player to master it. Clay GOAT -
the 2 best clay-courters since the open era began in '68 were borg & lendl & they had a classic final in '81 when borg outlasted him in 5 pulsating sets( lendl ran out of gas after levelling at 2 sets-all )
it was a rivalry which lasted just that 1 match on clay ( grand slams ), when borg retired & lendl was on the way up
if borg had carried on for the next 3 - 4y, we couda seen the greatest clay court matches of all-time between these 2 ( strange though that lendl did go thru a clay "slump" in '82 & '83 only reaching 4th round & qf before reaching 4 succesive finals ( winning 3 ) - i can't remember who beat him in '82 & '83 - maybe someone can look it up ? )
Aces were just one indicatorr. I agree that services held are just as good if not better over the longer term, but aces show when a server is HOT. Look at Venus. Second serve is also important, big advantage Sampras over most big servers. Control is more important than raw speed, but you have to have basic speed to be in the top echelon.
BTW, Pousis is MY favourite server. Pity he was not a good dnough player to back up those MONSTER strokes. Proves his worth against Pete in that Wimbledon Semis some years back when he pulled a leg muscle while leading.
I maintain though that the whip forehand crosscourt (Serena does it too) is a killer stroke that is UNPLAYBLE.
Regarding winning majors with a weak backhand, you need look no further than Steffi with her 22 slams. The slice kept her in the match and allowed Fraulein forehand to set up the killer stroke.
I urge you to go look at tapes of Pete in the last few years and examine his backhand and you will see what I mean. I was never a Pete fan till post 1999 and I wanted him to win a few more for nostalgia when people started to write him off. The bugbear was the backhand when pressured. If he wasnt able to protect it, he lost. On the contrary, I have seen Fed go toe to toe with the double fisted clay courters and Roddick backhand to backhand and WIN the majority of points. THAT is a solid single fister.
>I maintain though that the whip forehand crosscourt (Serena does it too) is a
>killer stroke that is UNPLAYBLE.<
that's a basic stroke - clisters,henin, davenport,sharapova, etc. can all play it - & all with power !
>Regarding winning majors with a weak
>backhand, you need look no further than Steffi with her 22 slams. The slice
>kept her in the match and allowed Fraulein forehand to set up the killer
& who was her oppostioin - a too ole martina, a powerless sanchez, a too young capriati
the only top player in her time was hingis - & apart from grass, she had a winning record in their other slam meetings ( upto the stabbing )
give her the belgians, venus sisters, russians of today & see how well her "backhand" stands up
>I urge you to go look at tapes of Pete in the last few years and
>examine his backhand and you will see what I mean.<
i've seen every one of his big matches since '90 !
don't tell me what i need to see !
>I was never a Pete fan till
>post 1999 and I wanted him to win a few more for nostalgia when people started
>to write him off. The bugbear was the backhand when pressured. If he wasnt able
>to protect it, he lost.<
pistol had winning records ( on hard ) against agassi, courier, brugera,kafelnikov,muster,kuerten,moya - all french open champions & most of them ( if not all ) with double-handed backhands
his single-handed back-hand stood up to all of theirs & usually destroyed them in the end
>On the contrary, I have seen Fed go toe to toe with the
>double fisted clay courters<
& the 2 class clay-courters he came up against in french in last 2 y - kuerten & nadal whupped him
Last edited by eldrick on Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is obvious that you like and know about tennis.
This is a discussion (back and forth), not a dictation!
You say FF (Steffi) did not have much competition???? You forgot Seles, even though some of her best years were stolen from her. Even if not, FF would have won at least say 15 slams!!!!
I could say the same about PP (Pete). He never faced a Federer at his peak, who would have dented his chances dramatically. Also, if Pousis wasnt so injury prone, perhaps Wimbledon would have been a LOT tougher.
PP could serve, could 2nd serve, had a great forehand and could volley. His backhand, NAAAAH.
I know you have seen the matches and I was asking you to go back and look for something specifically...with new eyes. You may just see something you missed.
Regading the whip, tell me who can do it with the facility of Serena and Fed. I dont mean just a cross-court, I mean a powerfully whipped X-court from deep, picked up with little preparartion and angled so that it ends on in the side fence!!!!
FYI, dont call me boy...I am probably older than you are! Show some respect.LoL
>say FF (Steffi) did not have much competition???? You forgot Seles, even though
>some of her best years were stolen from her.<
that was typo - it meant to say seles - you can work that out from the "stabbing" comment
>I could say the same about PP (Pete). He never faced
>a Federer at his peak, who would have dented his chances dramatically.<
pistol faced 9+ french open champs ( forgot to add lendl & chang ), stich,edberg,becker & rafter, all playing at/near peak
that is not competition fed has faced
>Pousis wasnt so injury prone, perhaps Wimbledon would have been a LOT
PP could serve, could 2nd serve, had a great forehand and could
>volley. His backhand, NAAAAH.<
1 trick pony - his name doesn't deserve to be included with the likes of the above
if he's the best you can come up with, i'd find some other sport to talk about
>I know you have seen the matches and I was
>asking you to go back and look for something specifically...with new eyes. You
>may just see something you missed<
after 12y off watching him, i missed nothing !
>Regading the whip, tell me who can do it
>with the facility of Serena and Fed. I dont mean just a cross-court, I mean a
>powerfully whipped X-court from deep, picked up with little preparartion and
>angled so that it ends on in the side fence!!!!<
We are having a nice Tennis discussion and you keep having to ruin it with the snide remarks!!!!
Stick to the sport for a change.
PP is PISTOL PETE, not Mark P.
I mentioned Pousis, as like Goran, he was a wimbledon specialist. If he didnt have the injuries, he career would have been much different. He, not Crafter, was the Aussie Junior superstar!
You mention Davenport for the X-court whip???? Hahahahaha. She cant even move properly, a prereq. to execute this killer stroke!!! Get real here, you obviously dont understand the stroke I am talking about.
12 years of watching Pete? Is that the extent of your tennis watching? Hell, Mac had a far better backhand, as did most of the previous generation. I wont even mention Lendl!!!!!
If you keep calling me boy, I will have to refer to you as foetus!!! LoL
>I mentioned Pousis, as like Goran, he was a wimbledon
>specialist. If he didnt have the injuries, he career would have been much
>different. He, not Crafter, was the Aussie Junior superstar!<
philopousis was too bulky & too slow to be any consistent threat - if a guy coud get him into a 3 or 4 stroke rally, philopous woud crumble
>Davenport for the X-court whip???? Hahahahaha. She cant even move properly, a
>prereq. to execute this killer stroke!!! Get real here, you obviously dont
>understand the stroke I am talking about.<
i doubt you even know what you're talking about !
if it was in davenport's firing line, she coud blast that forehand cross-court, down the line, or anywhere she wished !
she was that good !
>12 years of watching Pete? Is that
>the extent of your tennis watching?<
pistol had 12y peak career - '90 - '02
i didn't see him play as a 12y old !
>Hell, Mac had a far better backhand, as did
>most of the previous generation. I wont even mention Lendl!!!!!<
how about laver & rosewall - those were better backhands - did you see those guyz on tv ???
>If you keep
>calling me boy, I will have to refer to you as foetus!!! LoL<
keep begging for that respect you crave
Last edited by eldrick on Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
I was just joking with the Sampras 12 year, as I had seen previous posts that indicated you knew of the old timers. You really have a thin skin.
Dav. CANNOT execute the stroke I speak of, so please go watch Serena and Fed to see what I mean. They go after these shots, they dont wait or balls to come close to them and its placement more than power that make these strokes unplayable.
Very entertaining back and fourth between Eldrick and Infama. While Eldrick's early attacking style proved deadly in the early going, the more patient return game, with some well-placed lobs from Infama is proving to be quite worthy, and has drawn the match even.
two sets all.
Last edited by Cyril on Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Actually the score is decided already by the cogent arguments of Pat Cash.
The thing about Eldy is that he concentrates too much on the insults and not enough on advancing his rationale. Indeed, I am no closer to 'getting' what he has to say. He brngs no real insight to the table (though I dont doubt that he may have some).
For example, WHY does he consider PP more worthy of the GOAT title than the Fedex??? I dont mean the shallow comparison of who they faced. That is not within their control. The GOAT may face the weakest field of all, that does not diminish his GOATishness (LoL). That is not to say that the FEDEX does not have tough opposition as I have shown.
I rather would like to analyse the respective games and see what weapons and weaknesses they have. Short of a head to head series, we have little else.
The French Open has become tougher over the years as all the Spanish and most of the Latinos peak just for that tourney!!! The Spanish Armada is relatively new and has probaly gotten tougher, while the South Americans have risen like an rocket! Except for Rios and Nalbandian, they all have 100% clay court dedication and think that grass is just for cows.
BTW, speaking of Rios, that was a guy who could volley (hands almost as good as Mac). Is Larry Stefanky (sp?) the best volley coach out there?
>Dav. CANNOT execute the stroke I speak of, so please go watch
>Serena and Fed to see what I mean. They go after these shots, they dont wait or
>balls to come close to them and its placement more than power that make these
serena & venus play that shot out of desperation & only have limited success with it - there's a damn good chance they'll net it or hit it out
for their undoubted power ( without question the best 3 or 4y ago, now more just part of the pack ), they didn't have any tennis "brain" ( due mostly to the fact "dick" williams taught them completely out of a book & didn't send them to a coach in their early teens to tighten up their serve & teach them some court nuance
nuance which meant that with their power, the woud dominate rallies with combo of power, spins, short balls, drops, move opponents around unexpectedly & finish them off easily in rallies as a result
instead, all they learnt was a power game, which if an opponent was willing & coud trade ( plenty about nowdayz ), all of a sudden, the opponent puts in the good, intelligent shot we see the venus sisters scurrying along the back of the court chasing the ball, whizzing along side to side like a demented typewriter printer with everyone marvelling at their athleticism & saying what fantastic retrieving skills they've got, & what great occasional forehands they have, etc.
these retrieving skills, whilst keeping them in the point & perhaps even winning it & further the game/match, was nothing that ever impressed me - great athleticism, but with 1/2 a tennis brain, the shoud never have been put in that position in the 1st place !
their retrieving was undignified & just sign of an inability to have out-thought the opponent earlier
with power & brains, they shouda dominated from the get-go, with them in control at the back of the court & their opponent doing all the rerieving & then messing up as they didn't have the sisters' athleticism
so don't bs me about some "magical" forehand - mostly just a low percentage desperation shot played at a full stretch, a position they shoud never have been in the 1st place !
davenport has a tennis brain & rarely had to play this shot at full-stretch as she had the nuance to control the rally better & play it in a good, controlled position, with feet properly positioned & far greater chance of success with the shot
>I crave nothing, so please dont go there. Hahahah<
i'll go wherever i damn please !
keep begging for your "respect" - it's a loser's request, which no one else on this forum has ever asked for
I am NOT talking about a back court retrieval shot and I never mentioned Venus. Venus cant play the shot well either, but she has a better chance than Dav. who is static!!!
The shot I describe is ATTACKING. Fedex and Serena are the masters. None of the others have the shot as developed. Hingis could do a powder puff version. What you described are scrambling gets...different thing altogether.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but it is not so absolute. Sharapova got overpowered at Wimbledon. At their best, perhaps only Clijsters can hit with the sisters. Hantuchova can do it, but only on the backhand.
I wont even bring up the respect stuff, as its is detracting from the far more interesting tennis material.
Actually the score is decided already by the cogent
>arguments of Pat Cash.<
i was happy to leave it to cash as he's a good champion, but he was undecided until recently
on grass - pistol - the form he was in '93 & '99 was better than any man has played a tourney
best serve, good returns, fantastic forehand & backhand & rallied until he won
feds up against that ?
his return isn't good enough to have broken pistol more than than pistol wouda broken fed's "weaker" serve ( feds' return is good, but it's not agassi class & if agassi hardly broke pistol in his prime, i doubt feds woud have )
this i give to pistol in 4, with maybe a coupla tie-breaks involved
on hard ?
closer, as pistol's serve slightly less effective there than on grass ( but only a fraction ) & feds return has more chance of success ( but only a fraction )
marginally more in favor of fed winning protracted rallies on more consistent court
overall though, peak pistol still has a little too much & what fed has clawed back still won't be enough to give him the win
>The shot I
>describe is ATTACKING. Fedex and Serena are the masters<
don't talk crap
either you're talking a running forehand from the baseline, which is a desperation shot not worth bothering with, or a static, feet planted at the baseline forehand, which is no "magic" shot & like i said davenport, russians & belgians can all play - & all more consistently
>Sharapova got overpowered at Wimbledon<
yeah & serena got overpowered by her the year before with sharapova using the same kinda forehands
Last edited by eldrick on Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
You must know of the "shot" Infama is talking about. Described perfectly - the "cross-court whip". Federer hits winners with it quite regularly. Others have done it on occasion but not with the consistency or remarkable control that RF does. It is not a defensive or desperation shot -it is a pure attack and for the most part impossible to return.
I dont agree, even though your response was well reasoned.
Fed would have put enough pressure on the Sampras serve to cause occasional cracks.
PPs returns would be far from adequate to handle the Fedex serve.
In rallies the PP backhand would be made mincemeat of. He would run over to cover with his forehand, a la FF and would open up the court for Fedex to put him away everytime.
PP had a rising motion with his backnhand...not flat enough and would hit long when pressured with deep, heavy strokes. He really could only hit winners off it with short returns, that he got from his handy serve.
I say Fedex in 4...on a bad day. Otherwise, 3 straight...mixture of 3s and 4s.
Last edited by Infama on Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
You must know of the "shot" Infama is talking about. Described
>perfectly - the "cross-court whip". Federer hits winners with it quite
>regularly. Others have done it on occasion but not with the consistency or
>remarkable control that RF does. It is not a defensive or desperation shot -it
>is a pure attack and for the most part impossible to return.<
that shot, if played from mid-court is a good shot, but plenty of others play it well - not withstanding pistol - agassi & yes, even roddick plays it
the question was about serena: if it's mid-court, the aforementioned davenport, russians & belgians all play it just as well - if it's to describe it from the baseline, from static position, they are still equally adept,
if it's a running shot from the baseline,that is normally a desperation shot, which unfortunately/fortunately serena has had to learn to play in order to keep in a rally, due to her ineptitude at being out-thought & ending up scurrying about
the other galz aren't as adept at this shot, as they have the nuance not to generally get snookered into this undignified position & hence haven't had need to work on it
Last edited by eldrick on Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
>Fed would have put enough pressure on the
>Sampras serve to cause occasional cracks.<
he woudn't have
his return is not on a par with agassi, chang or even becker & if they very infrequently broke him at their peak, he certainly won't stand any better chance
>PPs returns would be far from
>adequate to handle the Fedex serve.<
he broke far better servers in his slams than fed ever did - goran, becker,edberg
if he broke those guyz, he had more than a good enough return to break fed several times
>In rallies the PP backhand would be
>made mincemeat of. He would run over to cover with his forehand, a la FF and
>would open up the court for Fedex to put him away everytime.<
his backhand at worst, is fractionally behind fed's, & may eventually break-down in protracted rallies
the problem for fed is that, pistol was never interested ( even at his peak ) in trading backhands all day - he woud look to get into the net as soon as possible, even if it meant running around onto the forehand or tendency to rush the net
in the end, you don't get protracted back-hand rallies, you get a blur as pistol gets to the net & in a split second fed has to find the instant passing shot/lob winner or pistol has made chopped liver of him with the volley
sure fed will pass/lob him plenty, but if this is happening on fed's serve ( as i expect it to - not too many rallies needed when pistol is serving 2nd serve aces on dime placed at the T ) - there will be break point opportunities - far more than on pistol's serve
>PP had a rising
>motion with his backhand...not flat enough and would hit long when pressured
>with deep, heavy strokes.<
on a clay court at end of 15 - 20 stroke rally
on hard court, he didn't have fed's accuracy, but like i said, even when he coud easily get into backhand duels with someone he coud easily defeat on it, his instinct woud be to get to the net & dominate from there
>He really could only hit winners off it with short
>returns, that he got from his handy serve.<
best ever serve, fool !
>I say Fedex in 4...on a bad day.
>Otherwise, 3 straight...mixture of 3s and 4s.<
you clearly are completely clueless about this game
Reading this back and fourth is really quite interesting. Unfortunately we can never know who is right. I doubt Fed would take Pete straight. It would have been some incredible tennis with two very contrasting players - both who really know the game. If only Pete had been a bit younger - or Fed a bit older. Kind of like Geb and Bek. Damn.
I would have loved to see them play each other at their peaks. Federer and Sampras are probably the best I've seen up to this point in time but the game is changing in an interesting way.
Cyril, maybe you can get your son to start playing tennis if he gets tired of soccer and you can't convince him that track is good:o) He'll have a leg up on everybody because of his foot eye coordination from soccer (McEnroe had it!) and his track ability.
Last edited by cullman on Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.