PDA

View Full Version : All Time Greatest Players


thrust
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:33 PM
I would rate Margreat Smith-Court as probably the greatest woman player of the more modern era. Her carrer spans the pre and Open era. She won the most singles slams and many doubles and mixed doubles titles in an era when most of the top players played singles and doubles. Navratilova would be my second best. Her overall record is close to Court^s, but I think Margreat was a better all court player than Martina. She won 5 French Opens to Martina^s 2. Her last FO win was against Evert after having given birth to her first child. I would rate Graf #3. As great as she was, once Seles was stabbed her competition was not as good as Court^s, or Martina^s. Evert would be my next choice. I think she lacked the power to defeat Graf regularly, except perhaps on clay. Maria Bueno was an incredible player, probably the most beautiful all court game of all, but not quite as constant as those mentioned above. A true joy to watch though!

Volcana
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:40 PM
Are you talking about singles specialists, or tennis players? If you're limiting it to singles, it's awful hard to put Navratilova ahead of Graf. Personally, I DO put Navratilova ahead of Graf, but objectively, it's hard to justify. I do agree with 1) Court, 2) Navratilova, 3) Graf, 4) Evert, with King #5, but only if you're talking tennis overall, not just singles.

And there aren't ten posters on this board who know who Maria Bueno is. Who had the more beautiful game, Bueno or Goolagong?

Andy T
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:40 PM
Here's a nuclear bomb of a post in a thread that's going to launch a wtaworld war.....

Hi thrust! As this is your third post, I guess you're quite new. If you're interested in the players of the 60s-80s, check out "Blast from the Past". One of the members is currently putting together a career record for Margaret Court.

CoolDude7
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:49 PM
There is no way of telling who is the greatest. The Field was way less competitive in the earlier days. A Powerplayer today playing against Court or Nav, would blow them off the court, period! There has to be a different measure when asking who is the best, and including players of a MUCH less weaker field. No one will ever get 15+ grand slams. Having 2 grand slams today, means way more than having two grand slams in the earlier years! It's like playing a Game... and there are 3 different levels, Easy, Medium, and Hard. In the past the game was on easy, now it is very much on hard. And winning a grand slam, will take its toll on the body.

Calimero377
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:02 PM
There is no way of telling who is the greatest. The Field was way less competitive in the earlier days. A Powerplayer today playing against Court or Nav, would blow them off the court, period! There has to be a different measure when asking who is the best, and including players of a MUCH less weaker field. No one will ever get 15+ grand slams. Having 2 grand slams today, means way more than having two grand slams in the earlier years! It's like playing a Game... and there are 3 different levels, Easy, Medium, and Hard. In the past the game was on easy, now it is very much on hard. And winning a grand slam, will take its toll on the body.


Federer has 5 slams and will surpass McEnroe, Connors, Ashe and probably Borg, maybe even Sampras. Obviously the men's game is on "easy" today.

Dumbo ...


BTW, do you really think Zvonareva would blow Navi away .... ?

Superdumbo .....

CoolDude7
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Fed just won his FIRST SLAM THIS YEAR! the results speaks for themselves. As good as he is , he has been upset.

We are not refering to men's tennis anyway. You are completely aloof

matthieu_tennis
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:29 PM
for the youngest achievements its hingis :P

CoolDude7
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:30 PM
=) at hingis

manu32
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:47 PM
I would rate Margreat Smith-Court as probably the greatest woman player of the more modern era. Her carrer spans the pre and Open era. She won the most singles slams and many doubles and mixed doubles titles in an era when most of the top players played singles and doubles. Navratilova would be my second best. Her overall record is close to Court^s, but I think Margreat was a better all court player than Martina. She won 5 French Opens to Martina^s 2. Her last FO win was against Evert after having given birth to her first child. I would rate Graf #3. As great as she was, once Seles was stabbed her competition was not as good as Court^s, or Martina^s. Evert would be my next choice. I think she lacked the power to defeat Graf regularly, except perhaps on clay. Maria Bueno was an incredible player, probably the most beautiful all court game of all, but not quite as constant as those mentioned above. A true joy to watch though!

but australian open was a joke during so many years......it was a national championship ......look at the draws...

Calimero377
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:57 PM
Fed just won his FIRST SLAM THIS YEAR! the results speaks for themselves. As good as he is , he has been upset.

We are not refering to men's tennis anyway. You are completely aloof


Why do you think no woman ever will be able to win 15+ slams again?
Because Williamses, Davenport, Capriati are unable to?
Well, Graf, Evert, Navi could do it.
And there will come an all-time great again some day who will challenge those icons of modern tennis.

Sampras (14) and Borg (11) are the best slam winners among the men.
Federer has already 5 and is only just at the beginning. Obviously in men's tennis there is no rule that dominant players are gone forever. Or did they just forget to tell Roger?

CoolDude7
Jul 5th, 2005, 07:11 PM
There are just so many competitors out there today. Serena, Venus, Hen, Lindz, Cap, Shav, Mary, Kuz, Dem, Amelie, Mol, and a lot of other players that will cause big upsets. I dont see anyone winning 15+ grand slams. Now with Nadal, and many others in the mix it may get even more complicated for the men. People say that Roger is a great! Roger will prolly win 10+ grand slams. But for a great to have only won 1 slam thus far this year is telling. You can't count anyone out, especially if they are on!

GorgeousMe!
Jul 5th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Calimero, no one should ever quote ex-players who become commentators. Like all 'journalists', they say one thing one minute, and another the next. And they ALL have little axes to grind. Chris Evert has said one thing out of her mouth about Steffi, and another out of her other orifice!

Oneofakind0490
Jul 5th, 2005, 07:20 PM
There are just so many competitors out there today. Serena, Venus, Hen, Lindz, Cap, Shav, Mary, Kuz, Dem, Amelie, Mol, and a lot of other players that will cause big upsets. I dont see anyone winning 15+ grand slams. Now with Nadal, and many others in the mix it may get even more complicated for the men. People say that Roger is a great! Roger will prolly win 10+ grand slams. But for a great to have only won 1 slam thus far this year is telling. You can't count anyone out, especially if they are on!Sampras who has the most grand slam titles never won more than two in a year. Federer has already won 3 in one year and is favorite to defend his US Open title.

CoolDude7
Jul 5th, 2005, 07:26 PM
Yes, Fed is a great! I hope he does get 20 plus slams. I like him a lot! But i dunno about that

LDVTennis
Jul 5th, 2005, 08:09 PM
Sampras (14) and Borg (11) are the best slam winners among the men.
Federer has already 5 and is only just at the beginning. Obviously in men's tennis there is no rule that dominant players are gone forever. Or did they just forget to tell Roger?

I was watching perhaps your most favorite match ever this past weekend, the '88 Wimbledon Ladies Final. The most recent women's final left me wanting to see a match with some all-court play. Plus, I wanted to prove it to myself that Roger gets more adulation for hitting shots that Steffi was hitting long ago.

I was satisfied on all counts. There was Steffi in the 2nd or 3rd set retreating to the baseline to cover a lob from Martina. Martina advances to the net and hits a drop volley off of Steffi's return. From about five feet behind the baseline, Steffi sprints to the Deuce court and at the last minute flicks a forehand crosscourt, short angle, wide for a winner. There were four or five other shots that Steffi hit which reminded me of shots that Federer hit at this year's Wimbledon. Almost from the same spots on the court, it was uncanny.

So, why didn't Steffi ever get the same adulation. I have the BBC Broadcast of the match with Ann Jones and Virginia Wade commenting and they certainly gave Steffi her due. Something, of course, must have been lost in the translation, because the Americans, if NBC's broadcasts back then are any indication, never saw fit to bask in the spectacle of her shotmaking. Thus, there could be something after all to your long standing claim that not-being American compromised Steffi's chances of claiming the "greatest ever" title outright.

Federer clearly has found a way to transcend that nationalism. Or, it could just be that there are fewer people in the broadcast booth or in sports marketing agencies with an agenda against him.

hingis-seles
Jul 5th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Federer clearly has found a way to transcend that nationalism. Or, it could just be that there are fewer people in the broadcast booth or in sports marketing agencies with an agenda against him.

Federer has to deal with Andy Roddick, who has had Pat McEnroe and Jim Courier among others drooling over him and writing songs for him. It's just that they never have the chance to say anything because Fed destroys Andy everytime they play. Except for that one match, ofcourse. Graf never dominated one of her main rivals in the same fashion.

Calimero377
Jul 5th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I was watching perhaps your most favorite match ever this past weekend, the '88 Wimbledon Ladies Final. The most recent women's final left me wanting to see a match with some all-court play. Plus, I wanted to prove it to myself that Roger gets more adulation for hitting shots that Steffi was hitting long ago.

I was satisfied on all counts. There was Steffi in the 2nd or 3rd set retreating to the baseline to cover a lob from Martina. Martina advances to the net and hits a drop volley off of Steffi's return. From about five feet behind the baseline, Steffi sprints to the Deuce court and at the last minute flicks a forehand crosscourt, short angle, wide for a winner. ...

"Glorious!" ;)

... There were four or five other shots that Steffi hit which reminded me of shots that Federer hit at this year's Wimbledon. Almost from the same spots on the court, it was uncanny.

So, why didn't Steffi ever get the same adulation. I have the BBC Broadcast of the match with Ann Jones and Virginia Wade commenting and they certainly gave Steffi her due. Something, of course, must have been lost in the translation, because the Americans, if NBC's broadcasts back then are any indication, never saw fit to bask in the spectacle of her shotmaking. Thus, there could be something after all to your long standing claim that not-being American compromised Steffi's chances of claiming the "greatest ever" title outright.

Federer clearly has found a way to transcend that nationalism. Or, it could just be that there are fewer people in the broadcast booth or in sports marketing agencies with an agenda against him.


Graf was a threat to Evertilova's legacy. She was European, German at that!
And she didn't dance to the tune of superficial TV and marketing guys/gals as so many of today's women players do (Screamerova!) .... :worship:

LDVTennis
Jul 5th, 2005, 11:23 PM
Federer has to deal with Andy Roddick, who has had Pat McEnroe and Jim Courier among others drooling over him and writing songs for him. It's just that they never have the chance to say anything because Fed destroys Andy everytime they play. Except for that one match, ofcourse. Graf never dominated one of her main rivals in the same fashion.

To be sure, against Roddick, Federer's head to head record is flagrantly one-sided. But, against Hewitt, the head to head record is more even, notwithstanding the fact that Roger has won their last 7-8 meetings. So, head to head records never tell the full story.

That is why one really cannot take the head to head record (9-9) between Martina and Steffi at face value. I could say more about that, but only at the risk of inciting a certain group of fans.

Whatever the case, in my previous post, I wasn't really making a case about Steffi's greatness based on head to head records. I was making a case based on her shotmaking ability, a shotmaking ability comparable only past or present to Federer. And, the simple point I was making is that Federer clearly gets more unadulterated adulation for shots that Steffi was making in that '88 Wimbledon Final and really throughout her career. If you don't believe me, take a look at the '88 Wimbledon Final yourself.

Robbie.
Jul 5th, 2005, 11:52 PM
There are just so many competitors out there today. Serena, Venus, Hen, Lindz, Cap, Shav, Mary, Kuz, Dem, Amelie, Mol, and a lot of other players that will cause big upsets. I dont see anyone winning 15+ grand slams. Now with Nadal, and many others in the mix it may get even more complicated for the men. People say that Roger is a great! Roger will prolly win 10+ grand slams. But for a great to have only won 1 slam thus far this year is telling. You can't count anyone out, especially if they are on!

The thing is that 15 + slams would definitely be within Venus and Serena's grasp IF NOT for the other.

I know some people don't like what ifs, but it's a very exceptional circumstance to have somebody from your exact gene pool challenging you on a world stage and taking away from your achievements.

Venus has 5 slams now, without Serena she'd probably have 10. That's getting into all time great territory.

I have no doubt that one day we will have a player great enough to get into the mid to high teens on the GS count.

rjd1111
Jul 6th, 2005, 05:38 AM
I knew it was coming! Every time one of the Williams Sisters wins a
Big tourney somebody starts one of these “Old Time Greatest Threads “.
They wistfully wonder who was the Greatest of all time between
Navratilova, Graf, Evert, King, and maybe even the ancients like
Moody,Court, Wade, and Lenglin.(They rarely, If ever, mention Althea Gibson.)
And most importantly they leave out the Williams Sisters as if this will
Somehow diminish their Victory.
You can’t use Common Sense and Logic with them because if they were applied
It would make their position untenable. They have to ignore those.
We had a break last year when the latest GWH entered the sceen and beat a Williams
Sister at Wimby, Then another win over an injured Sister at the YEC. But then
The Sisters have started to put the beat down on her like they have done to all the
other GWHs. The AO and now Wimbledon. Another loss or two and she will lose
her GWH status like Cappy, Kimmy, and the Cheater. Then the search will be on for Another
GWH.
So now, since their are no present day viable candidates, they seek refuge in the only
place they can. The old Ghosts. Because it can't be proven on a Tennis court They can say this
old time player or that one would beat the Sisters. They say this player or that player is the
greatest because they won Umteen titles over many years. Longivity takes the place of Skills
Because they won many titles over many years they are the Greatest. No matter that the
competition and the brand of tennis was no where near what it is today. And Knowing that the
Sisters won't match their numbers simply because they don't play as much and the competition
today is a lot better. Anyone with sense can see that the Big Babe power tennis of today is
miles ahead of that slow loopy type of tennis played in the yesteryears. Martina Hingis played
that type of Tennis and was on top until the Sisters and the other big Babes ran her out of
the game. If the Sisters and the other Big Babes had been around back then and played their
power game we wouldn't be having this discussion. They would be the Legends.

Caution! The Sisters are still winning Slams. Each one they win make these threads more like
sour grapes. And.... the numbers are getting closer.

rjd1111
Jul 6th, 2005, 01:20 PM
I knew it was coming! Every time one of the Williams Sisters wins a
Big tourney somebody starts one of these “Old Time Greatest Threads “.
They wistfully wonder who was the Greatest of all time between
Navratilova, Graf, Evert, King, and maybe even the ancients like
Moody,Court, Wade, and Lenglin.(They rarely, If ever, mention Althea Gibson.)
And most importantly they leave out the Williams Sisters as if this will
Somehow diminish their Victory.
You can’t use Common Sense and Logic with them because if they were applied
It would make their position untenable. They have to ignore those.
We had a break last year when the latest GWH entered the sceen and beat a Williams
Sister at Wimby, Then another win over an injured Sister at the YEC. But then
The Sisters have started to put the beat down on her like they have done to all the
other GWHs. The AO and now Wimbledon. Another loss or two and she will lose
her GWH status like Cappy, Kimmy, and the Cheater. Then the search will be on for Another
GWH.
So now, since their are no present day viable candidates, they seek refuge in the only
place they can. The old Ghosts. Because it can't be proven on a Tennis court They can say this
old time player or that one would beat the Sisters. They say this player or that player is the
greatest because they won Umteen titles over many years. Longivity takes the place of Skills
Because they won many titles over many years they are the Greatest. No matter that the
competition and the brand of tennis was no where near what it is today. And Knowing that the
Sisters won't match their numbers simply because they don't play as much and the competition
today is a lot better. Anyone with sense can see that the Big Babe power tennis of today is
miles ahead of that slow loopy type of tennis played in the yesteryears. Martina Hingis played
that type of Tennis and was on top until the Sisters and the other big Babes ran her out of
the game. If the Sisters and the other Big Babes had been around back then and played their
power game we wouldn't be having this discussion. They would be the Legends.

Caution! The Sisters are still winning Slams. Each one they win make these threads more like
sour grapes. And.... the numbers are getting closer.



I think that maybe Graf could adapt to power Tennis

tennislover
Jul 6th, 2005, 01:32 PM
MARTINA

Mark43
Jul 6th, 2005, 03:16 PM
I have always thought Roger's game resembled Steffi's, more than anyone's, except for the more frequent use of the topspin backhand. Nobody ever points this out. The amazing quickness, deceptively well placed serve, overwhleming forehand, sublime slice backhand, and ability to make everything look so easy.I was watching perhaps your most favorite match ever this past weekend, the '88 Wimbledon Ladies Final. The most recent women's final left me wanting to see a match with some all-court play. Plus, I wanted to prove it to myself that Roger gets more adulation for hitting shots that Steffi was hitting long ago.

I was satisfied on all counts. There was Steffi in the 2nd or 3rd set retreating to the baseline to cover a lob from Martina. Martina advances to the net and hits a drop volley off of Steffi's return. From about five feet behind the baseline, Steffi sprints to the Deuce court and at the last minute flicks a forehand crosscourt, short angle, wide for a winner. There were four or five other shots that Steffi hit which reminded me of shots that Federer hit at this year's Wimbledon. Almost from the same spots on the court, it was uncanny.

So, why didn't Steffi ever get the same adulation. I have the BBC Broadcast of the match with Ann Jones and Virginia Wade commenting and they certainly gave Steffi her due. Something, of course, must have been lost in the translation, because the Americans, if NBC's broadcasts back then are any indication, never saw fit to bask in the spectacle of her shotmaking. Thus, there could be something after all to your long standing claim that not-being American compromised Steffi's chances of claiming the "greatest ever" title outright.

Federer clearly has found a way to transcend that nationalism. Or, it could just be that there are fewer people in the broadcast booth or in sports marketing agencies with an agenda against him.

Andy T
Jul 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM
I have always thought Roger's game resembled Steffi's, more than anyone's, except for the more frequent use of the topspin backhand. Nobody ever points this out. The amazing quickness, deceptively well placed serve, overwhleming forehand, sublime slice backhand, and ability to make everything look so easy.

While watching the men's final, Roddick reminded me of Steffi in the way he ran around his backhand quite often. That is not to say that they have similar games as Steffi was far more smooth and graceful than Andy.

DemWilliamsGulls
Jul 6th, 2005, 03:30 PM
The Williams Sisters has already made their mark on the tennis world. They basically made everyone raise thier level of game..and really refined Power Tennis. Their have set records (Venus fastest serve), first sister act to win grand slam doubles and singles in the same year...they are simply amazing! You can assure that their name will 4 ever be mentioned when they retire.....and they will REALLY be missed.

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 03:53 PM
I wish the OZ was still played on grass. Think of how that would have changed history.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 05:58 PM
I think that maybe Graf could adapt to power Tennis


"Adapt to"?

That was a good one .... :lol: :lol:

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:07 PM
The Williams Sisters has already made their mark on the tennis world. They basically made everyone raise thier level of game..and really refined Power Tennis. Their have set records (Venus fastest serve), first sister act to win grand slam doubles and singles in the same year...they are simply amazing! You can assure that their name will 4 ever be mentioned when they retire.....and they will REALLY be missed.



In the year 2100 we will have probably about 15 professional players with 10+ slams.
Court, Navi, Evert, King, Graf, Enna (?) and about 10 others.

Players like Goolagong, Hingis, Mandlikova, Davenport, Williamses, ASV, Seles, Capriati will be known to tennis historians only.

Most tennis fans will know only those with 10+ slams though.

Non-sportsfans will know only the one with 20+ slams.
Steffi Graf.

rjd1111
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
"Adapt to"?

That was a good one .... :lol: :lol:



Thanks. She might be a top twenty player, But winning slams
would be a Stretch.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Thanks. She might be a top twenty player, But winning slams would be a Stretch.


Suarez, Sugiyama made top 10 last year for the first time in their long, long careers. Ruano-Pascal is #1 in doubles.
Let's have a look how grandma Graf (with reconstructed knee) played in her last matches against those all-time greats:

Graf vs. Suarez, AO 99: 6-0, 6-3
Graf vs. Sugiyama, IW 99: 6-0, 6-1
Graf vs. Ruano-Pascual, Montreal 98: 6-0, 6-1


Oops .....

LDVTennis
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:53 PM
While watching the men's final, Roddick reminded me of Steffi in the way he ran around his backhand quite often. That is not to say that they have similar games as Steffi was far more smooth and graceful than Andy.


I find this comparison rudimentary for many various reasons.

First of all, Roddick uses a western grip on his forehand, Steffi used an eastern. Roddick has a more sweeping swing; Steffi's stroke was more compact.

The trajectory of their swings is also different. Roddick's tendency is to hit across the ball, Steffi's was to jump into the shot and hit down on it. Consequently, the ball tends to bounce up on Roddick's forehand shot, whereas it had a greater tendency to skid through on Graf's forehand shot.

Steffi does something else on her forehand swing that is very critical to its overall effects. She tends to supinate her wrist at the beginning of the stroke and pronate it through point of contact. The western grip on Roddick's forehand pretty much keeps him from engaging his wrist as fully as Steffi did. So, he really can't whip the ball crosscourt as much as Steffi was known to do.

Taking all of these things into account, the only fair comparison is to Roger's forehand. Roger's grip is more like Steffi's, somewhere between Western and Eastern. His forehand motion is also very compact. Like Steffi, in fact, he almost literally fronts the ball on some shots.

Whether he is jumping into it or not, Roger also tends to hit down on the ball. Steffi preferred to do this by elevating into the shot; Roger can do it in two ways, by elevating and by closing the face of his racquet as he follows through the ball.

Finally, both Steffi and Roger pronate their wrists through point of contact. Roger more so than Steffi on shots other than the whip crosscourt. On that shot, their motions are almost identical.

Andy's forehand begs comparison to that of Kim Clijsters.

Andy T
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:33 PM
I find this comparison rudimentary for many various reasons.

First of all, Roddick uses a western grip on his forehand, Steffi used an eastern. Roddick has a more sweeping swing; Steffi's stroke was more compact.

The trajectory of their swings is also different. Roddick's tendency is to hit across the ball, Steffi's was to jump into the shot and hit down on it. Consequently, the ball tends to bounce up on Roddick's forehand shot, whereas it had a greater tendency to skid through on Graf's forehand shot.

Steffi does something else on her forehand swing that is very critical to its overall effects. She tends to supinate her wrist at the beginning of the stroke and pronate it through point of contact. The western grip on Roddick's forehand pretty much keeps him from engaging his wrist as fully as Steffi did. So, he really can't whip the ball crosscourt as much as Steffi was known to do.

Taking all of these things into account, the only fair comparison is to Roger's forehand. Roger's grip is more like Steffi's, somewhere between Western and Eastern. His forehand motion is also very compact. Like Steffi, in fact, he almost literally fronts the ball on some shots.

Whether he is jumping into it or not, Roger also tends to hit down on the ball. Steffi preferred to do this by elevating into the shot; Roger can do it in two ways, by elevating and by closing the face of his racquet as he follows through the ball.

Finally, both Steffi and Roger pronate their wrists through point of contact. Roger more so than Steffi on shots other than the whip crosscourt. On that shot, their motions are almost identical.

Andy's forehand begs comparison to that of Kim Clijsters.

LDV you need to learn to read more carefully. I did not suggest that Styeffi's and Andy's shot production was in any way comparable. Grips, trajectories, swings, effectiveness, etc are irrelevant. The point I made was that Roddick, on several occasions, chose to run around his backhand and hit a forehand.

Pengwin
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Superdumbo .....


:eek:

I've only ever been called 'retard', 'retardo' and 'dumbo' :sad:

I WANT TO BE CALLED A SUPERDUMBO :fiery:

LDVTennis
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:47 PM
LDV you need to learn to read more carefully. I did not suggest that Styeffi's and Andy's shot production was in any way comparable. Grips, trajectories, swings, effectiveness, etc are irrelevant. The point I made was that Roddick, on several occasions, chose to run around his backhand and hit a forehand.

I did read carefully, more carefully than perhaps you may be willing to admit.

I began by comparing Steffi's shots to Roger's, a far more talented and natural player than Roddick. You countered by comparing her forehand to Roddick's, as if to imply that her forehand was as awkward and mechanical as his can be.

Roger runs around his forehand too, he even curls his forehand crosscourt like Steffi did; yet, instead of furthering that line of comparison, you saw fit to compare her forehand to Roddick's.

Can you see how some of us might be insulted by that comparison? Not only was it not well-developed from a technical standpoint as I tried to make the case above, but it also seemed to imply that she was "only" as talented as Roddick. It would be like my comparing Martina's volley game to Roddick's. I am sure you would appreciate that.

Philbo
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:56 PM
I did read carefully, more carefully than perhaps you may be willing to admit.

I began by comparing Steffi's shots to Roger's, a far more talented and natural player than Roddick. You countered by comparing her forehand to Roddick's, as if to imply that her forehand was as awkward and mechanical as his can be.

Roger runs around his forehand too, he even curls his forehand crosscourt like Steffi did; yet, instead of furthering that line of comparison, you saw fit to compare her forehand to Roddick's.

Can you see how some of us might be insulted by that comparison? Not only was it not well-developed from a technical standpoint as I tried to make the case above, but it also seemed to imply that she was "only" as talented as Roddick. It would be like my comparing Martina's volley game to Roddick's. I am sure you would appreciate that.

You really need to get a life LDV.. talk about a sensitive old queen ready to bitch at anything.. Your posts are sooooooo dull and boring.... Just my 2 cents..

Now have a cry about that...

Philbo
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:59 PM
LDV you need to learn to read more carefully. I did not suggest that Styeffi's and Andy's shot production was in any way comparable. Grips, trajectories, swings, effectiveness, etc are irrelevant. The point I made was that Roddick, on several occasions, chose to run around his backhand and hit a forehand.

LOL.. you certainly didnt Andy, you just made a simple point that Andy ran around his forehand a bit that day.. But LDV will take ANY opportunity to ramble on with shit in an attempt to sound really intellectual and intelligent, even if it degenerates into rambling on about shit..

THis was a perfect example of that...

Andy T
Jul 7th, 2005, 05:51 AM
I did read carefully, more carefully than perhaps you may be willing to admit.

I began by comparing Steffi's shots to Roger's, a far more talented and natural player than Roddick. You countered by comparing her forehand to Roddick's, as if to imply that her forehand was as awkward and mechanical as his can be.

Roger runs around his forehand too, he even curls his forehand crosscourt like Steffi did; yet, instead of furthering that line of comparison, you saw fit to compare her forehand to Roddick's.

Can you see how some of us might be insulted by that comparison? Not only was it not well-developed from a technical standpoint as I tried to make the case above, but it also seemed to imply that she was "only" as talented as Roddick. It would be like my comparing Martina's volley game to Roddick's. I am sure you would appreciate that.

I would suggest that your emotional connection to Steffi combined with your projection of me as an anti-Steffi person led you to infer insults from a comment which is perfectly innocuous. Fearing as much, I even took pains to underline in my post that I was NOT implying a similarity in their games with the second sentence:
"That is not to say that they have similar games as Steffi was far more smooth and graceful than Andy."

bandabou
Jul 7th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Now LDV feels how it is like when Cali walks around and calling BJK/ Martina N as lesser versions of Stefan Edberg...