PDA

View Full Version : Is power more important than natural ability?


Jen'sFan
Oct 4th, 2003, 07:43 PM
Well we all know that Martina Hingis was more talented than all the players out there today yet the power girls really did beat her most of the time. I know u gotta have a certain amount of ability but it seems that power is MORE important. What d'ya think?

Dava
Oct 4th, 2003, 07:45 PM
I think now with the likes of Henin on the tour, power and natural ability is the most potent force. People like Schnyder when playing well can beat the top players with clever shots and slice, however to do it consistantly is something which players will find hard.

tennisjam
Oct 4th, 2003, 07:50 PM
Don't know if it's more important but it became a big factor in women's game...still being powerfull isn't enough, you must be consistant and have a minimum fitness to go with it and also have some own game...

power is nothing without control anyway...

as for Hingis, I really think she didn't take enough advantage from her natural abilities...she could have been much more active net player than she was...

Knizzle
Oct 4th, 2003, 07:57 PM
No, I don't think power is more important, but when power is mixed with talent, ability, and court craft, it's a dangerous combination. A player like Hingis just needs to be supremely fit if they want to compete with the bigger hitters.

Volcana
Oct 4th, 2003, 09:11 PM
Well we all know that Martina Hingis was more talented than all the players out there today.

Actually, no. Absent a much more specific definition 'talent' than you've provided, I have to conclude that Martina Hingis, for the most part, was losing to more talented players. It took those players quite a while to figure how to marshall their talents to beat Martina, but 'talent' was what they used. If you want to say Martina had better court vision than most, that's fine. But 'talent' covers all non-emotional, non-mental focus things that go into making a successful tennis player.

Failing that, I could argue that I'M more talented than Serena Williams, buit she over powers me.

Knizzle
Oct 4th, 2003, 09:21 PM
Actually, no. Absent a much more specific definition 'talent' than you've provided, I have to conclude that Martina Hingis, for the most part, was losing to more talented players. It took those players quite a while to figure how to marshall their talents to beat Martina, but 'talent' was what they used. If you want to say Martina had better court vision than most, that's fine. But 'talent' covers all non-emotional, non-mental focus things that go into making a successful tennis player.

Failing that, I could argue that I'M more talented than Serena Williams, buit she over powers me.

If we assumed that Hingis was more talented than all the power players, it doesn't make a difference how talented you are if you can't use it on the court. Juju can hit great driving backhands, but for instance Venus doesn't give Juju the time to set up for her shots resulting in a poorer shot from Juju's backhand. So all the talent a player has can be wasted if they can't use it on the court. Also, power players get a bad rap as not being skillful or smart players, but to hit with power and be able to control it and place it well takes more skill than if Hingis takes the pace off of it and hits an angle. The power does allow to hit safer shots, but still get good results. To me, it's smarter to add pace to your shot, but aim further inside the court.

Doc
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:01 PM
Today you need both.

You can blast your way into the top 100 with little more than power and consistency. But no further.

ally baker
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:03 PM
Mirjana Lucic is probably the most powerful player still.

That answers your question.

ico4498
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:31 PM
... power is a natural ability ...

persond
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:39 PM
If we assumed that Hingis was more talented than all the power players, it doesn't make a difference how talented you are if you can't use it on the court. Juju can hit great driving backhands, but for instance Venus doesn't give Juju the time to set up for her shots resulting in a poorer shot from Juju's backhand. So all the talent a player has can be wasted if they can't use it on the court. Also, power players get a bad rap as not being skillful or smart players, but to hit with power and be able to control it and place it well takes more skill than if Hingis takes the pace off of it and hits an angle. The power does allow to hit safer shots, but still get good results. To me, it's smarter to add pace to your shot, but aim further inside the court.


What Venus was able to do was to "nullify" the effectiveness of Justine's backhand shot, thus enabling her to hit winners off the ineffective shots. The fact that Venus used nullification during the match to effect winners against players shows an aptitude that can only be interpreted as smarts. That intangible that people often say she lacks...!!!

Knizzle
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:45 PM
What Venus was able to do was to "nullify" the effectiveness of Justine's backhand shot, thus enabling her to hit winners off the ineffective shots. The fact that Venus used nullification during the match to effect winners against players shows an aptitude that can only be interpreted as smarts. That intangible that people often say she lacks...!!!

One article I remember said Venus "melted" what is supposed to be the best backhand in the women's game. I wish I could find that article. You wouldn't happen to know where I could find it do you persond??

persond
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:50 PM
Sorry, Knizzle. I have no idea. But, please let me know should you find it; should be an interesting read...!!!

Kart
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:53 PM
I don't think power is more important than natural ability but I think that the Hingis case shows you can't be at the top of the women's game without it these days.

Knizzle
Oct 5th, 2003, 12:36 AM
Sorry, Knizzle. I have no idea. But, please let me know should you find it; should be an interesting read...!!!

Here it is, this is only part of it because it's a long article:

At the start of the first Centre Court semifinal, it looked like a big upset might be brewing.

Henin, eight inches shorter than her 6-foot-1 opponent, broke serve in the opening game when Venus sent a forehand half-volley wide and dumped a backhand into the net.

The Belgian went up 2-0 by holding serve in an 11-minute epic of a game ["By then I was nice and warmed up," Venus said]. There were six deuces and two saved break points, one with a drop shot and the other with a volley on a sequence that ended with both players at the net.

At that juncture, it was as though Venus said to herself, "OK, enough kidding around."

Starting at deuce in the next game, she smacked a forehand winner down the line and delivered a service winner at 115 mph to open a run of 12 straight points to go ahead 3-2.

That began a streak in which Venus won 10 of 11 games. Most impressively, she repeatedly melted Henin's trademark backhand - the best in the women's game -- into another average stroke.

Venus had 10 winners from the baseline and an unusually high-for-her 11 at the net. She's won 20 straight matches at Wimbledon and one more would make her the first woman with three consecutive titles since Steffi Graf in 1991-93.

"She was too strong, too good," said Henin, who lost the 2001 final in three sets. "She didn't make a lot of mistakes. She didn't let me play. She was so aggressive, so powerful. 'What could I do?"

disposablehero
Oct 5th, 2003, 12:38 AM
If it was I could beat either of the Rochus brothers.

bandabou
Oct 5th, 2003, 12:50 AM
You need both...you canīt win with just power:Mirjana Lucic and you canīt win with just talent: Patty, Martina H....you need both.

persond
Oct 5th, 2003, 05:49 AM
Here it is, this is only part of it because it's a long article:

At the start of the first Centre Court semifinal, it looked like a big upset might be brewing.

Henin, eight inches shorter than her 6-foot-1 opponent, broke serve in the opening game when Venus sent a forehand half-volley wide and dumped a backhand into the net.

The Belgian went up 2-0 by holding serve in an 11-minute epic of a game ["By then I was nice and warmed up," Venus said]. There were six deuces and two saved break points, one with a drop shot and the other with a volley on a sequence that ended with both players at the net.

At that juncture, it was as though Venus said to herself, "OK, enough kidding around."

Starting at deuce in the next game, she smacked a forehand winner down the line and delivered a service winner at 115 mph to open a run of 12 straight points to go ahead 3-2.

That began a streak in which Venus won 10 of 11 games. Most impressively, she repeatedly melted Henin's trademark backhand - the best in the women's game -- into another average stroke.

Venus had 10 winners from the baseline and an unusually high-for-her 11 at the net. She's won 20 straight matches at Wimbledon and one more would make her the first woman with three consecutive titles since Steffi Graf in 1991-93.

"She was too strong, too good," said Henin, who lost the 2001 final in three sets. "She didn't make a lot of mistakes. She didn't let me play. She was so aggressive, so powerful. 'What could I do?"




WOW...!!!

TM
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:11 AM
no kidding and for sure.

dreamgoddess099
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:15 AM
It doesn't matter how much tennis skill you have if you can't get your racket on the ball. And if you get your racket on the ball then you can't win and if you can't win you can't be considered good . Tennis is a sport, not a game of chess where you need only smarts and no athleticism. In tennis, as well as in all sports, success lies in the execution. It doesn't matter how smart of a player you are if you can't execute. In the case of Hingis, her lack of athleticism(when compared to the Williams)didn't allow her to execute her plays. None of the players just hit the ball hard, they all have to have skill to be able to control that power. Having power takes no brains, but using it well takes tons.

tennnisfannn
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:17 AM
Jen'sFan you have to define natural ability first. Does that mean every aspect of any player besides power is natural ability. That would include movement, foot work, shot selection etc. Even power players have all these aspects in varying degrees.
It s the combination that makes a player lethal, e.g serena. It is that combination that has made Justine the player that she is today.

SM
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:23 AM
power is related to natural talent! try going out there and swinging your hardest on every ball and see how many go in
LOL
its a misconception that power hitters are less talented

DunkMachine
Oct 5th, 2003, 07:45 AM
What is natural ability? Both ability and strength come from practice and training and both go together hand in hand in sports.

Ability is pointless without strength and vice verca.

BasicTennis
Oct 5th, 2003, 07:48 AM
natural ability is more important because pure power has no plan B to rely on when the power is off on a certain day.:yawn:

CamilleVidann
Oct 5th, 2003, 08:05 AM
well if you possess ultimate power with no techinique or finess, you still can dominate the sport. There's a very good example we have on women's tour right now. Tennis isn't all about power but certain players only have power and still that's enough to make them dominate the tour.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 5th, 2003, 08:10 AM
well if you possess ultimate power with no techinique or finess, you still can dominate the sport. There's a very good example we have on women's tour right now. Tennis isn't all about power but certain players only have power and still that's enough to make them dominate the tour.
YOU SUCK!

Chance
Oct 6th, 2003, 06:57 AM
power is related to natural talent! try going out there and swinging your hardest on every ball and see how many go in
LOL
its a misconception that power hitters are less talented

so true :worship:

tennisjam
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:39 AM
power is indeed a natural talent...

what was ment here by "natural ability" were the skills related to the "touch"...as you certainly knew but just wanted to argue a little bit... :o ;)

propi
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:01 AM
Nowadays yes, power is much more important, in contrast, in Graf times with players as Conchi or Gaby natural talent was more important and dominated the WTA, I miss that times :sad:

DEETHELICK
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:43 AM
Isn't the ability to hit hard winners and control that power a natural ability too?

I feel that whilst power isn't more important than natural ability (I find power to be something of a natural ability if you use it well), power is definitely one of the criteria needed to be a Top 10 player today.

Every woman in the Top 10 has power. But to be really successful you need speed and some variety IMO.

Jen'sFan
Oct 6th, 2003, 04:38 PM
Power is not natural ability, are you kidding? If you are built stronger than me and can hit the ball harder does that mean you are gifted? I know u have to have a certain amount of talent of course to be able to control your shots but that doesnt mean u have more talent. I'm talking about accuarcy, volleys, backhand, forehand, slice etc. That kindof ability. Thats why i like clay the most cos it shows the real talents out there...

DA FOREHAND
Oct 6th, 2003, 04:53 PM
There's no such thing as natural ability when it pertains to tennis. The awesome display of tennis skills that we are so fortunate to witness comes from hours, and years of practice, and training.

All players use the skills that they have honed to the best of thier ability. Lindsay has a great serve and clean powerful groundies off both wings, but she's not the most athletic, or mobile, therefore she tries to dictate the points w/her first serve and return.

All of the top players can hit any part of the court, what seperates them from the rest of the tour is mental toughness, and fitness.

alfajeffster
Oct 6th, 2003, 05:28 PM
I think with the way the game of tennis has devolved over the past 25 years into what Virginia Wade once called a "knee-jerk reactionary" sport, power is more important. Steffi Graf introduced power baseline tennis to the women's game in the mid-1980s, however, her slice backhand retained the classic aspects of tennis, so it wasn't a complete power play, it was complimented by that terrific shot.

With the Bollettieri baseline bashing with western grips and two-handed backhands, we have today several players in the top 10 who are there because of the ability to hit with power and depth consistently. There isn't one who has the natural ability of players like Evonne Goolagong or Petr Korda on the men's side.

Unfortunately for those of us who love the traditional game of tennis, power is the future.

DA FOREHAND
Oct 6th, 2003, 05:39 PM
turns out Korda wasn't so "natural"

The power we see in tennis today is a natural progression. If all it took were pure power to win, Mary Pierce, Jelena Dockic, Alex Stevenson, M. Lucic would all be top five players. If I didn't know better I'd think some of you believe all it takes for a power player to win is a two-stroke rally.

If Martina Hingis had power at her disposal, she would have used it, if Serena were less powerful she'd still be a winner. Both are talented players.

alfajeffster
Oct 6th, 2003, 05:45 PM
turns out Korda wasn't so "natural"

The power we see in tennis today is a natural progression. If all it took were pure power to win, Mary Pierce, Jelena Dockic, Alex Stevenson, M. Lucic would all be top five players. If I didn't know better I'd think some of you believe all it takes for a power player to win is a two-stroke rally.

If Martina Hingis had power at her disposal, she would have used it, if Serena were less powerful she'd still be a winner. Both are talented players.

Interesting that the 4 players you mentioned are all very slow in the footwork department (Dokic is average). Despite Petr Korda's fiasco with performance-enhancing substances, he was (and is) one of the most natural tennis players ever to pick up a racquet. Many tennis greats past and present have said as much.

DA FOREHAND
Oct 6th, 2003, 05:56 PM
So is Lindsay, who is slow of foot, but has won three slams and reached the number one spot.Would anyone say she doesn't have natural talent as well as power?

Many players excelled at the junior , or pre-teen level, does that mean they had natural talent? What's the diff. between those who excelled at that level, but never cut it as a top tier player as a pro? Power? Me thinks not.

alfajeffster
Oct 6th, 2003, 06:26 PM
So is Lindsay, who is slow of foot, but has won three slams and reached the number one spot.Would anyone say she doesn't have natural talent as well as power?

Many players excelled at the junior , or pre-teen level, does that mean they had natural talent? What's the diff. between those who excelled at that level, but never cut it as a top tier player as a pro? Power? Me thinks not.

Here's my take on the top 5 in the world:

1. Kim Clijsters: POWER- though not the most powerful, her movement is powerful, and her game is consistent, if not lacking in imagination and variety. Not the greatest talent in the thinking department;

2. Justine Henin-Hardenne: POWER- though not the most powerful of the top 5, she throws herself at most balls, and power and speed are her biggest weapons, with power being the chief asset;

3. Serena Williams: POWER- shot for shot, the most powerful player on the planet. There isn't a shot she can't hit, but most of the time with extreme power, complimented by the best serve and powerful movement- usually blowing her opponents off the court;

4. Lindsay Davenport: POWER- still the #1 power player until you get her moving, which Serena always has done, and Kim figured out in the past year. Her game is built around hitting hard, flat, deep shots almost always hit as hard as she can;

5. Jennifer Capriati: POWER- pretty much all she has, that and a good set of wheels to run down balls other girls let go.

DA FOREHAND
Oct 6th, 2003, 06:37 PM
All of whom showed promise as youngsters. Would that lead one to conlude that they all have/had natural talent?

I've read somewhere that Mary Pierce didn't start playing until she was in her early teens. The story I read goes like this. An instructor was hitting w/Mary and was impressed by her skill and asked her how long she'd been playing, to which she replied "About ten mins." That in my mind is "natural".

j_dementieva27
Oct 6th, 2003, 06:38 PM
and to continue:

6- mauresmo-- talent
7- venus-- power
8- dementieva-- power
9- myskina-- talent ?
10- rubin-- both

DA FOREHAND
Oct 6th, 2003, 06:42 PM
And for the slow of mind.

Every player in the top ten is talented, no matter what thier style of play. Mauresmo is a power player, she hardly finessed her way to the 99 A.O final.

alfajeffster
Oct 6th, 2003, 06:46 PM
All of whom showed promise as youngsters. Would that lead one to conlude that they all have/had natural talent?

I've read somewhere that Mary Pierce didn't start playing until she was in her early teens. The story I read goes like this. An instructor was hitting w/Mary and was impressed by her skill and asked her how long she'd been playing, to which she replied "About ten mins." That in my mind is "natural".

No, Mary Pierce played the junior circuit quite extensively. In fact, she spent a few months living out of her father Jim's station wagon at one point. Mary and Jennifer have a long history of playing each other when they were girls.

Natural talent to me is a gift, not able to be acquired on the practice court. The examples I mentioned previously, Evonne Goolagong and Petr Korda, are a few on a very small list. It's the same concept in baseball, and really any other stick-ball sport- there are "naturals" who play the sport and make it look simple because they were born with that rare combination of world-class hand-eye coordination coupled with natural movement and an inborn sense of flare and style that can't be taught.

"Topaz"
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:44 PM
Power is in fact one of those natural abilities being talked about. It needs to be developed just as the rest of them. In men's tennis, it's a prerequisite: there's a power threshold below which you just need not join the fray. In women's tennis, it used to be different. The high value skills were: mastering all the shots of the game including appropriate foot work, racket-head angle and hand motion to control the ball; maintaining a good mental vision of the court and matching that vision with the actual positioning and momentum of self and the opponent; and of course stamina. Those skills when honed to excellence were what was needed most to top the league.

Meanwhile, the women were watching the men's game astutely. Those who could add pace to their shots did it resolutely. Steffi developed a killer forehand (on top of other skills) and rose to the top. Seles came in with pace on both sides (on top of other skills) and grab the #1 position. Venus and Serena were kids at the time; as such, power was only a dream to them. But Richard Williams saw what could happen when women add that dimension to their game. Pace (on top of other skills) became a goal, together with a strong serve a la Sampras, if achievable.

The Williams power game did fail somewhat early on against masterful all-court players like Hingis. BTW, not even Seles could hold her own against Hingis. Then something happened. The sisters began to learn from their losses, specifically from Hingis (beyond what they could learn from their dad). They had to shape their games against a clean power striker, Davenport, and a court super tactician, Hingis. The result was what we've been witnessing for the past three years: dominance of the Williamses whenever healthy.

The message was out to all coaches: develop pace or else. This in turn resulted in the emergence of the two Belgians. Both hit with power even though Justine seems to have an edge in court sense and shot making. Currently, as you all know, they stand at #1 and #2, exactly where the sisters were when they were healthy.

What does that tell you? Tennis, men's or women's, takes all the natural abilities you can muster, including power. If you falter in any area, you're out. Power with no or little court sense, accuracy and shot making, won't do. The reverse doesn't stand a chance either.

TP

dreamgoddess099
Oct 7th, 2003, 03:20 AM
Well if a so-called "talented player" can't beat a so-called "power player" then who is really the truely talented of the two? The "power player" who wins or the "talented player" who loses? Anyway, all this talk about talent versus power just sounds like sour grapes if you ask me. It seems that many "tennis purists" in the tennis world are just mad because certain kinds of people are playing the sport now and are better athletes(although they are more than just that). It's basically the weak complaining because they are not strong enough and can't match the power and athleticism of the stronger players. So what do they do? They try to demenish the smarts and skills of those other players that are winning with their power. This is a sport, it doesn't matter what style of play people consider to be best, as long as a player can win by using it. A point is a point, it doesn't matter if you hit a drop shot to get it or blast the ball with all your might as long as you get the point. This is not ice skating people, you don't get extra points for artistic merit. If you really want to know the answer of which style is better, then just measure the grandslam win comparisons of a "talented" and "power" player.

bandabou
Oct 7th, 2003, 11:38 AM
Well if a so-called "talented player" can't beat a so-called "power player" then who is really the truely talented of the two? The "power player" who wins or the "talented player" who loses? Anyway, all this talk about talent versus power just sounds like sour grapes if you ask me. It seems that many "tennis purists" in the tennis world are just mad because certain kinds of people are playing the sport now and are better athletes(although they are more than just that). It's basically the weak complaining because they are not strong enough and can't match the power and athleticism of the stronger players. So what do they do? They try to demenish the smarts and skills of those other players that are winning with their power. This is a sport, it doesn't matter what style of play people consider to be best, as long as a player can win by using it. A point is a point, it doesn't matter if you hit a drop shot to get it or blast the ball with all your might as long as you get the point. This is not ice skating people, you don't get extra points for artistic merit. If you really want to know the answer of which style is better, then just measure the grandslam win comparisons of a "talented" and "power" player.

exactly! Winning is winning! At the end of the day, either you are good enough or you are not!

servenrichie
Oct 7th, 2003, 11:39 AM
It doesn't matter how much tennis skill you have if you can't get your racket on the ball. And if you get your racket on the ball then you can't win and if you can't win you can't be considered good . Tennis is a sport, not a game of chess where you need only smarts and no athleticism. In tennis, as well as in all sports, success lies in the execution. It doesn't matter how smart of a player you are if you can't execute. In the case of Hingis, her lack of athleticism(when compared to the Williams)didn't allow her to execute her plays. None of the players just hit the ball hard, they all have to have skill to be able to control that power. Having power takes no brains, but using it well takes tons.

I dont know about Hingis not having power to execute. Part of her demise was her sturbbon insistence to try match power with the big babes brigade. She was very successful, when she was mixing it up.

servenrichie
Oct 7th, 2003, 11:46 AM
well if you possess ultimate power with no techinique or finess, you still can dominate the sport. There's a very good example we have on women's tour right now. Tennis isn't all about power but certain players only have power and still that's enough to make them dominate the tour.

Which tour have you been watching? The world WTA or another one in China?
Let me say it again: Shut up. Go and play with your lego stones :rolleyes:

servenrichie
Oct 7th, 2003, 11:50 AM
Power is not natural ability, are you kidding? If you are built stronger than me and can hit the ball harder does that mean you are gifted? I know u have to have a certain amount of talent of course to be able to control your shots but that doesnt mean u have more talent. I'm talking about accuarcy, volleys, backhand, forehand, slice etc. That kindof ability. Thats why i like clay the most cos it shows the real talents out there...

A misconception. If you grew up on clay, then you are comfortable on clay. A lot of clay courters who by your definition are more talented cant win two matches on other surfaces other than clay. By your logic Pete Sampras must be a talentless piece of shit, Lindsay really sucks as a tennis player and Ferrero is the best thing since sliced bread. Oh by the way Hewitt must be talentless to. :rolleyes:

tennischick
Oct 7th, 2003, 11:52 AM
check my signature. this idiot won the USO. i rest my case...:o

power CAN overwhelm talent, but only when it comes in the form of a big serve. which the Sisters both have and which Hingis most decidedly did not.

servenrichie
Oct 7th, 2003, 12:00 PM
check my signature. this idiot won the USO. i rest my case...:o

power CAN overwhelm talent, but only when it comes in the form of a big serve. which the Sisters both have and which Hingis most decidedly did not.

When she (Hingis) was beating them regularly, they had their serves right?

tennischick
Oct 7th, 2003, 12:01 PM
no they didn't. they were extremely inconsistent. check Tennispower's summary above.

DA FOREHAND
Oct 7th, 2003, 12:02 PM
They did more than just serve big to beat Hingis, besides she was excellent at returning anything w/in her reach, and only Serena, not Venus has aced Martina off the court.

Why are so many acting as if power and natural ability(whatever that is) are mutually exclusive?

Mauresmo is said to be one of those "naturals", yet I can't think of a single stroke she has that's better than Venus';perhaps her volleys.

tennischick
Oct 7th, 2003, 12:06 PM
yes they did more than serve big to beat Hingis. they returned her cream-puff of a serve so powerfully that she couldn't get to the return. power (her lack of it, their surplus of it) is what blew Hingis out of the sport. there is no denying that.

servenrichie
Oct 7th, 2003, 12:13 PM
yes they did more than serve big to beat Hingis. they returned her cream-puff of a serve so powerfully that she couldn't get to the return. power (her lack of it, their surplus of it) is what blew Hingis out of the sport. there is no denying that.

It takes so little to bring your true colours out. If i remember rightly Dementieva, Hantuchova, Seles, Capriati were blowing Hingis off the court before she decided to quit.

Go back and re-read Tennis Powers summary before coming to your conclusion. It seems you didnt read it well :rolleyes:

bandabou
Oct 7th, 2003, 01:38 PM
They did more than just serve big to beat Hingis, besides she was excellent at returning anything w/in her reach, and only Serena, not Venus has aced Martina off the court.

Why are so many acting as if power and natural ability(whatever that is) are mutually exclusive?

Mauresmo is said to be one of those "naturals", yet I can't think of a single stroke she has that's better than Venus';perhaps her volleys.

Thank you very much! Venus and Serena always had the power, the big serves....it wasnīt until they learned to cut the errors and mix it up more that they became succesfull!

servenrichie
Oct 7th, 2003, 01:51 PM
Venus and Serena were said to be all brawn and no brain when Hingis was beating them regularly. Nobody bothered to mention the fact that they had no junior experience. They became experienced along the way learning from their mistakes and they still remain only power with natural athletism :rolleyes:

The same story all over again, again and again. Fine they are talentless? That's okay as long as they win their matches. People hiding behind Goolang, Sabatini and Korda are simply irgnoring the fact that tennis like every other thing in life is dynamic. That the current players play with power does not make them less talented than their predecessors. That is plain bullshit filled with bigotry.

bandabou
Oct 7th, 2003, 01:54 PM
Venus and Serena were said to be all brawn and no brain when Hingis was beating them regularly. Nobody bothered to mention the fact that they had no junior experience. They became experienced along the way learning from their mistakes and they still remain only power with natural athletic :rolleyes:

The same story all over again, again and again. Fine they are talentless? That's okay as long as they win their matches. People hiding behind Goolang, Sabatini and Korda are simply irgnoring the fact that tennis like every other thing in life is dynamic. That the current players play with power does not make them less talented than their predecessors. That is plain bullshit filled with bigotry.

second that! As long as they are winning....