Let's Talk Serves

[Ricardo]

That's true. For example, you can't isolate a shot from its circumstance...

this is where you are wrong, you started all wrong. try again.

going your route, you'd have Hewitt and Chang serve better than Ivo/Isner who never served in a major final.

 

[Kieran]

That's true. For example, you can't isolate a shot from its circumstance...

this is where you are wrong, you started all wrong. try again.

going your route, you'd have Hewitt and Chang serve better than Ivo/Isner who never served in a major final.

How?

 

[Moose]

Props for the poster who brought up Pim Pim's serve. Monster. Also, I was never a fan, but I give Roddick a lot of credit for serve. His was pretty spectacular, and a huge weapon.

In terms of effectiveness + beauty, I gotta give big points also to Feliciano Lopez. Age has taken a little bit off it, but a few years ago, it was my single favorite serve to watch in all of men's tennis. Perfect motion, awesome lefty spin, beautiful placement, and a lot of power behind it.

And while we are discussing serves, how about your vote for the ugliest of all time - hands down, Sjeng Schalken gets my vote.

 

[Ricardo]

That's true. For example, you can't isolate a shot from its circumstance...

this is where you are wrong, you started all wrong. try again.

going your route, you'd have Hewitt and Chang serve better than Ivo/Isner who never served in a major final.

How?

they've proved their serve (no matter what score you give them) in a major final, while Ivo/Isner proved ZIP..... anything is better than that. Just because Sampras served great in major finals does NOT mean his serve is BETTER than Ivo/Isner's, period.

 

[Kieran]

You're missing the point. Isolating shots from the circumstance they're hit in is why Cali thinks Nalbandian is the greatest of all time. He sees a highlight reel and deduces that Daveed whipping tremendous backhands against N.O. Body is proof he's the best. But when Daveed reached big finals, he was a let down. In slam semis, he choked it away. Why wasn't he so brilliant then?

Likewise, saying Karlo's serve is better than Pete's and Roger's because he does it at a low level, without pressure and out of the spotlight is a bit unfair to the great servers who chuck them in expertly, under immense pressure.

N'est pas?

 

[Ricardo]

You're missing the point. Isolating shots from the circumstance they're hit in is why Cali thinks Nalbandian is the greatest of all time. He sees a highlight reel and deduces that Daveed whipping tremendous backhands against N.O. Body is proof he's the best. But when Daveed reached big finals, he was a let down. In slam semis, he choked it away. Why wasn't he so brilliant then?

Likewise, saying Karlo's serve is better than Pete's and Roger's because he does it at a low level, without pressure and out of the spotlight is a bit unfair to the great servers who chuck them in expertly, under immense pressure.

N'est pas?

i am missing nothing, you are just wrong. Greatness of a player is defined by his achievements, Nalby doesn't have enough of it. What we have here, is a discussion on a particular shot alone (i.e. the serve), nothing more. Unless you are also deducing that Nalby's backhand isn't as good as Gaudio's, in which case Gaston proved it in his RG win while Nalby hasn't. You don't need to continue being ridiculous, i know who you love and who you don't but you simply cannot spin facts around.

 

[Kieran]

You're still not getting it, how to measure greatness, so let's agree on this: when the aliens come, I'll call Pete and you call Dr Evil, and we'll see who saves us both enough water for a cup of tea during the ads in Coronation Street. Can't say pharaoh than that, as Caesar said to Cleopatra...

 

[Ricardo]

You're still not getting it, how to measure greatness, so let's agree on this: when the aliens come, I'll call Pete and you call Dr Evil, and we'll see who saves us both enough water for a cup of tea during the ads in Coronation Street. Can't say pharaoh than that, as Caesar said to Cleopatra...

what the hell does that mean?

anyway since when is anyone measuring greatness? at some point you gotta check your head, what does this have to do with greatness? we already know Ivo/Isner don't have it. Who serves better is all we are talking about.

btw Ivo didn't just serve to nobodies, he served to the best returners in the game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

That's true. For example, you can't isolate a shot from its circumstance...

What circumstances? The thread says nothing about a major final. That's a circumstance you created. On a match-to-match basis, on average, Isner and Karlovic's serves are in a different galaxy to anyone else who ever held a tennis racket. We can arbitrarily create circumstances where this might change (though I don't see any evidence as both maintained insane first serve percentage rates throughout their careers and have saved BP's notoriously well), but on average, which is what we should be looking at, it's not even close.

Otherwise, I can say "who would you want playing for your life indoors, in Paris, in 2007" and you know what the answer would be.

The point is, limiting this to a major final is merely looking at one particular circumstance.

Also, let me ask you a question: Which backhand would you pick, Federer or Djokovic? The answer should be easy right? Yet, according to your criteria, I should go with Fed. Novak has played 12 major finals, won 6, and lost 6. Whereas Fed has 17. Doesn't mean much for that particular conversation though.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You're missing the point. Isolating shots from the circumstance they're hit in is why Cali thinks Nalbandian is the greatest of all time. He sees a highlight reel and deduces that Daveed whipping tremendous backhands against N.O. Body is proof he's the best.

Flawed analogy. Unlike Nalbandian, Isner and Karlovic don't serve like monsters once in a blue moon, indoors, when they haven't had too much to eat for lunch. They do it consistently, from one tournament to another, all year round, on all surfaces.

It's not the same thing at all.

Please show me circumstances in which Isner and Karlovic's serves were not up to par. Again, before you say "Easy, in a GS final, because they never got there!" keep in mind that his has to do with the rest of their games being limited, not their serves, or clutch play.

 

[Kieran]

Ah, you're missing the point too. Firstly, I'd pick Nole's backhand. It has withstood pressure better than Roger's.

Secondly, how can you isolate a shot from the match it's hit in? You can't. Cali tried this when he wanted to prove who's the best ever tennis player. We may as well also include isolated practice shots too.

By the way, I think it's worthwhile to discuss shots like this, but to say a shot smacked in the early rounds without pressure is "greater" than a man who's facing the best returns at the highest level, I can't agree to this. You don't hit shots with no context...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ah, you're missing the point too. Firstly, I'd pick Nole's backhand. It has withstood pressure better than Roger's.

By losing 6 out of 12 major finals and stinking up the joint in 2009 and 2010? I'm using your criteria here.

Secondly, how can you isolate a shot from the match it's hit in? You can't. Cali tried this when he wanted to prove who's the best ever tennis player. We may as well also include isolated practice shots too.

How am I isolating a shot from a match? I'm a isolating a shot from the rest of their games. Huge difference. I'm looking at every serve they ever hit (well, not really, but you know what I mean) and making my conclusion accordingly. I'm not isolating it from a match at all. In fact, it's the context of the match that makes me realize how superior their serves were. Serving the way they do against insanely gifted returners, freak athletes, phenomenal serve readers who are so good at getting the ball back, on generally slower surfaces too (which should be a handicap, in theory), is HUGELY impressive. In fact, when I look at their first serve percentage rate, and their aces count, I'm precisely doing the opposite of isolating a few serves here and there from a match. I'm looking at the bulk of the serves they hit.

So again, please show me how am I isolating a shot from a match. And while you're at it, point me out to examples in which Karlovic and Isner's serves failed them.

By the way, I think it's worthwhile to discuss shots like this, but to say a shot smacked in the early rounds without pressure is "greater" than a man who's facing the best returns at the highest level, I can't agree to this. You don't hit shots with no context...

I didn't say "greater," I said "better." Again, big difference. Secondly, point me out to an example in which Karlovic and Isner's serves got "smacked." Please. It's the rest of their games that got smacked, but their serves were pretty much unplayable for the majority of their careers. But of course, I'm open to being proven wrong when you decide to point out facts that prove the opposite.

And buddy, please, don't play the "you're missing the point" card. We both know I'm not. You're better than that

 

[Kieran]

Ah, you're missing the point too. Firstly, I'd pick Nole's backhand. It has withstood pressure better than Roger's.

By losing 6 out of 12 major finals and stinking up the joint in 2009 and 2010? I'm using your criteria here.

You're not using my "criteria" at all. In fact, I don't know what losing a match has to do with the backhand. His backhand may have performed quite well. My "criteria" isn't one of who won most slams. It's how shots hold up under great pressure.

This is how we know how good they are.

Secondly, how can you isolate a shot from the match it's hit in? You can't. Cali tried this when he wanted to prove who's the best ever tennis player. We may as well also include isolated practice shots too.

How am I isolating a shot from a match? I'm a isolating a shot from the rest of their games. Huge difference. I'm looking at every serve they ever hit (well, not really, but you know what I mean) and making my conclusion accordingly. I'm not isolating it from a match at all. In fact, it's the context of the match that makes me realize how superior their serves were.

Thank you. So you'll agree that doing it at an even higher level, facing insane pressure and an opponent at their ripest is even better. Cheers!

By the way, I think it's worthwhile to discuss shots like this, but to say a shot smacked in the early rounds without pressure is "greater" than a man who's facing the best returns at the highest level, I can't agree to this. You don't hit shots with no context...

I didn't say "greater," I said "better." Again, big difference. Secondly, point me out to an example in which Karlovic and Isner's serves got "smacked." Please. It's the rest of their games that got smacked, but their serves were pretty much unplayable for the majority of their careers. But of course, I'm open to being proven wrong when you decide to point out facts that prove the opposite.

And buddy, please, don't play the "you're missing the point" card. We both know I'm not. You're better than that

Unfortunately, you want it both ways. You want to say, "oh, look, I'm proving he did it in matches against the best returners, therefore"...except you're ignoring what I'm saying, and therefore, missing the point. They didn't show it at the highest level. It's like apologists for George Best suggesting he'd have a great World Cup, if only the "rest of the team" didn't let him down.

Maybe he would have, but maybe he wouldn't. I happen to think that Federer's fifth set serving against Roddick in 2009, for example is beyond guys like Dr Evil, because they wouldn't cope with the pressure. Can I prove this? No, nor can you prove the opposite.

But we do both have to accept that Federer and Pete have been great servers at the toughest imaginable moments for a player, in context, and not isolated from the worst pressure in the game...

 

[brokenshoelace]

You're not using my "criteria" at all. In fact, I don't know what losing a match has to do with the backhand. His backhand may have performed quite well. My "criteria" isn't one of who won most slams. It's how shots hold up under great pressure.

This is how we know how good they are.

Ah, excellent... So Novak losing these finals is not an indication that his backhand is inferior (which I agree with you on), but Isner and Karlovic losing in the 3rd round means their serves got "spanked."

Thank you. So you'll agree that doing it at an even higher level, facing insane pressure and an opponent at their ripest is even better. Cheers!

Sure I would, except Sampras never served as good as Isner and Karlovic did. That's the problem. He never served as big, with the same first serve percentage, or the same "unplayability." His serve was damn near untouchable a lot of the times, just not AS untouchable. Now yes, he did it when the stakes were higher but again, this is a flawed comparison because the rest of Isner and Karlovic's games never allowed them to reach that same level so that we can make a fair assessment.

What we can look at however, is how they served on a match-to-match basis, and compare it to Pete on a match-to-match basis, since, you know, major finals constitute about 1% of Pete's total matches played and you can't limit the conversation to those.

Unfortunately, you want it both ways. You want to say, "oh, look, I'm proving he did it in matches against the best returners, therefore"...except you're ignoring what I'm saying, and therefore, missing the point. They didn't show it at the highest level.

Uh, you don't think playing Nadal, Federer and Djokovic constitutes "the highest level"? Not the highest possible stakes since those would be reserved to major finals, but the highest level. You think that when Isner tormented Nadal in the first round of Roland Garros on clay, it wasn't at the "highest level"? Because I think playing Nadal at the FO is a more daunting task than anything Sampras has ever had to deal with, for example.

 

[Kieran]

Where'd I say anybody's serves got "spanked" (quotation marks)?

I'll make you the same offer, my friend: when the aliens come for your water, you send out Dr Evil, and I'll phone Pete. I'm approachable if you get a little thirsty...

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ Sorry, your word was "smacked" not "spanked." Doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

If the aliens come, and want a pure serving contest, I'll definitely call Ivo. Not Pete. And feel pretty good about my chances.

If they come and want a tennis match, then of course...I'll call Federer.

 

[Kieran]

Ivo would melt, you could drink him.

And when I said "smacked", it was Ivo who was smacking, not him being spanked... uzzled

If they come and want a tennis match, then of course...I'll call Federer.

No, you'd call Ralph...

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, you'd call Ralph...

Ralph would be among the aliens, duh.

 

[Kieran]

No, you'd call Ralph...

Ralph would be among the aliens, duh.

Then definitely don't call Federer! You want to drink water again, right? :snigger :lolz:

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, you'd call Ralph...

Ralph would be among the aliens, duh.

Then definitely don't call Federer! You want to drink water again, right? :snigger :lolz:

I don't think Roger would recognize a one-eyed giant-headed Rafa. And since as we all know, the match is on his racket, he'll be fine.