Pat Cash - Nadal & Djokovic are boring

[Kieran]

All things being equal, I much prefer watching the tennis of Laver-Borg and Sampras-Becker (even though it is clay and then indoor hard) over Nole-Rafa's outdoor hard bash. To me, the play from the 1970s and 1990s is "full tennis".

interesting take.......I feel like Laver-Borg was sissy tennis and Sampras-Becker was no guts tennis. I see Rafa-Nole as grown men tennis. Perception it's such an unique thing ah?

Seriously, this should be hung on a wall someplace. Sissy tennis. No guts tennis.

No guts. WTF does that mean?

It's ridiculous to ask and expect a sensible reply, but did you actually watch tennis before Rafa came along? No guts tennis. WTF is that? I mean... :nono

 

[huntingyou]

All things being equal, I much prefer watching the tennis of Laver-Borg and Sampras-Becker (even though it is clay and then indoor hard) over Nole-Rafa's outdoor hard bash. To me, the play from the 1970s and 1990s is "full tennis".

interesting take.......I feel like Laver-Borg was sissy tennis and Sampras-Becker was no guts tennis. I see Rafa-Nole as grown men tennis. Perception it's such an unique thing ah?

Seriously, this should be hung on a wall someplace. Sissy tennis. No guts tennis.

No guts. WTF does that mean?

It's ridiculous to ask and expect a sensible reply, but did you actually watch tennis before Rafa came along? No guts tennis. WTF is that? I mean... :nono

don't you dare question my taste, if you ask me nicely I will tell you what that means.....calm down inquisitor.

 

[Kieran]

All things being equal, I much prefer watching the tennis of Laver-Borg and Sampras-Becker (even though it is clay and then indoor hard) over Nole-Rafa's outdoor hard bash. To me, the play from the 1970s and 1990s is "full tennis".

interesting take.......I feel like Laver-Borg was sissy tennis and Sampras-Becker was no guts tennis. I see Rafa-Nole as grown men tennis. Perception it's such an unique thing ah?

Seriously, this should be hung on a wall someplace. Sissy tennis. No guts tennis.

No guts. WTF does that mean?

It's ridiculous to ask and expect a sensible reply, but did you actually watch tennis before Rafa came along? No guts tennis. WTF is that? I mean... :nono

don't you dare question my taste, if you ask me nicely I will tell you what that means.....calm down inquisitor.

No guts tennis! :laydownlaughing

Pleasey squeezy what does it mean, sir!

 

[DarthFed]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

 

[huntingyou]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

Ok, think about the suicidal guy that has a death wish, approaching the cop with "intention" to harm him.....when in reality he just want that cop to a put bullet in his head and liberates him from his misery. He has no longer a will to live and is looking for the easy way out.....no guts.

The style of tennis that comes to the net no matter what, despite getting pass time after time it's a no guts type of play IN MY OPINION.....there is no testicular fortitude to give it all for the point but instead, the player willingly approach his cop in the other side of the net to relieve him from his misery.

Roger understood this and that's why he evolved to be a complete player, defend almost as well as attack, persist the point and don't give it away until you gave your 100% effort.

Attacking the net the way they did was the equivalent to hit the red button that says EJECT. Hewitt gave Sampras and his kind a lesson when using such tactics in the modern game.

 

[Kieran]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

Ok, think about the suicidal guy that has a death wish, approaching the cop with "intention" to harm him.....when in reality he just want that cop to a put bullet in his head and liberates him from his misery. He has no longer a will to live and is looking for the easy way out.....no guts.

The style of tennis that comes to the net no matter what, despite getting pass time after time it's a no guts type of play IN MY OPINION.....there is no testicular fortitude to give it all for the point but instead, the player willingly approach his cop in the other side of the net to relieve him from his misery.

Roger understood this and that's why he evolved to be a complete player, defend almost as well as attack, persist the point and don't give it away until you gave your 100% effort.

Attacking the net the way they did was the equivalent to hit the red button that says EJECT. Hewitt gave Sampras and his kind a lesson when using such tactics in the modern game.

No, no, no, this is all wrong. This is specious, it's a basic misunderstanding of what's actually happening. Players played fast and attacked because the surface was fast and because they could. It's nothing to do with giving responsibility to anyone else, or taking unnecessary risks. If anything, it's pure guts tennis, macho man stuff, testicular overdrive. These guys played with quick hands and lightning wit, faced down rattling booming shots and chased their replies to the net, in order to issue the coup de grace.

It has nothing to do with gutlessness or suicidal tendencies or any far-fetched reasons why they couldn't cope. And Roger evolved because the game evolved. Players now aren't infallible superhumans. had Becker or Sampras - or Pancho Gonzales - played today, they'd play like the players today. Players all develop within a culture: the culture back then was different, so the players were different...

 

[huntingyou]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

Ok, think about the suicidal guy that has a death wish, approaching the cop with "intention" to harm him.....when in reality he just want that cop to a put bullet in his head and liberates him from his misery. He has no longer a will to live and is looking for the easy way out.....no guts.

The style of tennis that comes to the net no matter what, despite getting pass time after time it's a no guts type of play IN MY OPINION.....there is no testicular fortitude to give it all for the point but instead, the player willingly approach his cop in the other side of the net to relieve him from his misery.

Roger understood this and that's why he evolved to be a complete player, defend almost as well as attack, persist the point and don't give it away until you gave your 100% effort.

Attacking the net the way they did was the equivalent to hit the red button that says EJECT. Hewitt gave Sampras and his kind a lesson when using such tactics in the modern game.

No, no, no, this is all wrong. This is specious, it's a basic misunderstanding of what's actually happening. Players played fast and attacked because the surface was fast and because they could. It's nothing to do with giving responsibility to anyone else, or taking unnecessary risks. If anything, it's pure guts tennis, macho man stuff, testicular overdrive. These guys played with quick hands and lightning wit, faced down rattling booming shots and chased their replies to the net, in order to issue the coup de grace.

It has nothing to do with gutlessness or suicidal tendencies or any far-fetched reasons why they couldn't cope. And Roger evolved because the game evolved. Players now aren't infallible superhumans. had Becker or Sampras - or Pancho Gonzales - played today, they'd play like the players today. Players all develop within a culture: the culture back then was different, so the players were different...

Perception my friend, you asked and I replied.

The surface wasn't ridiculous fast...you make it seem like they play on ice.

Yes the game evolved and players along with it.....and I like it today. When your legs hurt, your lungs are burning inside, your arm is losing sensation, the player that says "I will win this point no matter what" it's my grown men tennis..........the 54 shot rally between Novak and Rafa on break point was like watching two Lions in the open savanna; fighting for the right to mate...I could feel their pain from my couch and since I know a thing or two about pushing your body to the limit (used to be army and karate as well).......I had a smile in my face as big as the first time I saw.......:snigger

 

[DarthFed]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

Ok, think about the suicidal guy that has a death wish, approaching the cop with "intention" to harm him.....when in reality he just want that cop to a put bullet in his head and liberates him from his misery. He has no longer a will to live and is looking for the easy way out.....no guts.

The style of tennis that comes to the net no matter what, despite getting pass time after time it's a no guts type of play IN MY OPINION.....there is no testicular fortitude to give it all for the point but instead, the player willingly approach his cop in the other side of the net to relieve him from his misery.

Roger understood this and that's why he evolved to be a complete player, defend almost as well as attack, persist the point and don't give it away until you gave your 100% effort.

Attacking the net the way they did was the equivalent to hit the red button that says EJECT. Hewitt gave Sampras and his kind a lesson when using such tactics in the modern game.

Someone could easily turn this around today and say players aren't going for their shots but are mindlessly hitting back and forth waiting for others to miss and eventually get worn out.

Playing attacking tennis in faster conditions before the advanced racquet technology was hardly suicidal back then. If it was such an idiotic strategy for the time you would have seen a lot more players staying back. As Kieran mentioned, Roger adapted because he had to. S&V is basically suicide today but that couldn't be further from the truth just 15 years ago.

 

[huntingyou]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

Ok, think about the suicidal guy that has a death wish, approaching the cop with "intention" to harm him.....when in reality he just want that cop to a put bullet in his head and liberates him from his misery. He has no longer a will to live and is looking for the easy way out.....no guts.

The style of tennis that comes to the net no matter what, despite getting pass time after time it's a no guts type of play IN MY OPINION.....there is no testicular fortitude to give it all for the point but instead, the player willingly approach his cop in the other side of the net to relieve him from his misery.

Roger understood this and that's why he evolved to be a complete player, defend almost as well as attack, persist the point and don't give it away until you gave your 100% effort.

Attacking the net the way they did was the equivalent to hit the red button that says EJECT. Hewitt gave Sampras and his kind a lesson when using such tactics in the modern game.

Someone could easily turn this around today and say players aren't going for their shots but are mindlessly hitting back and forth waiting for others to miss and eventually get worn out.

Playing attacking tennis in faster conditions before the advanced racquet technology was hardly suicidal back then. If it was such an idiotic strategy for the time you would have seen a lot more players staying back. As Kieran mentioned, Roger adapted because he had to. S&V is basically suicide today but that couldn't be further from the truth just 15 years ago.

Agassi played from the backcourt, so did Borg and Lendl.

at the end of the day, this is my perception. I know you don't believe the top players today like Novak and Rafa are waiting for opponents errors...their are hammering the ball from the word go and putting pressure on their opponents like Boa does with its meal.

 

[Kieran]

Perception my friend, you asked and I replied.

The surface wasn't ridiculous fast...you make it seem like they play on ice.

Yes the game evolved and players along with it.....and I like it today. When your legs hurt, your lungs are burning inside, your arm is losing sensation, the player that says "I will win this point no matter what" it's my grown men tennis..........the 54 shot rally between Novak and Rafa on break point was like watching two Lions in the open savanna; fighting for the right to mate...I could feel their pain from my couch and since I know a thing or two about pushing your body to the limit (used to be army and karate as well).......I had a smile in my face as big as the first time I saw.......:snigger

It was great tennis, nobody would deny it. But by the same measure, it's wrong to deny great tennis of the past, as well. The players back then were simply great, they don't need justification. They were ballsy and technically brilliant. They had champions hearts, just like Federer and Nadal. You're the one who's denying it and making up fables about why they played like that.

No guts tennis is not applicable to Sampras, of all men who've ever played the game...

 

[huntingyou]

Perception my friend, you asked and I replied.

The surface wasn't ridiculous fast...you make it seem like they play on ice.

Yes the game evolved and players along with it.....and I like it today. When your legs hurt, your lungs are burning inside, your arm is losing sensation, the player that says "I will win this point no matter what" it's my grown men tennis..........the 54 shot rally between Novak and Rafa on break point was like watching two Lions in the open savanna; fighting for the right to mate...I could feel their pain from my couch and since I know a thing or two about pushing your body to the limit (used to be army and karate as well).......I had a smile in my face as big as the first time I saw.......:snigger

It was great tennis, nobody would deny it. But by the same measure, it's wrong to deny great tennis of the past, as well. The players back then were simply great, they don't need justification. They were ballsy and technically brilliant. They had champions hearts, just like Federer and Nadal. You're the one who's denying it and making up fables about why they played like that.

No guts tennis is not applicable to Sampras, of all men who've ever played the game...

This is my PERCEPTION.......how can you try to debate that? Just agree to disagree and move on

 

[Kieran]

Agassi played from the backcourt, so did Borg and Lendl.

at the end of the day, this is my perception. I know you don't believe the top players today like Novak and Rafa are waiting for opponents errors...their are hammering the ball from the word go and putting pressure on their opponents like Boa does with its meal.

Playing from the backcourt isn't evidence of fortitude. It's evidence of somebody playing from the back court. Most of the time, if you watched Sampras play Agassi - for example - you'd see this quite clearly...

 

[Kieran]

This is my PERCEPTION.......how can you try to debate that? Just agree to disagree and move on

Ah don't fall back on that! I'm trying to educate you and you're scarpering behind a dodgy defence. People use that kind of defence when they try compare Robbie Williams with Mozart. "I like him, so stop saying I'm wrong..." :s

 

[huntingyou]

Agassi played from the backcourt, so did Borg and Lendl.

at the end of the day, this is my perception. I know you don't believe the top players today like Novak and Rafa are waiting for opponents errors...their are hammering the ball from the word go and putting pressure on their opponents like Boa does with its meal.

Playing from the backcourt isn't evidence of fortitude. It's evidence of somebody playing from the back court. Most of the time, if you watched Sampras play Agassi - for example - you'd see this quite clearly...

I was rooting for Sampras when he played Agassi

Nope, playing from the backcourt it's just that. Willing to leave your blood and tears on the court for any point.....now that's fortitude.

Pete did it, Davis Cup I remember clearly.......clay against Kafelnikov; poor guy went beyond his limits but he had guts. I'm merely talking STYLE, not the man himself.

why so...serious?

 

[huntingyou]

This is my PERCEPTION.......how can you try to debate that? Just agree to disagree and move on

Ah don't fall back on that! I'm trying to educate you and you're scarpering behind a dodgy defence. People use that kind of defence when they try compare Robbie Williams with Mozart. "I like him, so stop saying I'm wrong..." :s

you don't understand the saying "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder"

have it your way

 

[Kieran]

This is my PERCEPTION.......how can you try to debate that? Just agree to disagree and move on

Ah don't fall back on that! I'm trying to educate you and you're scarpering behind a dodgy defence. People use that kind of defence when they try compare Robbie Williams with Mozart. "I like him, so stop saying I'm wrong..." :s

you don't understand the saying "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder"

have it your way

It's one thing to say you find it more beautiful, I have no problem with that, but you had to weigh in with a moral judgment too - it's no guts tennis (or the even worse sissy tennis - with an unorthodox description of why you thought that. You may prefer one to the other and I may agree, or agree to disagree, but when you misrepresent what's happening as your justification for your preference, then we're entitled to haggle...

 

[DarthFed]

I'm curious too HY, how is big serve and attacking tennis = no guts?

Ok, think about the suicidal guy that has a death wish, approaching the cop with "intention" to harm him.....when in reality he just want that cop to a put bullet in his head and liberates him from his misery. He has no longer a will to live and is looking for the easy way out.....no guts.

The style of tennis that comes to the net no matter what, despite getting pass time after time it's a no guts type of play IN MY OPINION.....there is no testicular fortitude to give it all for the point but instead, the player willingly approach his cop in the other side of the net to relieve him from his misery.

Roger understood this and that's why he evolved to be a complete player, defend almost as well as attack, persist the point and don't give it away until you gave your 100% effort.

Attacking the net the way they did was the equivalent to hit the red button that says EJECT. Hewitt gave Sampras and his kind a lesson when using such tactics in the modern game.

Someone could easily turn this around today and say players aren't going for their shots but are mindlessly hitting back and forth waiting for others to miss and eventually get worn out.

Playing attacking tennis in faster conditions before the advanced racquet technology was hardly suicidal back then. If it was such an idiotic strategy for the time you would have seen a lot more players staying back. As Kieran mentioned, Roger adapted because he had to. S&V is basically suicide today but that couldn't be further from the truth just 15 years ago.

Agassi played from the backcourt, so did Borg and Lendl.

at the end of the day, this is my perception. I know you don't believe the top players today like Novak and Rafa are waiting for opponents errors...their are hammering the ball from the word go and putting pressure on their opponents like Boa does with its meal.

Similar attitude to your boy who said attacking tennis is boring, not real tennis or something to that effect. There is a reason players of yesteryear played that way, it won many of them quite a lot of titles, Sampras, Laver, Mac, etc. They might not have had any guts to you but they won

 

[zalvar]

Meh. Another S&V guy on a righteous crusade as if there's a "right" way to play tennis. Players do whatever it takes to win and obviously S&V is just not good enough these days due to a combination of things.

 

[August]

The talk about "variety" seems only to apply to baseliners. Yet serve and volley players who couldn't cut it from the baseline where somehow playing with "variety." I don't get the double standards.

Of course it would be nice to see players with much variety in their games, like Fed and Haas. But players having little variety in their own games isn't the biggest problem but that there is so little variety in all players' playing styles. It would be nice if there were players with different playing styles on the top of the game.

 

[Fiero425]

The talk about "variety" seems only to apply to baseliners. Yet serve and volley players who couldn't cut it from the baseline where somehow playing with "variety." I don't get the double standards.

Of course it would be nice to see players with much variety in their games, like Fed and Haas. But players having little variety in their own games isn't the biggest problem but that there is so little variety in all players' playing styles. It would be nice if there were players with different playing styles on the top of the game.

Trying to watch the Aussie Open from last season with Nole and Rafa was tragic! It was the ugliest thing in tennis that I've ever seen! Nole plays like that to blunt Rafa's game, but it's still some of the most horrible looking tennis to be played in the open era! Taking almost 6 hours to win just was interminable! It drags me down even when I cut out all the toweling off, challenges, and other stall tactics used to drag out this marathon! I don't blame Nole as much since it only seems to happen when playing Rafa who has some of the ugliest stroke production in the game; esp. the backhand where he bends at the waist! There's just nothing I could ever learn watching him play even if I were a beginner except maybe to annoy and irritate an opponent! If he passes Roger in majors, I'll still have to seriously rank him below due to the majority of his titles on clay; talk about one trick pony! Only 5 majors off clay will never be impressive to me! That's why Borg is so highly regarded going from FO to Wimbledon to win them both 3 straight years and making the final for a fourth try! "Do that and call me for another review Rafa!" :nono :huh: