...there you go

[PerfectAce]

Sampras boring? IMO, there' nothing boring about hitting a second serve ace, on break point, in the fifth set of the Wimbledon final. Nothing boring about hitting drop volley winners off your shoe strings, and nothing boring about running forehand passing shot winners.

But really, I have to agree with Nadal to a point. The game is more fun to watch most of the time - A serve fest can be pretty boring to watch. But it would be even better if there were some Sampras-like players around - the game could benefit from more contrast in styles rather than everyone playing basically the same game.

BTW: Do you know why Nadal, Edberg, and Rafter never hit as many aces as Sampras and Ivanisevic? Because they can't.

Perfect, nothing more to add...

[Bowler2151]

playing from the baseline is was more exciting to watch than S&V. Every once in a while its good to have a S&V point to mix it up but watching the rallys from the baseline much more exciting. Seeing a baseline player versus a S&V player would be awesome to see.

[Rob ITST]

but the guys serve faster now than in the past, no??, i mean maybe the guys return better now, i'd love to see Ivanisevic serving against Ferrer, Djokovic

They do serve a little faster today, but the return has been helped by the racquets and strings a lot more than the serve: When a ball is coming at you 130mph, a bigger sweet spot helps. When you're hitting a ball that you just threw in the air, it doesn't make much difference.

to me Sampras was not boring at all, but Ivanisevic was another story, as a spectator i found his matches boring

Ivanisevic was fun to watch because he was so mentally unstable . Other than that, yeah, he was mostly serve.

i agree 100%, i think that 1st matches the bounce is low but as days go by, the court gets worse and it's like playing on hard corurt

Wimbledon needs twice as many courts to rotate play on. It's just the start of week 2, and there is already no grass on the baseline.

BTW, when comparing players today to players of any other era, keep this in mind: For over 100 years, everyone pretty much used natural gut. Now, everyone uses poly. Poly has totally changed the way the game is played.

[supinesmokey13]

playing from the baseline is was more exciting to watch than S&V. Every once in a while its good to have a S&V point to mix it up but watching the rallys from the baseline much more exciting. Seeing a baseline player versus a S&V player would be awesome to see

.

we will tommorrow llodra vs djokovic it will be interesting to see how effect llodra's net game is effective against nole seen as the ball travels faster due the conditions but sits up more .

[oDEVLISHo]

Tennis is better to watch now but watching Nadal at Roland Garros is a snoooozzzeee fest!! lol

[jayl0ve]

Finally somebody has the balls to say that the grass as Wimby hasn't changed...I totally agree, it's the balls/racquets/strings that have changed and made it maybe look like the grass has been changed.

[Julius Jackson]

100% agree with Nadal.

Serving is 75% physical attributes/25% skill...if you are 6'4 and have long arms you will have a good serve. It is by far the most physically dependent part of tennis. Shorter players like Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, etc...have historically been FAR more talented in every respect than guys with big serves, but yet still struggled vs them simply because a 130 mph serve is very hard to counter.

So following from that...watching pure servers is watching the least amount of skill possible, so of course that will provide for far less excitement, as Nadal pts out.

As for Wilander's era comparison...yes, equipment is better now but skills are skills...and Federer and Nadal are easily the top 2 players in tennis history. In terms of skill no one compares; in terms of success no one will compare by the time they retire and are 1/2 in career Grand Slams. Sampras and Agassi would struggle to ever beat them, on any surface. In fact, Sampras and Agassi (in their primes) would struggle to crack the top 5 on today's tour.

[Rob ITST]

In fact, Sampras and Agassi (in their primes) would struggle to crack the top 5 on today's tour.

And Nadal would have struggled in the '90s. He would have been a threat at RG, but nowhere else, not like today at least. Actually, and I have grown to like him a lot more recently, I can't think of any player who has benefited more from today's courts and equipment than Nadal. It's just not possible to play like him with the older racquets and strings.

Shorter players like Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, etc...have historically been FAR more talented in every respect than guys with big serves,

How tall do you think Sampras was? Pretty sure he's actually shorter than Nadal.

[jayl0ve]

haha yeah Sampras is the exact same height as Nadal...


His height had nothing at all to do with his serve, he had 100% perfect technique.

As do most of the tall guys with big serves...I don't care if you're 6"9 you're not gonna serve hard and accurately unless you have good technique.

I was friends with this guy in high school who was a bodybuilder, so obviously he was a big strong guy...man he could barely throw a baseball, I swear to god he threw exactly like a 5 year old girl

[Rob ITST]

I think tall guys typically work harder on their serves - most likely because their coach recognizes their potential to have an incredible serve. Sherlock can probably comment on that.

Also, smaller guys are typically better movers, so they're naturally going to be better from the baseline. Speaking of moving, that's got to be the most physically dependent part of tennis. I've seen smaller guys with pretty good serves, but I've never seen anyone 6'4"+ that was a great mover.

[Julius Jackson]

I think tall guys typically work harder on their serves - most likely because their coach recognizes their potential to have an incredible serve. Sherlock can probably comment on that.

Also, smaller guys are typically better movers, so they're naturally going to be better from the baseline. Speaking of moving, that's got to be the most physically dependent part of tennis. I've seen smaller guys with pretty good serves, but I've never seen anyone 6'4"+ that was a great mover.

6'4 guys can still move...monfils...but a small guy cannot have a dominant serve. the angles are just not there. if athletic freaks played tennis instead of futbol, football, and basketball then youd have lots of 6'4+ guys who could do everything (kind of like the williams sisters with respect to the womens side)...but, alas, tennis attracts mostly privileged people, who typically are not athletic freaks.

ya i thought nadal was 6'0 and sampras 6'2...but theyre both 6'1 lol...but that actually makes nadal that much more impressive, being a big-ish guy and yet having the best movement in the history of tennis.

[Coolhand Texas]

Being 6'1 and having the best movement is no feat. How would you consider that a feat?

[Rob ITST]

if athletic freaks played tennis instead of futbol, football, and basketball then youd have lots of 6'4+ guys who could do everything

I remember Cliff Drysdale asked Karl Malone (I think it was Malone, it was someone from the NBA) when the big athletic guys like him would come take over tennis. Malone said, "Never, we can't get down low".

My point is that tennis is kind of unique in that players of all different heights can succeed. Small guys have advantages, and so do big guys. It comes down to skill and mental strength.

ya i thought nadal was 6'0 and sampras 6'2...but theyre both 6'1 lol...but that actually makes nadal that much more impressive, being a big-ish guy and yet having the best movement in the history of tennis.

Or, you could say it makes Sampras even more impressive - not being 6'4"+, yet still having the best serve in the history of tennis.

And I don't agree that Nadal has the best movement in the history of tennis - he just has the most determination.

[Rob ITST]

You know it's been 2-3 days without arguments on the forum, i miss them, so go ahead.

come on Rob, waiting for you my friend?...boring Sampras??

You got both wishes.

[jayl0ve]

if athletic freaks played tennis instead of futbol, football, and basketball then youd have lots of 6'4+ guys who could do everything

I remember Cliff Drysdale asked Karl Malone (I think it was Malone, it was someone from the NBA) when the big athletic guys like him would come take over tennis. Malone said, "Never, we can't get down low".

You know what else Karl Malone says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQlUINKWtU


Karl Malone's least favorite movie ever= "Handball" starring Anfernee Hodgkins