Tennis Forever

**venkkiram** · 31st August 2013, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by VinodKumar's

S&V - Sachin's straight drive / Dravid's extra cover drive ... Baseline game - Gayle's monstrous sixer / Dhoni's helicopter shot ...

aaha! unga comparison pullarikka vaikkuthunga. athuvum Baseline game to Sixer is so good.. You now hijacking this topic to a different level.. Wow!

**Google Adsense** · 31st August 2013 03:05 AM

**omega** · 31st August 2013, 04:08 AM

Just watching a little bit of Murray vs Mayer match....
Even though Murray is in the lead, its Mayer who is playing aggressive tennis, taking the ball on the rise, attacking the net more.
Murray in an ultimate pusher mode!! Ugly at its best...

**JamesDap** · 31st August 2013, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by omega

Anyone who unnecessarily prolongs a rally is a pusher....This includes Federer also...
Time & again I have seem those 20+ shot rallies having multiple oppurtunities to finish it early being just pushed further & further until one pulls up the trigger for an UE..

There is a big difference between Agassi & Nadal/Murray....Novak is atleast an aggressive baseliner like Agassi...

But how exactly is it unnecessary? You can't say that objectively without considering other factors. Do you really want players to make a suicidal approach like Llodra and lose the point just because it would entertain SOME sections of the crowd? They are out there to win at the end of the day. And with the depth and pace of even normal rally balls these days, there is an extreme risk of getting passed unless you choose the right moment. And it has a lot more to do with racquets than courts. This is US Open 2000 final..before the 'slowdown'. Safin just kept passing Sampras all day...this was the new tennis. It was already born before Federer or Nadal came along. People just didn't notice it because they couldn't respect players like Hewitt or Safin for some reason.

So that is all that Federer, Nadal or Djokovic do. They just wait for the right opportunity to come in...same like Connors or Lendl or Agassi. It's just much harder with modern equipment, whereas, conversely, it's easier to fire off winners from the baseline. I have already said Murray is a pusher and he was coached by the premier pusher of the 80s, Brad Gilbert. But Lendl has already brought a lot of difference to his game. He is much more attacking now and that's probably why he has started winning slams at long last. I presume you haven't watched the Murray-Llodra match of this US Open. Murray took the initiative to attack even before Llodra could get in..it was a great match, though very one sided.

**CEDYBLUE** · 31st August 2013, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by crimson king

But how exactly is it unnecessary? You can't say that objectively without considering other factors. Do you really want players to make a suicidal approach like Llodra and lose the point just because it would entertain SOME sections of the crowd? They are out there to win at the end of the day. And with the depth and pace of even normal rally balls these days, there is an extreme risk of getting passed unless you choose the right moment. And it has a lot more to do with racquets than courts. This is US Open 2000 final..before the 'slowdown'. Safin just kept passing Sampras all day...this was the new tennis. It was already born before Federer or Nadal came along. People just didn't notice it because they couldn't respect players like Hewitt or Safin for some reason.

I remember this match clearly, Pete thumped Hewitt in the semifinals and was swept away by Marat Safin in the Finals. This was 2000 US open. Yes. Exactly the reverse happened the next year. Sampras conquered Safin in the SF and subsequently lost in the finals to Hewitt.

But, the point i am trying to make is Pete Sampras taught Marat Safin a lesson or two about S&V in the SF of US Open 2001 and conquered his conquerer of last year with this trademark and delightful S&V.

In case, you forgot that, here is the video link for the US Open 2001 SF.

Despite losing to the likes of Safin and Hewitt when he clearly was ageing and slowing down, Sampras ended on a high, next year against Agassi in the US Open 2002.

My point is, at least with Pete, he never allowed anyone to 'own' him during his playing career. Off course, in clay courts everyone owned him, but in Grass and Hard courts, he was close to unstoppable. Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, et all all posed different threats (if you can include the likes of Chang/Courier who both were lighting quick from the baseline) and Sampras always had answers.

When the 'Fab 3 (or 4)' of the current generation hang their boots, this will be one thing that will/should be discussed when deciding their legacy.

I will stop here, basically because i have not watched the current 4 closely to compare them with Pete's era.

**VinodKumar's** · 31st August 2013, 12:16 PM

Delp lost to Hewitt.

**leosimha** · 31st August 2013, 12:36 PM

wow...beautiful discussions going on...hats off...

federer the best tennis player of all eras..suras...puras.... hats off

**leosimha** · 31st August 2013, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by VinodKumar's

Delp lost to Hewitt.

too bad....actually the reason why delpo lost is because of the surface being too slow and it suits hewitt who is a marathon player like nadal....they should change the surface next year so that the likes of delpo can win matches....