The noGOAT thread

[jimlosaltos]

Thanks everyone for all your comments. I figured this one would get people talking.

I keep thinking about what Jerry Rice said about Tom Brady. In the 80's there is no way he would have played as long as he did? Football was way more physical and players were beat up at an early age.

Can we say the same about tennis? Did they protect players in some way? Maybe the slowing of the courts favors older players.

I am just fishing here but hey maybe you guys will throw me some trout.

How about a carp?

1) Enforce the rules starting with the shot clock. No other sport stops the clock depending on who you are.
2a) Enable more variety in playing pace, and set a minimum, e.g. make Indian Wells put in a real hard court
2b) Standardize and speed up the balls. Can do that without making everyone go back to 60 sq in rackets. Side benefit of saving lots of wear and tear on wrists and elbows.

[arturohernandez]

The GOAT debate is mostly just fun and something played out in one's mind, and one's mind is usually riddled with bias and prejudice whether one admits it or not.

The homogenization of pace and play is nothing new. Back in the classic era all but one of the slams were played on grass....fast grass. Everyone played the same way and ran to the net.

Borg is always in the conversation in my view. He's easy to dismiss because he was a baseliner whose baseline strokes don't compare to today's players. They look like a joke comparatively. But tackling him with a wooden racket would be a challenging prospect for any player today. With the power gone, players would have to rally with him and Borg was a player who could rally forever. Again, it's a pointless argument as we truly have no way of knowing what the outcome would really be.

The GOAT debate these days is measured by a player's achievements. By that metric Novak has won more than anyone else hands down so he's the GOAT. Fair enough. But he cannot volley for toffee despite Feliciano Lopez having him down as the second best volleyer in the world, next to Carlitos.

Prior to the 80's players weren't concerned about grand slam tallies. I don't have to tell most members of the forum that because you knew it already You all know that players back then never journeyed to the AO, for example.

Tim Henman says (privately) that today's best volleyers are a joke compared to his generation and the generations before. No quarrel here. Frank Sedgman, who played in the 50's, was an infinitely better volleyer than anyone around today, no question. The problem today is absolutely no one on the tour knows how to deal with volleys below the height of the net...not a clue.

In 50 years time people will likely view Novak as obsolete old fogey much like players of 50 years ago are often viewed today. We all know how great Roger and Novak are...but try telling folk that 50 years from now. I am assuming, of course, that all of us on the forum are going to live to well over a 100 years old.

It is interesting how Federer might be the last "great" volleyer. The only problem is that Lundgren told me in person that his volleys were terrible when he was a junior. He is a very good volleyer but I would put him below the great volleyers of the 90's. Not because of ability. I am sure that he could have been a great volleyer. He just didn't need to do it nearly as much during the height of his career.

I would say that Sampras might be the last great singles volleyer. He had no trouble with any height and just understood volleying and what his best plays were given the shot he received.

Anyone else come to mind in the singles game?

[arturohernandez]

How about a carp?

1) Enforce the rules starting with the shot clock. No other sport stops the clock depending on who you are.
2a) Enable more variety in playing pace, and set a minimum, e.g. make Indian Wells put in a real hard court
2b) Standardize and speed up the balls. Can do that without making everyone go back to 60 sq in rackets. Side benefit of saving lots of wear and tear on wrists and elbows.

I think they should have a true fast court season. Either AO, USO should go back to slick fast courts. It would be great to see someone be rewarded for aggressive attacking tennis.

Maybe Isner would have a couple of USO trophies.

[jimlosaltos]

I think they should have a true fast court season. Either AO, USO should go back to slick fast courts. It would be great to see someone be rewarded for aggressive attacking tennis.

Maybe Isner would have a couple of USO trophies.

You had me until Isner

[stroke]

It is interesting how Federer might be the last "great" volleyer. The only problem is that Lundgren told me in person that his volleys were terrible when he was a junior. He is a very good volleyer but I would put him below the great volleyers of the 90's. Not because of ability. I am sure that he could have been a great volleyer. He just didn't need to do it nearly as much during the height of his career.

I would say that Sampras might be the last great singles volleyer. He had no trouble with any height and just understood volleying and what his best plays were given the shot he received.

Anyone else come to mind in the singles game?

I would say Radek Stepanek had better volleys than Pete. He just did not do anything else better, except drop shots.

[arturohernandez]

You had me until Isner

I did say maybe.

[arturohernandez]

I would say Radek Stepanek had better volleys than Pete. He just did not do anything else better, except drop shots.

Stepanek was great. Pete had that serve that MADE his volleys look even better than they were. Without the serve, the forehand and the athleticism, his volleys would not have looked so good.

Radek went a long ways with his style!

[jimlosaltos]

It is interesting how Federer might be the last "great" volleyer. The only problem is that Lundgren told me in person that his volleys were terrible when he was a junior. He is a very good volleyer but I would put him below the great volleyers of the 90's. Not because of ability. I am sure that he could have been a great volleyer. He just didn't need to do it nearly as much during the height of his career.

I would say that Sampras might be the last great singles volleyer. He had no trouble with any height and just understood volleying and what his best plays were given the shot he received.

Anyone else come to mind in the singles game?

Good point, one Federer has made himself, saying in effect "You have to use a shot regularly in match play to be good at it. Players don't come to the net often enough to be great volleyers."

[stotty]

I think Roger is a special case. He's probably the greatest genius the game has ever had. He's the complete genius is every sense: physically, technically, and mentally. He's not warped like Nastase or deranged like McEnroe. His genius somehow circumvented these common traps.

Roger could have been an outstanding volleyer but in the end he was good volleyer and the best of his generation. The game wasn't going in that direction - the direction of the net - during his time as a player so those volley skills never really had the chance to reach their full potential. Had he spent 10 years serve and volleying I think he would have been amazing at it.

[jimlosaltos]

I think Roger is a special case. He's probably the greatest genius the game has ever had. He's the complete genius is every sense: physically, technically, and mentally. He's not warped like Nastase or deranged like McEnroe. His genius somehow circumvented these common traps.

Roger could have been an outstanding volleyer but in the end he was good volleyer and the best of his generation. The game wasn't going in that direction - the direction of the net - during his time as a player so those volley skills never really had the chance to reach their full potential. Had he spent 10 years serve and volleying I think he would have been amazing at it.

Part of Roger's greatness -- to me at least -- is that his play spanned at least 3 periods dominated by different styles and he won in all of them.

Like Picasso with a "blue period" and a "cubist period" etc, Roger won as a youngster playing amongst the dying embers of serve & volley tennis, then had his Peak Fed period as a whirling dervish of Serve +1 tennis, then as a 'power baseliner', then as his own embers ebbed, grabbed a bigger racket & ventured back to the net to compensate.

Awesome.

[stroke]

I think Roger is a special case. He's probably the greatest genius the game has ever had. He's the complete genius is every sense: physically, technically, and mentally. He's not warped like Nastase or deranged like McEnroe. His genius somehow circumvented these common traps.

Roger could have been an outstanding volleyer but in the end he was good volleyer and the best of his generation. The game wasn't going in that direction - the direction of the net - during his time as a player so those volley skills never really had the chance to reach their full potential. Had he spent 10 years serve and volleying I think he would have been amazing at it.

I would certainly agree that Roger at his best, full flight Roger, was the easiest on the eye tennis ever.

[arturohernandez]

I think Roger is a special case. He's probably the greatest genius the game has ever had. He's the complete genius is every sense: physically, technically, and mentally. He's not warped like Nastase or deranged like McEnroe. His genius somehow circumvented these common traps.

Roger could have been an outstanding volleyer but in the end he was good volleyer and the best of his generation. The game wasn't going in that direction - the direction of the net - during his time as a player so those volley skills never really had the chance to reach their full potential. Had he spent 10 years serve and volleying I think he would have been amazing at it.

I think this is an interesting point that I was trying to get at in the noGOAT discussion. The ability to play such different styles and win at them. According to the latest book on Fed, Sampras did not understand why everyone was staying back. Fed explained that the game had changed. The serve + forehand had become the new serve and volley.

I agree that he would have been a great volleyer. Even the backhand that was a weakness for so long had a renaissance toward the end of his career.

[arturohernandez]

Part of Roger's greatness -- to me at least -- is that his play spanned at least 3 periods dominated by different styles and he won in all of them.

Like Picasso with a "blue period" and a "cubist period" etc, Roger won as a youngster playing amongst the dying embers of serve & volley tennis, then had his Peak Fed period as a whirling dervish of Serve +1 tennis, then as a 'power baseliner', then as his own embers ebbed, grabbed a bigger racket & ventured back to the net to compensate.

Awesome.

I think the discussion of being able to play in all three eras should be noted. I think Novak will forever be seen as the one with the most titles. But he won really in one era only. The interesting question is whether or how he would have adapted to much faster conditions.

I was watching tennis yesterday and this popped up. Not sure if Fed was on, Djokovic was off, the conditions were fast, or all of the above. But on a fast court, Fed could dominate even the number 1 Novak at the time.

https://youtu.be/qaXDaiEn8zQ?si=uon4zfha6TZh3b0c

[jimlosaltos]

I think the discussion of being able to play in all three eras should be noted. I think Novak will forever be seen as the one with the most titles. But he won really in one era only. The interesting question is whether or how he would have adapted to much faster conditions.

I was watching tennis yesterday and this popped up. Not sure if Fed was on, Djokovic was off, the conditions were fast, or all of the above. But on a fast court, Fed could dominate even the number 1 Novak at the time.

https://youtu.be/qaXDaiEn8zQ?si=uon4zfha6TZh3b0c

Thanks for the vid! Great memories. Classic Fed with the sudden "injection of pace" on the forehand, and those DTL backhands.

Yes, I believe Dubai was known for having quick courts. So, although many say 2015 was Djokovic's best year (I'd say 2011 was, for what it's wroth), and Fed was past his peak then, he had the edge there.

Most of Djokovic's ATP Finals wins also came after those courts were markedly slowed down.

Although Rafa's game was clearly optimized for 1) High bouncing courts 2) Modern equipment, I'm sure he and Fed would have been great in any era on any surface. I'm not sure about Djokovic, whose skills more monochromatic.

[stroke]

Thanks for the vid! Great memories. Classic Fed with the sudden "injection of pace" on the forehand, and those DTL backhands.

Yes, I believe Dubai was known for having quick courts. So, although many say 2015 was Djokovic's best year (I'd say 2011 was, for what it's wroth), and Fed was past his peak then, he had the edge there.

Most of Djokovic's ATP Finals wins also came after those courts were markedly slowed down.

Although Rafa's game was clearly optimized for 1) High bouncing courts 2) Modern equipment, I'm sure he and Fed would have been great in any era on any surface. I'm not sure about Djokovic, whose skills more monochromatic.

Nothing like Federer in full flight. Certainly the crowd support was just as I remember, almost all the support for Fed. Things are a bit easier when everyone loves you it seems.