Watching the classics!

[uspta990770809]

I caught some of the matches on ESPN Classic the last couple of weeks. I had a few thoughts and wondered if anyone else noticed:

McEnroe vs Borg in 1981
These were our tennis "Studs" in 1981. Anyone else notice how small they look in comparison to today's players? Almost in comparison to themselves competing 15 years later in the 35s or even Johnny Mac today? They hadn't spent the time in the gym todays players have and it shows. It's not just the shorts.

Winners: There are lots of groundstroke winners ... when someone is at the net, but almost none when both players are on the baseline. NONE! They weren't that fast, so you have to believe they really were not hitting the ball anywhere near as big.

Serves: Trabert and co. getting excited about Borgs "Cannonball 112 mph 1st serve!" Enuf said

In an earlier match shown between Connors and Mac, how much did they go to the net? We forget how much the game has changed.

Great watching these old matches and seeing the strategies, but the weapons are entirely different. Today it was Chang/Edberg. No one moves to the net like Edberg anymore. Agassi/Sampras showed how well Sampras served and volleyed, but he didn't volley anywhere near as well as Edberg. Of course, he didn't have to behind that serve.

Anyone else notice these things?
don

[carrerakent]

don,

i remember watching those matches when i was a teenager and just learning tennis. now i watch them and laugh to myself at their lack of athleticism of today's athletes. i mean, back then we had great athletes in so many sports so superior to the tennis athletes.

when i see guys get passed at the net today i realize they are facing such bigger passing shots, but edberg, rafter, sampras knew how to split step and read and move to the volley. just watch roddick...he looks like a deer caught in head lights when he moves in to volley.

i learned to play going to the net on every point. after laying off from tennis for 15 years i started back living in florida, playing on clay, and realized i did not have any groundstrokes to speak of. the game had changed so much that i was in a time warp. i'm glad that we have those classics to watch, but it does make the young guns of today laugh at us old guys even that much more.

[uspta990770809]

don,

i remember watching those matches when i was a teenager and just learning tennis. now i watch them and laugh to myself at their lack of athleticism of today's athletes. i mean, back then we had great athletes in so many sports so superior to the tennis athletes.

In the 70's there were shows like "Superstars". And as I recall, Borg did pretty well in the athleticism department. Maybe someone else remembers those results, but I think tennis players did pretty well there. But they didn't train themselves to their potential like players today. For that matter, neither did athletes in football or baseball or basketball. Very few people went to "the gym" to lift weights or work out before the 80's.
don

[tcuk]

I agree with don on a lot of things. Edberg, Stich, Becker were far better volleyers than anyone around today....miles better.

I disagree about one thing.

Borg is the fastest player I've ever seen from any era, period. I don't think it's possible for a player to move better then Borg did. He was simpy amazing in this department.

You can't compare eras because changes in racket technology make it impossible to do it fairly. Players today are deadly in the midcourt in a way that would be impossible with wood or the earlier graphites.

[uspta990770809]

Borg's speed

I agree with don on a lot of things. Edberg, Stich, Becker were far better volleyers than anyone around today....miles better.

I disagree about one thing.

Borg is the fastest player I've ever seen from any era, period. I don't think it's possible for a player to move better then Borg did. He was simpy amazing in this department.

You can't compare eras because changes in racket technology make it impossible to do it fairly. Players today are deadly in the midcourt in a way that would be impossible with wood or the earlier graphites.

I didn't mean to say Borg wasn't that fast. He might have been as fast or even a little faster than today's speedsters (doubt it), but he wasn't so fast that today's players wouldn't be able to hit baseline winners against him. Perhaps not many, but a lot more than McEnroe and Connors were hitting against him. My point was the ball was much slower.

I think the game changed with the introduction of the Prince in the mid 70's. Players that learned with those big rackets had a different view of short balls. They hit them almost with the ferocity of an overhead. To me the break was about mid-80s with players like Forget, Becker, Edberg and players before them seeing short balls as approach opportunities. Players coming after them learned with the big rackets and had a different sense of how they could hit a short forehand. Guys like Laver hit a big shot on a short ball when they got the chance, but no one hit with the abandon of the post-mid 80s players. Lendl certainly changed the game as far as hitting big, but as far as killing groundies when you got inside the baseline, I think that came with the generation just after him. And those of us that learned to play with 70 sq. in. racket heads can never get to the place players that learned with 100 sq. in. rackets can.

don

[uspta146749877]

For Don

Did you my post about footwork providing a link to a New York Times animation?

[mntlblok]

The old match that blows me away when I see it replayed is the '83 French match between Wilander and Noah. It looked to me like they were hitting their groundies at about 30 mph. But, then I think back to how athletic and powerful Noah seemed at the time. Maybe the TV replay was in slow motion.

I was relating that to our current director of tennis, still one of the best players I've ever been on the court with (he won an NCAA singles title at Miami), and he told me that Wilander had put one of the worst whippings on him he'd ever had. So, maybe things aren't always as they seem on TV.

Kevin
Savannah

I caught some of the matches on ESPN Classic the last couple of weeks. I had a few thoughts and wondered if anyone else noticed:


Winners: There are lots of groundstroke winners ... when someone is at the net, but almost none when both players are on the baseline. NONE! They weren't that fast, so you have to believe they really were not hitting the ball anywhere near as big.


Anyone else notice these things?
don

[tcuk]

I was relating that to our current director of tennis, still one of the best players I've ever been on the court with (he won an NCAA singles title at Miami), and he told me that Wilander had put one of the worst whippings on him he'd ever had. So, maybe things aren't always as they seem on TV.

Kevin
Savannah

I was there at many of these old matches and always attend Wimledon year after year. I can tell you the matches just weren't like that. Old TV clips are fooling us somehow

[oliensis]

I saw an exhibition match between Borg and Nastase at the Milwaukee Arena during the late '70s (I was playing high school tennis at the time, probably
'77).

The game wasn't as fast then as it is now, but I do remember sneaking down courtside during their warmup and being amazed at how the balls were bee-lining it from one baseline to the other, with very little arc, and landing within 1-2 feet of the other baseline.

I was a pretty decent high-school tennis player. And I'd played against the #1 guy in the state, and next to the #2 guy in the state. And in 3 seconds I could see that Borg & Nastase were playing at a level that I was barely able to conceive even while I was standing there, a few feet away, watching it in real time.