Players That Give Pleasure

[stotty]

Very occasionally a player will come along who is compelling and beautiful to watch. They give pleasure. One poster is deeply attracted to the shotmaking and genius of Roger Federer and John McEnroe - and who can blame him? These players are so unusually skilful and can do shots other players simply cannot. McEnroe has the deftest touch and best hands we have ever seen in tennis, and Roger's game is so effortless, complete, and downright explosive. You could watch both players all day.

I guess in most people's books the super talented bracket consists of Roger, McEnroe and Nastase. But, for me, Miroslav Mecir isn't far behind, if he's behind at all.

The one thing Mecir has that the afore mentioned don't quite have in such spades is misdirection. Slight of hand and misdirection is the reason why I like watching Mecir more than any other player I have ever watched. I once saw him play on an outside court at Wimbledon where he turned an opponent inside out without hardly moving or breaking into a sweat. He was so head and shoulders above his opponent he seemed to be walking most of the time.

Below is a clip of Mecir playing Lendl. It's a little grainy but full of brilliance and majesty. The backhand winner he hits in the point starting at 2:37 sums up what I love so much about Mecir. No one sees that backhand coming and it leaves Lendl somewhat in his tracks, and you get a brief replay of that wonderful shot too. Mecir's backhand is one of the most unusual and brilliant two-handers in the game when is comes to disguise and switching direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaLp7-W9MYk

For me, it's not about how many slams a player wins, it's about getting pleasure out of watching skill and craft.

[don_budge]

Very occasionally a player will come along who is compelling and beautiful to watch. They give pleasure. One poster is deeply attracted to the shotmaking and genius of Roger Federer and John McEnroe - and who can blame him? These players are so unusually skilful and can do shots other players simply cannot. McEnroe has the deftest touch and best hands we have ever seen in tennis, and Roger's game is so effortless, complete, and downright explosive. You could watch both players all day.

I guess in most people's books the super talented bracket consists of Roger, McEnroe and Nastase. But, for me, Miroslav Mecir isn't far behind, if he's behind at all.

The one thing Mecir has that the afore mentioned don't quite have in such spades is misdirection. Slight of hand and misdirection is the reason why I like watching Mecir more than any other player I have ever watched. I once saw him play on an outside court at Wimbledon where he turned an opponent inside out without hardly moving or breaking into a sweat. He was so head and shoulders above his opponent he seemed to be walking most of the time.

Below is a clip of Mecir playing Lendl. It's a little grainy but full of brilliance and majesty. The backhand winner he hits in the point starting at 2:37 sums up what I love so much about Mecir. No one sees that backhand coming and it leaves Lendl somewhat in his tracks, and you get a brief replay of that wonderful shot too. Mecir's backhand is one of the most unusual and brilliant two-handers in the game when is comes to disguise and switching direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaLp7-W9MYk

For me, it's not about how many slams a player wins, it's about getting pleasure out of watching skill and craft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTIxobZMzBg&feature=emb_title

Somehow in 1978 I found my self once more in New York City, at Flushing Meadows this time for an epic tennis match. I know that I was with two of my besties from high school and we were patrolling the practice courts observing the players going through their paces. We came to this court and I was just struck by the beauty of this particular tennis player. It was love at first sight. Not only was this guy as handsome as the day is long in Sweden at Midsummer Day but his strokes were as elegant as any that I had seen to that point in my life and still to this day I haven't seen anything prettier.

Watching this fellow go through his practice routine, I found out that his name was Adriano Panatta. We watched him for his entire practice and at the same time found out that his opponent the following day was none other than Jimmy Connors. I said that against all odds at the time that he had a real chance to upset the American. I watched this match from the very top row of the stadium and it was a bird's eye view of some of the most elegant tennis that I have ever seen. It was in fact the most beautiful match that I ever witnessed. You would not believe what this shot looked like from the very top row and the magnitude that it had on the match. Words can never describe what this moment in time meant to me in terms of my tennis world. The match itself was just scintillating with the crowd witnessing one of those rare moments in sports where two competitors are so evenly matched that the game hung in the balance from the warmup.

Panatta was no one trick pony and he was no one hit wonder either. He beat Borg twice at Roland Garros which is something that no other player can claim. Here is another Panatta/Connors classic, this time at Roland Garros as well. The quality of the video is poor but not the quality of the tennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTIxobZMzBg&feature=emb_title

[stroke]

I think I kind of agree, the Big Cat was not too far behind Roger and John talent wise. Effortless winners, shot making, and court coverage. And so quiet and humble. Panatta vs Connors no doubt a classic. Connors, not so much quiet and humble.

[stotty]

Panatta was a player who slipped under my radar much of the time. Don't forget back then there was no SKY TV offering multiple court viewings, no YouTube, no affordable camcorders for fans to record stuff from the sidelines. Back then you had to wait for players to come into view via the BBC and whoever they chose to televise. Every time I went to Wimbledon, Adriano happened not to be playing.

He did however have one deep run at Wimbledon in the 70s. That match was televised and it was a beauty. I watched it. It was the only time I saw him play. Adriano played the part of the Italian stallion down to a T and he had an incredibly elegant game. Elegance was the word that came to my mind straight away, and he certainly was a physically beautiful man in his youth. Adriano is one of those players I wish I had seen more of. The old, grainy clips don't always do these players justice and you have to hold them in your mind's eye instead. What a shame there aren't more digitally enhanced clips form the 50s, 60s, and 70s floating around.

Sometimes the enjoyment a player can give you is priceless.

There has hardly a day gone by since I was 12 when I didn't think about tennis in some way or other. I sometimes wonder if it is possible to love the game more than I do.

[don_budge]

I was watching the clip of that point for Connors at 6-5, 40 all in the fifth with Panatta serving. If Panatta wins that point it is match point for the Italian. Just to give a bit of perspective on the importance of that point. The score of the match is on the screen at 45 seconds into the video and it reads...Panatta winning the first 6-4, 4-6, 1-6, 6-1 up to this point at 6-5. This was a great point but the magical thing is...the whole match was played at this level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTIxobZMzBg&feature=emb_title

[doctorhl]

I love these stories of the stroke artists who allowed the audience to observe a painting being created, stroke by stroke, on the court canvas. I don’t get that feeling today as much. In my immediate geography(southern U.S.), we only had pros come nearby at River Oaks in Houston, Texas. It had traditional red clay courts. The nearest red clay to Houston until the late 80’s were probably 400+ miles away in any direction. I got to witness Laver and Roche paint their picture by hitting real topspin, something I had never seen before as a player using wood rackets on hard courts.

[don_budge]

I love these stories of the stroke artists who allowed the audience to observe a painting being created, stroke by stroke, on the court canvas. I don’t get that feeling today as much. In my immediate geography(southern U.S.), we only had pros come nearby at River Oaks in Houston, Texas. It had traditional red clay courts. The nearest red clay to Houston until the late 80’s were probably 400+ miles away in any direction. I got to witness Laver and Roche paint their picture by hitting real topspin, something I had never seen before as a player using wood rackets on hard courts.

I'm aware that the era of pleasure and aesthetics is dead. Dead in the water. There is no bringing it back. There is no resuscitating the cadaver. There will be no second coming. It is dead. A thing of the past. The way that history is being made and created these days the push is on to make sure it never happened. History will make sure it is something to give modern elitists a reason to feel superior to those that came before us. Of course nothing could be further from the actual proof. As a player such as Adriano Panatta demonstrates. As does Jimmy Connors. As do all of those studs and stallions that played the true game of tennis and not the unreasonable facsimile that passes fro tennis nowadays. Already a new game is there waiting to push tennis off the map to the general public. Paddle ball has become all the rage. I used to call racquet ball "truck driver's" tennis. I think I will call paddle ball "cell phone" tennis. A racquet game for those with short attention spans. Tennis as it was played is way too deep for modern man. He's too busy overseeing the destruction of all that was traditional and all that was beautiful. If it is a statue you don't like...just tear it down. This is how tennis went to the wayside and was replaced by a game that more resembles "bang ball" than the process of painting a masterpiece as you suggest. As I suggest. Only Roger Federer remained as the one example of how to tell "stories of the stroke artists who allowed the audience to observe a painting being created, stroke by stroke, on the court canvas."

I had similar feelings of beauty and the sublime when I was writing a thread about the match below. I am happy and satisfied to have had the opportunity to have such thoughts and feelings. I feel badly for the human race that this sort of thing is no longer on the radar screen. Having been relegated to dust bin of history with the pontificating of the modern game as if it were the second coming or something. In reality it is only a good example how the human race has devolved. In the process of relegating its own self to the dust bin of history. We'll see how it plays out. After all...it isn't over until the last point is played. Donald Trump himself is banking on this fact.


From the thread entitled..."John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg...1980 U. S. Open Finals

Every point in this epic was a masterpiece. That is not to say there weren't mistakes and mishits. But taken as a whole the match must nearly be described point by point. I had to watch the match several times to come up with the words to describe the action. The points were like single brushstrokes that make up a great masterpiece. It reminded me of the moment only a couple of months ago when I stood at the very top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris looking down at that classic and old traditional city in Europe. Each building from that height looked like a single brush stroke and put them all together you had the wonderful visual whole that makes up the city of Paris. Like a beautiful painting every single brush stroke adds up to make up the whole.

The individual buildings on the ground were masterpieces of architecture as well. You walk along the streets admiring the craftsmanship and beauty from the ground level in the micro view as opposed to the macro view from the top of the Eiffel tower.

The same as this match. Such an intricate tapestry of tennis and all of its nuances. The variety of strokes...the variety of tactics. The infinite number of possibilities...permutations and combinations. Then there is the complexity of the players and their emotions and their tactical acumen and their individual interpretation of THE GAME. THE GAME OF TENNIS as it was meant to be played.

In tennis, in art and in life there is a balance. Even the universe is somehow balanced although theoretically. Equal parts positive and negative. Perhaps the human race has an equal balance as well...the summation of all of our actions and intents equal parts good and evil. But one thing is very clear to me and there is absolutely no way around it because in this very case for once and for all I am right...the game of tennis has been compromised by the actions of the very human hands that invented it. That precious balance that the game had and endured for so many years was compromised by an overabundance of speed in the game. It's simple. What was lost was tennis that was played like on this September afternoon between the last of the great rivalries in tennis...John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg.

ART...has left the stadium. Only the Great John McEnroe would have the balls to suggest something so outlandish as to do the right thing. The right thing to do by THE GAME.

From John McEnroe's most excellent autobiography..."Serious"...his top ten recommendations for improving tennis in the 21st Century:

"A return to wooden racquets would be a huge improvement for professional tennis. The biggest change in the game in the last twenty five years...the replacement of wood by graphite...has been a bad one. I happen to think that wooden racquets are beautiful aesthetically and purer for the game.

Look at baseball. Kids start with aluminum bats in little league, then move on to Kevlar or whatever in college and then...and only then...if they make it to the majors do they get to use those beautiful wooden bats that require greater expertise for success.

Why not do the same thing in tennis? I think that it looks great to have a little wand in your hand, instead of some ultra thick club big enough to kill somebody with. Wood...to me...has glamour. You need strategy and technique. Tennis, these days, is sadly lacking in all these things.

It's all (as David Bowie says) wham, bam, thank you ma'am." ...the great John McEnroe.

Seconded by the not so great...don_budge.

[don_budge]

The player that I would compare Adriano Panatta with would be Ilie Nastase. Even their service motions are very similar. The setup motion and the backswings are virtually identical. Both men with perfect physiques for the sport. Both incredibly handsome. Both had great feel and touch. There are a couple of glaring differences. First of all, Nastase reached higher heights for a longer duration. He was the better player. Panatta on the other hand seemed to be a perfect gentleman and didn't participate in antics that could only be referred to as Nastase-esque. The groundstrokes were very similar and the volleys were absolutely textbook even though both players were brought up on European red clay. There was a great video of Panatta playing Borg in Sweden at the Båstad Open but that has disappeared down the rabbit hole of the web. Interestingly enough, these players were doing all kinds of volleying on the red clay. They looked for every opportunity to move forwards. Even Borg did in the Båstad video. You wouldn't think that they would as European players back in that day had the reputation of being back court players.

[don_budge]

The player that I would compare Adriano Panatta with would be Ilie Nastase. Even their service motions are very similar. The setup motion and the backswings are virtually identical. Both men with perfect physiques for the sport. Both incredibly handsome. Both had great feel and touch. There are a couple of glaring differences. First of all, Nastase reached higher heights for a longer duration. He was the better player. Panatta on the other hand seemed to be a perfect gentleman and didn't participate in antics that could only be referred to as Nastase-esque. The groundstrokes were very similar and the volleys were absolutely textbook even though both players were brought up on European red clay. There was a great video of Panatta playing Borg in Sweden at the Båstad Open but that has disappeared down the rabbit hole of the web. Interestingly enough, these players were doing all kinds of volleying on the red clay. They looked for every opportunity to move forwards. Even Borg did in the Båstad video. You wouldn't think that they would as European players back in that day had the reputation of being back court players.

The thing that may separate Panatta from Nastase is the element of quickness. Although both players moved beautifully to the ball, Nastase had an almost uncanny knack for knowing where his opponent was going to hit. Mecir had the same kind of uncanny anticipation. Both Mecir and Nastase were almost catlike...feline in the way they prowled around the court.

[stotty]

With beautiful movement come beautiful strokes...

The first thing Dennis Lloyd would ask of any new player trying to get into his stable was: ''Can he move''? It was an essential item in his book and he wasn't much interested in players who couldn't move well, or worse, were lazy . He was right, of course. A player aiming to be any good needs to move pretty well.

It takes many qualities to become a world-class tennis player but - assuming a player has a reasonable level of ability - I would put two key qualities above all the others: the ability to move fast, and the ability to put mistakes swiftly behind. With these two qualities alone, a player can go a reasonable distance in the game.

Who moves better: Nastase, Mecir, Roger? That would be a pointless argument and rather like splitting hairs in my view. What matters to me is they move just perfectly for tennis. They move the way the ideal tennis player should move...floating, gliding, effortless.

No one would probably credit McEnroe as being in the same tier as Roger, Mecir or Nastase but I can tell you he was pretty damn well quick in his own way.

One thing for sure, with beautiful movement come beautiful strokes, and the two combined equal beautiful tennis.

Dan Maskell once said Nastase had a knack of camping himself in the perfect position at the net, which, coupled with his speed, made him hard to pass. How true.

The first thing you observed about Panatta was he was strong and perfectly built. You wonder why he never had greater success at tennis. One fancies he was sidetracked by his own handsome looks and the lure of the opposite sex. Can't say I blame him.

[stotty]

Nastase at 1:30....catlike...bullet quick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0PwDqMmxCE

[don_budge]

When Tennis was Gorgeous...Ilie Nastase vs. Guillermo Vilas

Here's a pretty good luck of Nastase and Vilas. I think Vilas won this one although you would never know it by watching the bulk of it. It seemed to me Nastase was in "control".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AlKouQzyA4&feature=emb_title

The head to head is telling. One factor is Vilas was six years younger and Nasty sort of faded at a certain point. His antics caught up with him.

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/ilie-nastase-vs-guillermo-vilas/N008/V028

[doctorhl]

I think part of McEnroe’s speed was that he didn’t use up time in bending his knees. But what kind of strokes are required to play “ no knee bend tennis”? Can anyone recall another player who played so upright in their movement?

[doctorhl]

McEnroe’s vertical movement was uncanny with nary a deep knee bend.

[stroke]

I think part of McEnroe’s speed was that he didn’t use up time in bending his knees. But what kind of strokes are required to play “ no knee bend tennis”? Can anyone recall another player who played so upright in their movement?

Fognini and Tomic.