Various Topics on Tennis

..a.. ..ntai..

A lot of posts lately about who's the best, who is tier 1, what slams
are more prestigeous.

Let's talk about the most complete player in history. An argument
could be made for Andre, who has captured a slam in 4 different turfs,
and has been to the semi's or finals of each +4 times.

Is Andre the complete package, or is his lack of volleying skills
proof that he is not.

..i..

> A lot of posts lately about who's the best, who is tier 1, what slams
> are more prestigeous.
>
> Let's talk about the most complete player in history. An argument
> could be made for Andre, who has captured a slam in 4 different turfs,
> and has been to the semi's or finals of each +4 times.
>
> Is Andre the complete package, or is his lack of volleying skills
> proof that he is not.

Winning all 4 slams doesn't make him a complete package. In fact, he is
lacking in quite a few areas.

- He has an effective, but hardly earth-shattering serve.

- His defensive skills aren't too great. He really needs to dictate from the
first shot, which is why his returns have been so crucial to his success
over the years, and could be the biggest factor in his current semi-slump.
That's not to say he can't turn defence to attack, but he is very easily
wrong-footed or caught off balance, compared to a Coria or Federer.

- His slice isn't much better than his volleys.

What winning all 4 slams *does* say about him, as how well he has managed to
maximize his potential and squeeze every drop of goodness out of his game.

If you are a so-called complete player, it can actually be a distraction.
When Ag***i finds himself in a given situation, he might have 2 or 3 options
where a Federer, Sampras, Stich or Becker would have 5 or more, so Ag***i
spends less time "computing" those options and just focuses on playing his
shots as well as he possibly can.

I remember one shot that set Ag***i and Sampras apart from the rest of the
field in the mid/late 90s, and it was the running cross-court forehand. Very
often it was extremely obvious that it was coming, and most players still
found themselves beaten by it, even when they were in position, particularly
Sampras' version, but Ag***i's was a close second, and that's what it's all
about; it's not necessarily about hitting the right shot, it's about hitting
your shot right. Every point you can think of has counter-option, so to
speak, but if you play the point better than your opponent, chances are you
are going to win it. You can of course pick the completely wrong shot to
hit, and this theory falls apart, but on average I think that theory holds
up, and that is very much the key to Ag***i's game. He basically plays a
very economical game, but it's far from a complete game.

So who is the most complete player in history? I would certainly say Federer
is in the top 5, maybe even at the very top. He still has something to
prove, but he is getting there, and he can just about hit any shot you can
think of from anywhere on the court. Sampras is up there too, but his
backhand was very suspect.

..ephe..

> What winning all 4 slams *does* say about him, as how well he has managed
to
> maximize his potential and squeeze every drop of goodness out of his game.

Not a bad analysis overall, but this part merits critical comment. Of all
the champs of the open era, Ag***i actually failed to maximize his potential
by the greatest margin. His peak physical years were 1990-1999, yet of those
10 years, he was only fully dedicated to tennis for perhaps a little more
than 2 of them (mid - 94 through mid - 95, and then late 1998- through the
end of 1999). And it showed - he only won slams in 1992, 1994, 1995, and
1999. He went 6 years of the 1990s with zero slam titles.

Had Ag***i applied himself fully to tennis like all the other top champs -
Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Connors, etc. did, he'd probably have won an
additional 6 or so slams, say 3-4 more AO's, and one more USO and FO (very
probable), and even possibly another W.

Ag***i probably left more slams on the table than anyone else in the open
era, even arguably more than Borg. Still, despite that, he's the only guy to
win any kind of GS in the past 35 years, and he's the open-era AO champion.

A tier-one resume in essentially 1/3 of a peak-career. Amazing, yet also sad
that God didn't give him the discipline to go with the awesome sheer
talent...


--
the mainstreaming of deviance must
come to an end.

-Senator Robert Dole

..i..

"StephenJ" <SJirt@sestSJJj.ttcom> wrote in message
news:RYGLc.6411$fB4.5524@lakeread01...
> > What winning all 4 slams *does* say about him, as how well he has
managed
> to
> > maximize his potential and squeeze every drop of goodness out of his
game.
>
> Not a bad analysis overall, but this part merits critical comment. Of all
> the champs of the open era, Ag***i actually failed to maximize his
potential
> by the greatest margin. His peak physical years were 1990-1999, yet of
those
> 10 years, he was only fully dedicated to tennis for perhaps a little more
> than 2 of them (mid - 94 through mid - 95, and then late 1998- through the
> end of 1999). And it showed - he only won slams in 1992, 1994, 1995, and
> 1999. He went 6 years of the 1990s with zero slam titles.
>
> Had Ag***i applied himself fully to tennis like all the other top champs -
> Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Connors, etc. did, he'd probably have won
an
> additional 6 or so slams, say 3-4 more AO's, and one more USO and FO (very
> probable), and even possibly another W.
>
> Ag***i probably left more slams on the table than anyone else in the open
> era, even arguably more than Borg. Still, despite that, he's the only guy
to
> win any kind of GS in the past 35 years, and he's the open-era AO
champion.
>
> A tier-one resume in essentially 1/3 of a peak-career. Amazing, yet also
sad
> that God didn't give him the discipline to go with the awesome sheer
> talent...

You are absolutely right. His occasional lack of mental discipline is
another thing that's keeping him from being considered a complete player.
Just look at the Clinton incident at the FO a few years ago. That would
never have happened to Sampras. That said, he did still have a remarkable
career, and during his peaks, it was his economical game that made the
difference between the new improved Zen-Ag***i and the Neon-Attack-Ag***i
from the late 80s/early 90s. At the same time, the fact that he wasn't just
a "robot" like Sampras was what made him so interesting to watch. You just
never knew what you were going to get, but when you got the good stuff, it
was fantastic, even if he couldn't volley to save his life.

..aj7dmi..

Nobody'll remember AA five years after he's retired--and rightfully so.

Laver was the most complete tennis player in history. Navratilova's close
behind.

LNC

.... ..m..

Federer is showing to be the most complete player. take this years
Wimbledon final. Rod**** was throwing bombs left and right pretty much
thru the
whole match. and Federer had little to no sweat on his shirt during. or
after the match. Rod****s shirt was soaking wet. LOL-

..d.. ..

"cmaj7dmin7" <reilloc@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eaHLc.17878$Vg3.13624@newssvr23.news.prodigy. com...
> Nobody'll remember AA five years after he's retired--and rightfully so.
>
> Laver was the most complete tennis player in history. Navratilova's close
> behind.
>
Laver quite possibly, although if you keep going back there are a number of
worthy candidates, like Gonzales. And I do like Federer's game, although at
this point it seems odd to link him to these names. Maybe someday.

Navratilova, though, couldn't really hack it off the ground. Greatest ever,
possibly, although Graf is my choice. But not most complete.

....

"StephenJ" <SJirt@sestSJJj.ttcom> wrote in message
news:RYGLc.6411$fB4.5524@lakeread01...
> > What winning all 4 slams *does* say about him, as how well he has
managed
> to
> > maximize his potential and squeeze every drop of goodness out of his
game.
>
> Not a bad analysis overall, but this part merits critical comment. Of all
> the champs of the open era, Ag***i actually failed to maximize his
potential
> by the greatest margin. His peak physical years were 1990-1999, yet of
those
> 10 years, he was only fully dedicated to tennis for perhaps a little more
> than 2 of them (mid - 94 through mid - 95, and then late 1998- through the
> end of 1999). And it showed - he only won slams in 1992, 1994, 1995, and
> 1999. He went 6 years of the 1990s with zero slam titles.

This is a pro ag***i analysis. In between 1990 to even 1992 the year Ag***i
won
Wimbledon he simply wasn't consistantly good enough to challenge for the
slams.
At that time Becker and Edberg were at the peak of their career they were
simply
better players than Ag***i. Compare with Becker and Edberg, Ag***i's tennis
at
time was not as fine tuned or as a good percentage players as he was later
in
his career after 94. With Nick as his coach tennis wise he was not heading
the right
direction he was merely a great hitter of the ball much less of a great
player who know
how to win the important points. This is well demonstrated in his two
successive losses
at FO in 90 to Gomez and 91 to Courier. He barely won Wimbledon against
Goran
Ivanisevic. It was Brad Gilbert who did the magic for Ag***i in 94 that
turned his
career around.


>
> Had Ag***i applied himself fully to tennis like all the other top champs -
> Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Connors, etc. did, he'd probably have won
an
> additional 6 or so slams, say 3-4 more AO's, and one more USO and FO (very
> probable), and even possibly another W.

That is debatable, because of the players you mentioned Becker, Edberg,
Sampras,
and Lendl went through their whole career fully dedicated to tennis but
their peak
years effectively ran out before they were 30. Ag***i on the other hand drop
off on
two occ***ion in 93-94 and then 96-97 it in fact help him to prolong his
career and
he was still very competitive because physically and mentally he had 4
years off ,
he was fresher both physically and mentally than the other pros who were at
his age,
only in the last two years he is really started to show his true age.
Certainly if Ag***i
has been able to applied himself fully to tennis he would have won more slam
during
93-94 and 96-97 but then again he will probably have a much shorter career.

>
> Ag***i probably left more slams on the table than anyone else in the open
> era, even arguably more than Borg. Still, despite that, he's the only guy
to
> win any kind of GS in the past 35 years, and he's the open-era AO
champion.
>
> A tier-one resume in essentially 1/3 of a peak-career. Amazing, yet also
sad
> that God didn't give him the discipline to go with the awesome sheer
> talent...
>
>
> --
> the mainstreaming of deviance must
> come to an end.
>
> -Senator Robert Dole
>
>

..rd.. ..mer..

Frank Fontaine <tennisfan@mail.com> wrote in message news:<6sauf05jkq8veqk5kevmdvkos83bhe9qs2@4ax.com>. ..
> A lot of posts lately about who's the best, who is tier 1, what slams
> are more prestigeous.
>
> Let's talk about the most complete player in history. An argument
> could be made for Andre, who has captured a slam in 4 different turfs,
> and has been to the semi's or finals of each +4 times.
>
> Is Andre the complete package, or is his lack of volleying skills
> proof that he is not.

In terms of being able to win a slam on 4 surfaces (concrete, rebound
ace, red clay, & gr***), he's the only guy who has ever done it, so in
that sense I guess he is the most "complete." But it very much
depends on how you define that term "complete."

Lack of volleying skills show he does not have as well rounded a game
(in terms of variety of shot) as a Pete, a Federer, a Laver, etc. But
on the other hand, tennis doesn't award style points, results are what
matter, yada yada.

.... ..tt..

> Is Andre the complete package, or is his lack of volleying skills
> proof that he is not.


Andre developed good volleys towards the end of his career.