PDA

View Full Version : 155



Sebastien447
09-24-2004, 08:02 AM
andy broke his own record again. its now155.

STOP THE MADNESS! I'd love to see how good these guys would be with wood. It would be so much more interesting to watch. I miss the tennis of yesteryear. Points were constructed, not blasted. Tennis was cerebral ... force was a factor but power didn't consume the sport.

Sebastien447
09-24-2004, 08:43 AM
STOP THE MADNESS!!!

*breathes deep*

much better now, thanks Bets

but if you think tennis will ever go back to anything other than ball-bashing tennis, with these "racket" shoulder cannons, then you're just ... tennis is just ...

STOP THE MADNESS!!!

*breathes deep*

Sebastien447
09-24-2004, 09:13 AM
During Federer's appearance on John McEnroe's show, McEnroe asked him if he thought something should be done about all the ball bashing in tennis. McEnroe referred to the Roddick/Johansson match as an example of such a ball bashing event and asked Roger if he thought the ball bashers were destroying game. [Seemed like a silly question to be asking an all-court player who is dominating the game.] Roger's reply was that he thought people were looking at the game the wrong way. Roger said that of the current top 10, 6 or so were baseliners, one was a s/v player (Henman), one was an all-court player (himself) and one had a huge serve (Roddick). Federer explained that there were about 10 guys in the top 100 with huge serves and that their mix in the field was great for tennis. Sounds reasonable to me. I believe McEnroe has been harping on changing racket technology to make the game more interesting (i.e., slowing it down). Let's see what he has to say after his discussion with Federer.

I missed Fed on the Mac show?!!! Good God I'm lost! ... I actually watch his gig on a regular basis (it's not half bad)

Fed's such a nice guy ... and he had his typical nice guy answer. But Mac probably chuckled inside as Roger only managed to address the serve.

"Ball-bashing" is not only a phenomenon on serve. It encompases every shot in tennis ... with the possible exception of the volley.

Didn't Mac push the question at all? ... I'm so pissed I missed that! But I would have been more pissed had I seen the thing and Mac just let the nice guy answer die in the wind!

any idea where to get the transcript?

Kirkus
09-24-2004, 02:32 PM
I'm officially nominating Sebastien to the Tennis Whiners Hall of Fame. ::)

It's evolution, my friend. Everything changes. Follow me into a very transcendental state of thought....

By the time you and I are worm food, tennis serves will be assisted by RPGs. "Serve and Volley" will be thought of in the same way we now think of women playing in ankle length dresses. The reason? Tennis fans will have evolved to pay for such sport. If you set them in front of the sport that we know and love, they would soon be doddling off, falling out of their stadium seats and rolling down the concrete stairs into the player's boxes below.

catz33
09-24-2004, 03:22 PM
Roddick stated that he didn't think the machine was set right....Here or at the Open, guess he hasn't been able to duplicate the serves in practice and is still around 142-145 for his fastest serves.

They basically told him...his fastest serve was 155. He just shrugged.

Sebastien447
09-25-2004, 01:36 AM
I'm officially nominating Sebastien to the Tennis Whiners Hall of Fame. ::)



Well, I'm finally closing in on being the best at SOMETHING anyway! :P

It's just my opinion guys ... I do believe tennis would be much more interesting if we went back to wood. I grew up when everybody used wood (except for Connors, with that horrible steel thing) and it was a different game back then. I know we're never going to see the return of such tennis, but I miss the art of that tennis nonetheless.

There will never be another Goolagong. I know it's a cliché, but she truly was poetry in motion. If I could just show you a tape of her playing, it was so incredibly beautiful to watch. But today that type of play would be eaten alive by players like the WS. I respect today's players, but the tennis is oftentimes just ugly to watch. I think we've almost completely lost the beauty in the sport and I think it's sad. If we could somehow just turn it back the other way, if only just a little bit ... but it seems quite the opposite is happening.

And the only "chess match" type tennis that I see being played today is on red clay. All other surfaces are dominated by power mongers ... regardless of their style of play. I'm afraid the future of true tennis belongs to RG and a handfull of other red clay tournaments.

And yes ... I AM an OLD FART!

Sebastien447
09-25-2004, 04:50 AM
there is one exception roger. he is beautiful to watch on any surface

Agreed.

Sebastien447
09-25-2004, 05:34 AM
wha?? oh sure, sure ... I complain and I'm labeled a "whiner"

wroad complains and receives accolades

I see how it works around here ...



*in my best Rodney*

No respect I tell ya, no respect!

Kirkus
09-26-2004, 03:10 AM
Kirkus -

Your prediction of the future of tennis is nearly as dreary as Seb's is whiny for bringing back wooden rackets.

Don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with Seberidoodle. However, I think what I stated earlier is true. It's a natural progression. Societies are always seeking "Faster, Harder, Higher" in all sports. The XGames are a perfect example. That's what I think future spectators/athletes are going to be.

If your right about Roddick being the first ball-bashing #1, that kinda adds support to my theory. So many decades of professional tennis and each one saw the ball being hit harder and faster. Now, in 2003, the first year-end #1 is a BB. 10 or 20 years from now there will be many more in the top ranks.

Look at the greats of the past. Navratilova's serve during her hayday wouldn't touch the WS serve of today. Chrissy E's ball was so slow any woman in the top 500 today could get to it and have time for tea before getting it back over the net.

Again, I think it's a natural evolution.

Sebastien447
10-01-2004, 08:36 AM
As for Roddick's new record.....I just don't get what he's after. Is his goal to manage to serve every serve in the 150's some day? Otherwise what difference does it make if he serves an occassional ball so fast that it can't be returned? What is important is how the majority of the serves are. It's hard to believe that gonig for the high speeds like that all the time will not end his career early.

Andy's a speed freak ... he get's off on power tennis.

And he certainly is entering into uncharted territory on serve, isn't he?