Andy Roddick.

The Jim Kelley/Fran Tarkenton of tennis.

no shit...

but it doesnt matter how many roger wins..
he cant compete with the ghosts of the tennis tour from the connors, mcenroe days.......

that was when tennis had testosteron...

"he cant compete with the ghosts of the tennis tour from the connors, mcenroe days.......

that was when tennis had testosteron..."

So now we can lump tennis in with the multitude of other subjects that buttlover2 knows absolutely nothing about.

I know quite a bit about it thank you very much.
more than you may know or care to know
I DO KNOW that those days where much better to watch without these 'cookie cutters'

on one note though

womens tennis has gotten much better
the chrissy and martina days were spent with them on the baselines hitting back and forth
now the williams girls ATTACK...and play like men...

AND there are some REALLY hot women players now too....
whew!!!!!!!!!!

the chrissy and martina days were spent with them on the baselines hitting back and forth
now the williams girls ATTACK

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-07-05 04:27 PM |

Dear Santa....

Sincerely, BLT.

that was when tennis had testosteron.

Andy Roddick has the record for the fastest serve in tennis history at 155 mph. Tennis players today are serving -- and returning -- stuff that's considerably faster than what McEnroe and Connors were dealing with in their prime.

Andy Roddick has the record for the fastest serve in tennis history at 155 mph. Tennis players today are serving -- and returning -- stuff that's considerably faster than what McEnroe and Connors were dealing with in their prime.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2009-07-05 04:49 PM |

BLT is just smitten with the shorter shorts they wore back then.

that was when tennis had testosteron. -- BL2

Andy Roddick has the record for the fastest serve... considerably faster than what McEnroe and Connors were dealing with in their prime. -- #6 | Posted by rcade

And OMG how can you watch Nadal and think tennis has lost its testosterone?

Andy Roddick has the record for the fastest serve in tennis history at 155 mph. Tennis players today are serving -- and returning -- stuff that's considerably faster than what McEnroe and Connors were dealing with in their prime.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2009-07-05 04:49 PM |

Yawn. With the advances in the equipment, who gives a rats ass. Just like in baseball, it is not the speed of the pitch, it is the movement on the ball, curving, dropping... With the modern equipment the sweet spots on rackets are about 49 square inches. McEnroe and Connors had rackets with a sweet spot of about 9-12 square inches. Also, if they missed the sweet spot, the ball went no where. With today's rackets, if you can miss hit the ball and still blow it past someone.

A couple of years ago during the US golf open, they had a club professional, about a 2 handicap, try and create a shot Nicholas had hit about 20 years earlier to win a US open. Using the same style club Nicholas used. Not a newer tech club. The guy couldn't hit the 2 iron off the fairway more than 200 yards, it was funny to watch. And showed you how good these guys "used" to be.

I own Andy.

Sincerely,

Bill Kurtis.

I own JerryTarkanian

Sincerely

CalifChris

I own JerryTarkanian

Sincerely

CalifChris

#11 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-07-05 05:50 PM

That reminds me.

Color those roots on the top of your head.

You own no one.

That reminds me.

Color those roots on the top of your head.

You own no one.

Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2009-07-05 05:53

Good thing I at least own a bottle of Clairol.

Roger Federer's last two wins, The French Open an now Wimbledon was clearly won because the Number One player in the World Spain's Nadal, was an still is injured. Nadal has beaten Federer 5 out of the last 6 times they played. Clearly Nadal has past Federer as the Number one in the World. Even though the Tennis World doesn't think so. After all Serena Williams has won the 3 out of the last 4 Grand Slams an still is not number ONE (WTF).

The same thing happened years ago when Monica Seles had clearly past Steffi Graf, only to be stabbed in a Match of which she never truly recovered. Seles had clearly passed Graf yet Graf again became Number One, an won at least 3 Grand Slam titles when Seles was recurpurating....

Maybe an ASTERISK IS NEEDED HERE AS WELL!!!!!!

Yawn. With the advances in the equipment, who gives a rats ass. Just like in baseball, it is not the speed of the pitch, it is the movement on the ball, curving, dropping... With the modern equipment the sweet spots on rackets are about 49 square inches. McEnroe and Connors had rackets with a sweet spot of about 9-12 square inches. Also, if they missed the sweet spot, the ball went no where. With today's rackets, if you can miss hit the ball and still blow it past someone.

Thank you sir for your "uphill in the snow, both ways" post...your contribution is duly noted.

A couple of years ago during the US golf open, they had a club professional, about a 2 handicap, try and create a shot Nicholas had hit about 20 years earlier to win a US open. Using the same style club Nicholas used. Not a newer tech club. The guy couldn't hit the 2 iron off the fairway more than 200 yards, it was funny to watch. And showed you how good these guys "used" to be.

I don't believe your bullshit story for a second...especially since you have no idea how the greatest golfer in history spells his name.

Even with Roddick serving the heat, it was Federer who had 50 aces.

I'm a big Nadal fan, but he wasn't there (no mater the reason) and Federer deserves the top spot. Hopefully Nadal can recuperate the n 1 spot but the odds are against him with the US open coming up and his track record there.

Also, someone mentioned the old days of "attacking" tennis. That wouldn't work against Federer and especially Nadal with those pinpoint down the lane return service strokes. Not even Mac would have success at the net.

Crisis

Even with Roddick serving the heat, it was Federer who had 50 aces. -- #16 | Posted by CrisisStills

That's not the only surprising stat:

Yay for Federer. He is pretty stunning player.

I've actually always felt a little bad for Roddick, if he'd be around in another generation of tennis players, it probably would have been on top. But instead he's in the generation that sees Federer and Nadal.

#14 | Posted by celisary

Nadal is hurt because he overplayed early in the season which is his fault. I mean in sports part of the challenge of being great is keeping yourself healthy and taking care of your body. Nadal overscheduled himself and as a result lost out on a chance at Wimbledon and the French. No asterik necessary.

I don't believe your bullshit story for a second...especially since you have no idea how the greatest golfer in history spells his name.

#15 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-07-06 01:03 AM

Good for you. Now continue to Bukkake yourself.

I don't think anyone will ever mistake Federer for the greatest tennis player regardless of how many titles he wins. He never dominates quarter, semi, or finals matchups. If Roddick possessed a decent return he'd have won yesterday in four sets. Allowing Federer 50 aces is absurd, his serve isn't special. Federer has that low cutting backhand and not much else. He wins by boring his opponent to death.

The Jim Kelley/Fran Tarkenton of tennis

I don't think that is fair. Roddick is an overachiever. His serve is a miracle; a guy that short shouldn't be able to generate that much power with no backswing. He can't return, his back hand is embarrassing (except for yesterday), he is slow, he can't play the net, and he has no touch....yet he remains competitive on heart and hustle alone. Put Federer's natural talent in Andy Roddick and he'd dominate like Pete.

I rarely watch tennis but I saw this one yesterday. I was wondering why Roddick uses two hands on the racket, seems sort of effeminate.

Allowing Federer 50 aces is absurd, his serve isn't special. Federer has that low cutting backhand and not much else. He wins by boring his opponent to death.

LOL! When ESPN ever needs another tennis analyst, I wouldn't hold my breath for a call, R8RH8R.

If, if, if, if, if, if. Indeed.

If I had properly-honed reflexes and muscle memory, and had received the right training, and if a bunch of other factors had predisposed me to being a world-class athlete, I'd have won Wimbledon yesterday! Also, if I had a billion dollars, I'd be rich. Hypotheticals are fun, aren't they?

Federer doesn't have the raw power on his serve that Roddick does, but his control is impeccable! The ad-court slice serve down the middle - what can you do about that?!? I lost count of how many aces he could serve seemingly at will in that situation alone. To top it all off, he is accurate - roughly 2/3 of his first serves are in - and he sets up his points well with them, winning something like 3/4 of points in which his first serve is good. So...Federer's serve isn't special?? I reiterate -- LOL!

...And who cares if he "never dominates" in the final matches of a Grand Slam? They're supposed to be the best matches, not embarrassments. Federer is consistently in the semis and finals, and there are only a few players in the world (Nadal and Djokovic) who are comparable.

In short, people who know what they're talking about would disagree strongly with the assertions made in #20.

-----

I rarely watch tennis but I saw this one yesterday. I was wondering why Roddick uses two hands on the racket, seems sort of effeminate.

Actually, it is Federer's one-handed backhand that is more of the exception than the rule in today's tennis game - although it used to be the opposite.

One- and two-handed backhands each have their advantages and disadvantages. Most notably, you've got to be stronger to use the 1hand, but get more stability by using 2h. Most pros - men and women - use the 2h backhand, and most beginners are taught the 2h currently. Just a matter of playing style - nothing effeminate about it.

Pretty much everyone uses only their dominant hand for the forehand, though. There might be a few exceptions on the pro tour, but generally people don't need the extra strength/stability - esp at the cost of reduced reach - of a 2h forehand.

Great match. The pros of today would destroy the pros of prior generations. They are bigger, hit harder, train harder, etc., than ever before. Yes, they have newer equipment which makes straight-up comparison hard.

Andy put up a great fight. Hopefully, he can keep up his fitness and keep his coach. Fed's a class act and is lucky that Nadal got hurt - otherwise, 15 would have been a lot harder for him to get.

When ESPN ever needs another tennis analyst...

...they'll find some muppet who never, ever, ever criticizes any athlete for anything on the court, because if he wins he must be 'the absolute greatest eva', no debate. You'd fit in, maybe you should apply?

I used "if" a total of one time in my entire post: "If he had a decent return", and it stands undisputed. Name the last opponent Federer beat with 50 aces. Hell, name the last opponent he beat with half that margin!

Roddick's return is awful. I mean really really bad. To give up 50 aces against a guy that doesn't even S/V is embarrassing. He gave the match away. He had Federer broken in the second tiebreaker and then WATCHED three straight aces go by without even moving!

Federer --as usual-- needed every game allowable by rule before breaking the other guy's serve, because he doesn't have the power, the approach shots or the net play to dominate the way the "most crowned champion in tennis history" should. His greatest asset is playing in an era of a mediocre men's game.

The guy is just dull. He is a dull person and his game is as exciting as watching the women's #189 play #273.

In short, people who play tennis and aren't lite-hittin, ball-licking sycophants of the mundane and uninspired want to see dominating play from the men's champion. Federer is a hack, a monument to mediocrity; he is an example of what man can do when the goal is to be slightly more competent than average. He "won" Wimbledon on three straight miss-hits from the shade.

He is like the football manager that beats the other guy with "tactics" because he doesn't have the athletes to win on the merits of play. He is the tennis equivalent of "11 men behind the ball".

You come back when you've won your first grand slam event, you no-nothing moron.

You come back when you've won your first grand slam event

Well by this reasoning you shouldn't say much either. Or do you have some silverware?

no-nothing

LoL

It's "know-nothing", moron.

"The pros of today would destroy the pros of prior generations. They are bigger, hit harder, train harder, etc., than ever before."

Don't agree in the least. Today's players rely on power, are lousy with finesse and most don't even understand the concept of an all-court tactical game. Elsworth Vines, using a wooden racket in the 1930s, hit serves of 120 mph. And was a very good player but not as good as players like Budge and Tilden and Perry. I'd bet he could easily hit 155 with today's rackets. I would bet that Pancho Gonzalez, if he'd used today's racket while he was in his prime, would hit serves faster than Roddick. And he'd mop up all of today's players with the exception of the top 3.

I also disagree with the negative analysis of Federer. He wins because he is, and has been throughout his career, far ahead of his opponents in being able to hit every shot in the book and doing so in a match. And knowing how to play a very good tactical game. Only Andy Murray compares in that respect.

Nadal is very impressive. I'm glad he's learned to hit shots with something other than sheer power. That power has gotten him to the top but is already showing its negative effects in the various injuries he keeps suffering.

The power concept is also why I hate today's women's game. I see more finesse shots in one game played by Federer than in an entire match played by any of the top women. Power followed by screeching is the height of boredom, in my book.

To end, I very much want to congratulate Roddick. He played an amazing match.

The pros of today would...

They'd win some and lose some. The greats, the Sampras, the Lendals, the Agassis, and Tildens, could beat anyone in any era on any court with any equipment. Tennis, maybe more than any other sport, is timeless. However, "Grand Slam Titles" as a measuring stick does have a shelf-life.

Borg won 11 and retired at 26.

Pros today have more opportunity to win grand slams. Their careers begin earlier and run longer. Just 15 years ago if you blew out your knee you were done forever. Now guys are back within the same season after a complete reconstruction. They get scoped once or twice a year and play days later.

I don't know how a heavy-hittin Vines (never heard of him) would play against Aggasi, but I'd like to watch and I bet it'd be competitive. But I think it is ludicrous to think Federer could out "finesse" Emerson, or Sampras, or Edburg. In the men's game you had better have power or be able to handle power. Federer fails on both which explains why Nadal pwns him, he couldn't break Roddick, and I think he is an overrated poser.

"They'd win some and lose some."

Yeah, that's a bit different from "The pros of today would destroy the pros of prior generations", don't you think? Especially when you don't think Federer could beat Emerson or Sampras or Edberg.

"But I think it is ludicrous to think Federer could out "finesse" Emerson, or Sampras, or Edburg."

Why? Kenny Rosewall often "out finessed" Emerson. And Laver and others. Federer defeated Sampras when he was young and Sampras was about to retire. Both have stated that they'd be about equal in their prime. And Sampras didn't become a great player until he learned to hit with finesse and to play a tactical game.

When Pancho Gonzalez turned pro, he was supposedly unbeatable. Too much power. Yet Jack Kramer owned him, because he was so much better tactically, until Pancho learned to play a smart game.

"In the men's game you had better have power or be able to handle power."

Handle power, yes. Federer has won 15 GS titles without an abundance of power, so I can't buy that part. I guarantee you that Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, McEnroe, Connors, etc., none of whom played with an abundance of power, would be ranked above Nadal if they played today.

Sorry but Roddick just looks like he is a major league asshole.

I was hoping he would break his ankle.

What ever happended to Becker?

Roids?

Yeah, that's a bit different from "The pros of today would destroy the pros of prior generations", don't you think?

It isn't just different; it's stupid, which is why I'd never say it. You must be confused?

you don't think Federer could beat Emerson or Sampras or Edberg.

I know he couldn't (sans a meaningless indoor charity game). I'm not saying a finesse game can't win, I'm saying Federer's finesse game wouldn't beat any of those guys in their prime.

I guarantee you that Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, McEnroe, Connors, etc., none of whom played with an abundance of power, would be ranked above Nadal if they played today.

Budge, Gonzo, and Mc all had power in their game, but you are exactly right in that they'd be ahead of Nadal today because like I said, Federer's greatest asset is the mediocre talent presently occupying the men's game.

Handle power, yes.

[citation needed]

"It isn't just different; it's stupid, which is why I'd never say it. You must be confused?"

No, you didn't - Somoco did. I merely started my post with it as a lead in. Sorry I gave the impression that you did.

"I'm saying Federer's finesse game wouldn't beat any of those guys in their prime."

Again, why not? As I mentioned, Kenny Rosewall, who had about a 60 mph first serve, defeated Emerson often. Sampras, along with many analysts, have indicated that they believed it would be an even match between himself and Roger. Edberg, wow, McEnroe defeated him often with a touch game.

I understand you don't think much of Federer. But he has been one of the greats (15 GS's) and is still ranked number one. That, in itself, says very much to counter your opinion. Mediocre opposition - could be. That's been said about Tiger Woods. Don't see many people saying he is overrated.

But what I would always point to is Roger's great command of every shot in the book, to his very accurate placement and to his outstanding tactical sense on the court. From personal observation (since Laver's time) I'd say he ranks with the very best in all of these categories.

Sampras, along with many analysts, have indicated that they believed it would be an even match between himself and Roger.

Pete has always been too modest ;)

Analysts have no more information than you and I. We all have eyes. Their job is to make a match intresting when the competitors don't live up to billing. I expect them to inflate the greatness of the guy they have vs the guy that is retired.

But what do you think! Do you think Federer would take Sampras in his prime?

"Do you think Federer would take Sampras in his prime?"

It would be even and fascinating. Undoubtedly great as a tour like the pros had before 1970.

"Analysts have no more information than you and I."

The good analysts have seen way more matches than you or me. They have also learned to see nuances in matches and players and to evaluate them properly. Somebody like Bud Collins or Jack Kramer (or Bill James in baseball) is way more of an expert on tennis than you and I combined and raised to a power. I have little respect, even disdain, for many so-called experts, but that is the issue. One has to learn who the real ones are. And, for those, I have a great deal of respect.

Tennis is one of those rare sports where I find women able to provide a more interesting match than men (volleyball being another, and for the same reason).

Men's tennis has become all about the serve - power. Women's tennis has longer volleys and is generally more fun to watch. One of the best tennis matches I've ever seen was Serena Williams vs. that Russian chick (her last name was longer than, and had more consanants than an Arab name) in the semi-finals. Aces were few and far between - the volleys were tremendous, and the margin-of-error was extremely slim. It was a great match that went down to the wire.

Here's what JeffJ was really trying to convey:

The ad-court slice serve down the middle - what can you do about that?!? I lost count of how many aces he could serve seemingly at will in that situation alone... -- #22 | Posted by Zarathustra

I was tuning in and out of Wimbledon and so may misremember this, but I believe McEnroe was explaining that Federer's serve is deadly because he gets almost twice as much spin on his serve than most other players.