- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,335
- Points
- 113
You ever had some controversial tennis opinions that you're too hesitant to share due to the potential reactions of fellow forum posters? Well, channel your inner Cali, and spill them out. They could be anything from certain aspects of a player's game, your thoughts on a surface, a tournament, commentators, etc...
I'll get the ball rolling. Be warned, this is going to be juicy:
1) Rafael Nadal's volleys are overrated:
Yes, we all hear it every single time he makes a volley: He's such an underrated volleyer! Maybe...6 years ago. At this point, they're more overrated than underrated. This is in large part due to the fact that when he first hit the scene, Nadal's volleys were non existent and he was way too hesitant to attack the net. As he's improved, he's admirably grown more confident, and has show a very good touch around the net. Deservedly, he's gotten props for these improvements...except he continues to get props for improvements he stopped making 6 years ago. Nadal's volleys now are exactly the same as they were 4 years ago. Yet if everyone is to be believed, they've exponentially continued to improve with each year. The truth is, he's got some very good drop volleys, a rock solid overhead, deals with high volleys quite well, and has good anticipation. However, he is occasionally heavy handed (some of his drop volleys end up being easy put aways for the opponent) and his punch volleys are non existent. Furthermore, anything less than a perfect approach makes him quite vulnerable.
2) Roger Federer's rally forehand from his actual forehand side is a touch overrated, even in his prime:
In his prime, Roger's forehand was unplayable. It is the single greatest shot in the history of tennis. When he ran around his backhand, the point was over. There really was a time when giving him a forehand was as good as giving up the point. However, even back then, his rally forehand in the neutral game wasn't quite as devastating as labelled (that's to say, it was still one of the best on tour, but perhaps a touch overstated).
3) Novak Djokovic has been a better defender than Rafael Nadal for about 4 years now.
Sorry, but someone had to say it. I know this is a big no-no because Nadal is the de facto best defender on tour, and for the longest time, he was. On clay, he still was, at least as recently as 2013 (not sure about last year and the jury is out on this year). But on hard courts and especially, grass, I don't even think there's much of a debate. It's not just about getting to balls, but the sort of deep replies Djokovic hits at full stretch from obscene positions is uncanny. Nadal is the best defender in tennis history, but this isn't 2007 anymore.
4) Every single tennis "legend" is an awful, awful commentator.
I'm not just talking about bias, annoying commentary habits, or what have you. I am talking about the level of analysis. It's funny because we give them so many passes for saying stupid things because we've grown numb to it by now, but I swear you find a better level of tennis analysis on these forums, and I'm not even joking. Think about it, nobody on these forums would get away with the flip flopping, the ridiculous claims, or the dubious belief that "moving forward" "mixing things up" and "attacking the net" is always the de facto solution for any player ever. I mean, I was watching Dudi Sela getting pushed miles behind the baseline by Nadal and the advice was to "move forward"... Ummm...Any idea how can you do that when the other guy is bossing you around, Mats? Do you hit a defensive lob and rush the net? Because something tells me that's a bad idea.
There are actually good commentators. Goodall and to a lesser extent Koenig are fine (their analysis, while somewhat basic, is usually spot on. If they tone down the redundancy they'd be awesome) and Frew McMillan is easily the best in the business. The American commentating crew makes my ears bleed, and that includes Gilbert and co... Cahill is acceptable (I know he's Australian) and Mac is a disgrace.
5) Baseline tennis > S & V.
Clamoring for the return of serve and volley is the cool and hip thing to say. While most of us would love to see more variety, and players who attack the net are a refreshing and welcomed sight in today's tennis (at least those who do it well), deep down inside, nobody wants to see an all out return to the S and V days but they just won't admit it. What we really mean when we talk about S & V in today's game is someone who can do it well occasionally, and knows how to attack the net after setting it up from the baseline (think Federer, Tsonga, or Dimitrov), but NOT someone who plays a pure S & V game (unless you're enjoying this Muller-Djokovic match. In which case, more power to you).
Bonus controversy:
Much of the talk about the disdain re: baseline tennis and surface homogenization stems from people who aren't fans of Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. Because I've never seen many complain about watching Del Potro play, for some reason (if I've missed his Edberg-esque prowess around the net, excuse my ignorance).
PS: The above was brought to you due to desperate attempts to keep myself from falling asleep, in spite of Gilles Muller's best attempts.
PPS: Do not hesitate to state your opinions, however controversial they are. The rules are that while your opinions can be challenged, it can only be done briefly, as the purpose of this thread is to be able to get away with outrageous claims (as long as you honestly believe them) or things that go against the general consensus. It's all in fun so lighten up.
I'll get the ball rolling. Be warned, this is going to be juicy:
1) Rafael Nadal's volleys are overrated:
Yes, we all hear it every single time he makes a volley: He's such an underrated volleyer! Maybe...6 years ago. At this point, they're more overrated than underrated. This is in large part due to the fact that when he first hit the scene, Nadal's volleys were non existent and he was way too hesitant to attack the net. As he's improved, he's admirably grown more confident, and has show a very good touch around the net. Deservedly, he's gotten props for these improvements...except he continues to get props for improvements he stopped making 6 years ago. Nadal's volleys now are exactly the same as they were 4 years ago. Yet if everyone is to be believed, they've exponentially continued to improve with each year. The truth is, he's got some very good drop volleys, a rock solid overhead, deals with high volleys quite well, and has good anticipation. However, he is occasionally heavy handed (some of his drop volleys end up being easy put aways for the opponent) and his punch volleys are non existent. Furthermore, anything less than a perfect approach makes him quite vulnerable.
2) Roger Federer's rally forehand from his actual forehand side is a touch overrated, even in his prime:
In his prime, Roger's forehand was unplayable. It is the single greatest shot in the history of tennis. When he ran around his backhand, the point was over. There really was a time when giving him a forehand was as good as giving up the point. However, even back then, his rally forehand in the neutral game wasn't quite as devastating as labelled (that's to say, it was still one of the best on tour, but perhaps a touch overstated).
3) Novak Djokovic has been a better defender than Rafael Nadal for about 4 years now.
Sorry, but someone had to say it. I know this is a big no-no because Nadal is the de facto best defender on tour, and for the longest time, he was. On clay, he still was, at least as recently as 2013 (not sure about last year and the jury is out on this year). But on hard courts and especially, grass, I don't even think there's much of a debate. It's not just about getting to balls, but the sort of deep replies Djokovic hits at full stretch from obscene positions is uncanny. Nadal is the best defender in tennis history, but this isn't 2007 anymore.
4) Every single tennis "legend" is an awful, awful commentator.
I'm not just talking about bias, annoying commentary habits, or what have you. I am talking about the level of analysis. It's funny because we give them so many passes for saying stupid things because we've grown numb to it by now, but I swear you find a better level of tennis analysis on these forums, and I'm not even joking. Think about it, nobody on these forums would get away with the flip flopping, the ridiculous claims, or the dubious belief that "moving forward" "mixing things up" and "attacking the net" is always the de facto solution for any player ever. I mean, I was watching Dudi Sela getting pushed miles behind the baseline by Nadal and the advice was to "move forward"... Ummm...Any idea how can you do that when the other guy is bossing you around, Mats? Do you hit a defensive lob and rush the net? Because something tells me that's a bad idea.
There are actually good commentators. Goodall and to a lesser extent Koenig are fine (their analysis, while somewhat basic, is usually spot on. If they tone down the redundancy they'd be awesome) and Frew McMillan is easily the best in the business. The American commentating crew makes my ears bleed, and that includes Gilbert and co... Cahill is acceptable (I know he's Australian) and Mac is a disgrace.
5) Baseline tennis > S & V.
Clamoring for the return of serve and volley is the cool and hip thing to say. While most of us would love to see more variety, and players who attack the net are a refreshing and welcomed sight in today's tennis (at least those who do it well), deep down inside, nobody wants to see an all out return to the S and V days but they just won't admit it. What we really mean when we talk about S & V in today's game is someone who can do it well occasionally, and knows how to attack the net after setting it up from the baseline (think Federer, Tsonga, or Dimitrov), but NOT someone who plays a pure S & V game (unless you're enjoying this Muller-Djokovic match. In which case, more power to you).
Bonus controversy:
Much of the talk about the disdain re: baseline tennis and surface homogenization stems from people who aren't fans of Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. Because I've never seen many complain about watching Del Potro play, for some reason (if I've missed his Edberg-esque prowess around the net, excuse my ignorance).
PS: The above was brought to you due to desperate attempts to keep myself from falling asleep, in spite of Gilles Muller's best attempts.
PPS: Do not hesitate to state your opinions, however controversial they are. The rules are that while your opinions can be challenged, it can only be done briefly, as the purpose of this thread is to be able to get away with outrageous claims (as long as you honestly believe them) or things that go against the general consensus. It's all in fun so lighten up.
uzzled :cover :nono 
