I was roommates with Daniel Nestor for a few weeks at Harry Hopman/Saddlebrook International Tennis in Florida and I picked up Leander Paes from the airport and strung for both of them and they couldn’t have been more polite and cooler guys.
LMAO - Go Jimmy with those old school strokes, they still work even against modern strokes. And yes yes yes, Courier was being nice with the center shots. More for Jimmy's legs and relaxes though. Connors went 5 sets with a ball bashing crazy Agassi at the US Open, so he can hit.
Jimmy , 110 titles under his belt, played for three decades . He played Laver, Rosewall, Newcomb to Edberg , Becker ,Agassi and Sampras. He is the greatest of all who played on all courts. At the age of 38 he reached US open SF where his compatrot Borg retired.To day's youngsters , i doubt, can they stand , forget about play. This is called ageless wonder .Our fragile young champions learn this how to keep health.Tennis is his breath and blood.
"the greatest of all", that's so funny... How can you even compare a US open semi final at 38 with a grand slam win at 37 (and 19 others) ?? Connors is potentially top 10, but definitely not top 5, there are so many other players who are hugely greater than him, including Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, etc. He's more on par with Agassi/Lendl for somewhere around no.10, than the actual greatest... PS: huge Agassi fan. Makes me sad to rank him 10 but you get points for winning consistently, not for being the most fun to watch...
@@patrickviet6786 its weird because the old school players played in way more tournaments than the guys today do from what it seems. Although Connors does have the most pro tournament wins ever. Not the most majors but the most tournament wins.
The burning of ancient Rome to the ground would not have been so unpleasant if Nero would have played like this. Burn Rome! Burn! AH HA HA HA HA! The evil Nero shall never be forgotten for his cruelty towards his people.
DK Ang--What she does with her feet is fascinating, very rhythmic steps; she plants the back foot at the very last second prior to executing the stroke.
A player in his prime to play a match on any surface with my life on the line? Laver, no question. He won Grand Slams on fast and slow surfaces (Connors never won the French, nor did Sampras nor did McEnroe; Nadal is another matter -- he is obviously a dominant clay-courter and beat the best grass-court player of recent times at Wimbledon, though the Wimbledon grass now is not what it was in Laver's time, or Sampras's) and speaking of never choking! Either Newcombe or Stolle said that when Laver was serving at 5-4 in the fifth, they just went into the locker room and got the beer out. They knew he'd be right in.
+Donald Allen Today's players are far better than the old guard, and it's not just the equipment. Granted skill levels of the best will be comparable across era's, but the sport is far more competitive and the field far deeper, and every aspect of the athlete has to be attended to just to hang in there. Today a top 150 player can beat a top ten player if the top 10 player dips just slightly. I watched Laver as a youngster, remember all those half-volleys well, but really, in all honesty the game is at another level now. To deny this is to cave in to sentimentality. Borg was my hero .... but he would be crushed too. A modern player to play a point for my life? ..... an in-form Nadal. To play a match (best of 5) for my life? .... Djokovic; no one has the defence, flexibility or stamina of this man, not even Nadal. As for skill level, Roger is tough to top, maybe McEnroe? In terms of statesmanship and sportsmanship, well that is a totally different thing, but the old guard never has the commercial and social pressure the modern top player player does. This is what makes Roger so amazing ....
***** He'd struggle! LOL! He was 5ft 8", and by today's standards even the "short" guys are are taller (e.g Hewitt 5 ft 11", Nishikori 5ft 10", Ferrer 5 ft 9") That sort of physicality is unlikely to win slams the modern era. I'm not sure there are any sub 5 ft 10" Grand Slam winners recently? (mens, that is!); they tend to fall by the wayside in the rounds.
***** My point is that Laver wouldn't make it today BECAUSE of his physicality. In his era things were far from optimised like they are now and all sorts of gifted players could make it, including the short ones. However, these days you have to be both gifted and tall to stand a chance, so he would be eliminated on the basis of his physicality. It's the same with a number of sports.
What amazes me is that these players, well out of their prime, still hit the ball with such startling accuracy and clarity of thought. I know a lot of pros who would kill for a percentage of their technical skill.
Absolutely. Proves that good technique and fundamentals never really leave you. It's not unlike riding a bike, as they say. Connors here, for example, still hits the ball with amazing depth and accuracy. Also, the competitive drive to win seems to come back for a lot of players when they come back on the tennis court, especially in the case of people like Connors and McEnroe.
