Left-handed and impossible to read. Goran han no other weapons yet look> what he achieved. It was an awesome beast.

Left-handed and impossible to read. Goran han no other weapons yet look> what he achieved. It was an awesome beast.>

Ellsworth Vines is supposed to have the best serve ever.

Left-handed and impossible to read. Goran han no other weapons yet look> what he achieved. It was an awesome beast.

No other weapons? He had great return winners, & smacked lots of> baseline winners. You're clueless.

"Adam Thirnis" <adam.thirnis@gmail­.com> kirjoitti viestissд> news:1112912056.195­368.275740@l41g2000c­wc.googlegroups.com.­..> > He never got to no 1 because of the preponderence of slow surfaces> > which negated his serve - and because he was crazy ­>

The problem was not clay. Early stages of his career he was respectable clay> courter with some titles and 3 QF finishes at FO. What actually did bring> his ranking lower than it probably should have been was the fact that he was> almost always hopeless during summer hardcourt circuit.

Tiger wrote:> > his serve wouldn't be good enough in the 2000s...> >

No other weapons? He had great return winners, & smacked lots of> baseline winners. You're clueless.>

Adam Thirnis wrote:>> Left-handed and impossible to read. Goran han no other weapons yet>look>> what he achieved. It was an awesome beast.

Ivo was very fleet of foot and capable from the ground for a big guy.>He was in Chang's league as a baseliner. Combine that with his serve,>and you have a pretty dangerous player. If he had Chang's mind, it>could have been lights out. I loved that serve too.

Not according to anyone I've ever read or spoken to. He and Tilden had

look>

Ivo was very fleet of foot and capable from the ground for a big guy.> He was in Chang's league as a baseliner. Combine that with his serve,> and you have a pretty dangerous player. If he had Chang's mind, it> could have been lights out. I loved that serve too.>

Whisper wrote:>

look>

Occasional winners but hardly weapons in the same category as his> serve. Goran's greatest strength on his opponent's serve was the> psychological pressure created by the knowledge that unless he was off> you had f-all chance of breaking him.>

Adam Thirnis wrote:>

look>

One question to you? What did Goran achieve with that great serve? I> would say nothing!>

He did not manage to win Wimbledon during Sampras time (Which Stich and> Krajieck succcessful did with better all court games). He never got to> No.1. He won only 22 tourneys for such a long career.>

I would say the best server ever in Open Era was Pete Sampras. He did> not serve 50 aces and 30 double faults like Goran, he served 35 aces> and 5 double faults and that won win a lot of matches.>

Raja wrote:>

Winning W is the pinnacle of tennis achievement so he did pretty well.> Reaching the final is the 2nd best thing you can do and he did that on> 2 other occasions.

If Sampras was a more polished, consistent version of Becker, Goran was an> even more explosive, but wilder version of Becker.>

Goran was incredibly inconsistent and prone to spraying shots everywhere.> His non-serve skills were actually more suited to clay than grass. Clay> settled him down some, and he could be an effective rallier on that surface> on non-flaky days. But on grass it was just grip-it-and-rip-it.­ No skills at> all, save for that unique first serve.>

It was a testament to how far grass skills amongst the men had declined that> he could be so effective at W during the 90s.>

impressive.. NOT...> 30 aces, 20 winners...and 50 unforce errors~~~~> goron was never a good athlete... or at least not a top notch one...>

bg wrote:>

very>

situations>

count>

Do you think Nadal would've returned Sampras' serve as successfully as> he did Federer's. Fed had 10 aces over 5 sets, with a first serve> percentage of 60 %. No way can you compare Fed's serve with Pete's.> Anybody who has played Pete knows what a monster of a serve his is.>

Pete at his peak would've knocked over Nadal in straights.>

So you seriosly think all those 70's guys woulda feasted on Goran on> grass....?

I liked Goran, but he's one of the most overrated players ever. I hate> to say that, but it's true. How many career titles for him? Not as> many for someone who has gotten as much attention and press as he has.

If we gave goran a wood racket, for sure. That would de-fang

I suppose the often mentioned study by Tennis Magazine with Mark> Philippoussis using different sized racquets means nothing to> you.

Already discussed to death. The "study" had neglible validity.

If we gave goran a wood racket, for sure. That would de-fang his serve, and> then my god what would he have left..?>

Fed's serve isn't as powerful. Americans are into power: big trucks,> SUVs, engines with tons of horsepower (Mustangs), etc. That's why> Roddick gets as much attention as he does. People love to see the> radar gun show 140-150 mph on those first serves.>

But because Fed's game & serve isn't as dependent on power, he has a> chance to win the French. ­>

I liked Goran, but he's one of the most overrated players ever. I hate> to say that, but it's true. How many career titles for him? Not as> many for someone who has gotten as much attention and press as he has.>

"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com>­ wrote in message> news:ZNC5e.486$gs4.­187@okepread05...>

Goran on>

his serve, and>

Wrong! Goran would have hit a monster serve regardless of the> racquet. Wood hurts the returner far worse than the server.

"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com>­ wrote in message> news:1UO5e.3346$gs4­.372@okepread05...> > > I suppose the often mentioned study by Tennis Magazine with> Mark> > > Philippoussis using different sized racquets means nothing to> > > you.> >

Say you. Myself and many others in the thread stated that it was> very valid.

Not only he was #2 in Sampras era, but he almost took out Pete @> Wimbledon during Pete's peak years. Wasn't he up 2 sets to 0 at one> point but then choked it away? I don't remember which year that was.>

Say you. Myself and many others in the thread stated that it was> very valid.

Sampras also hit a VERY heavy serve. I remember Vince Spada> after his first match against Sampras, he said something to the> effect of "I didn't know Sampras hit such a heavy serve, it took> me a set to get used to it."

Pat McEnroe ( US Davis cup captain ) has said numerous time on TV (even> during the Pacific Life Open and/Or the Miami Event ) that the returns> possible these days are only due to the racquets and that although the> new racquets help everyone, the returner benefits the most. So, who do> we believe? The US Davis cup captain or a bunch of nobodies on the rst?

A great serve is great with any racket. Ask Flip....

Thing is, a modern racket provides more power, more spin, and better> placement.>

Does goran no good if he can hit a 120 mph with wood but without much spin> and with negligible placement.>

Pat McEnroe ( US Davis cup captain ) has said numerous time on TV (even> during the Pacific Life Open and/Or the Miami Event ) that the returns> possible these days are only due to the racquets and that although the> new racquets help everyone, the returner benefits the most. So, who do> we believe? The US Davis cup captain or a bunch of nobodies on the rst?

It is *not* coincidence that S&V is dead on the women's side, and> rare on the men's. The returner -- the baseliner in general --> has derived the greatest benefit from modern racquets.

Presumably his opponent would also be using wood, thus nullifying any> returning advantage.

Stephen, sorry but with all due respect I'll go with the professionals'> opinion and not yours.

bUT THE RACQUETS DON'T BRING ABOUT UNRETURNABLE SERVES.

No, the game has been raised 4000% in the last 4 years and Goran> wouldn't have stood a chance at today's wimbledon, sure...>

: Goran would have to face far more returns using wood.>

But he would also face much more soft returns which he could> volley away.

"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com>­ kirjoitti viestissд> news­PC6e.11898$gs­4.5428@okepread05...­> > That's why we never heard about big serving being a "problem" in the> 1970s,> > but hear it all the time today.>

Not since mid-90:ies.

"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com>­ kirjoitti viestissГ¤> news­PC6e.11898$gs­4.5428@okepread05...­>

1970s,>

Not since mid-90:ies. Since then average quality of RoS has increased at> tour and balls have been made slower.>

1970:ies in an anomaly. It is the only decade when all the major top players> (Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, Connors, Vilas, Borg, Mac) were 6ft or less.> Co-incident. And that is the decade we remember because it is the most> nostalgic to most of us. 70:ies big servers like Smith, Tanner, Ashe and> also Newcombe could hit 20+ aces / match and did it regular basis (Ashe once> 35 aces in a four setter).>

All other decades there were top players who were 6ft 1"+ and who were great> servers capable to blow opponent off with their first serve. (Tillden,> Vines, Kramer, Gonzales...)>

At early 30:is Wimbledon final: Vines' 30 aces in easy 3 setter Wimbledon> final (12 service games = 2,5aces / service game) is the most common> example...>

.mikko>

StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com>­ wrote:> : No, he'd face fewer ones. The rocket serves of sampras/goran produce

But modern racquet also allows returner to make effective return from> serve which would have been service winner or forced error with wooden> racquet.

Plus, modern racquets give huge advantage to returner if point advances> to playing situation, where server is at the net.

: That's why we never heard about big serving being a "problem" in the

Except you don't.

'Big serving problem' existed in early-mid 90s, after which> it largely went away (only couple of ace machines today in top 20,

Notice how little complaints towards big serving you hear in this group,

Yes, but Jaros needs some way of minimising Sampras

Yes, *if* the returner can get a decent play on the ball, but those>opportunities­ are reduced significantly by the ability to hit big,>well-placed serves.

Remember, the server's advantage has to be magnified, because he gets to hit>the ball first.

Servers are almost never at the net these days, because the serves are so>potent that it just isn't necessary.

You do! Though probably not as much as say 7-8 yrs ago.

Yes, but now just about everyone has a big serve. Serving at 120 is no big>deal anymore. You have to hit it 135+ to have a huge serve.

We also hear people seriously claim that Lendl > Sampras, which one never>hears in real life...

To the extent that the serving isn't quite so much a problem as 5-10 yrs>ago, it's not because of any returner-advantage,­ it's because the tour has>moved away from fast surfaces towards slower ones. Far fewer carpet events,>and more clay events and slow - HC events.

Racket-wise, the server has a huge edge over the returner. It doesn't matter>what kind of racket you return with if you're lunging this way and that>barely trying to get a racket on the ball.

-- >"The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day,>gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing> its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until> all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of> all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"

- Thomas Jefferson

That's exactly right. And its a pity that Stephen still suffers this> massive blind spot in his thinking.

One must remember that many/most players, on returning a hypervleocity> sefve, play this by giving up ground (playing well behind the baseline).> This position surrenders more of the court, both for subsequent play, and> for wide serves.

: Yes, *if* the returner can get a decent play on the ball, but those> : opportunities are reduced significantly by the ability to hit big,> : well-placed serves.>

Again, you are not seeing the big picture here. Sure, it may be that speed> increase caused by modern racquets helps him hit more serves which are

: Remember, the server's advantage has to be magnified, because he gets to

: the ball first.>

This does not compute.

Actually, all reason says that larger sweet spot helps> returner more than server. Size of sweet spot is largely irrelevant on

: Racket-wise, the server has a huge edge over the returner. It doesn't

On the contrary, it has a huge effect. You think that Federer or Hewitt> could get back those lunge returns from 130mph serves with a wooden

...and yet people complain here about bumrooters and claycourts...

Agassi? Hewitt? That's about it. Perhaps Chang and Federer if you want to> stretch the definition a bit?

Any true tennis fan looks forward to W the most of all events, but sadly,>the quality of play and enjoyment of watching W has gone downhill the past>15 yrs due to the huge serving. We no longer get to see the artistry of>great serve-volley play of the laver-mac-edberg kind. It's just>bullet-serving­ for the most part.

: Ok... i see where you're making the error. So let me put it this way:>

: The server gets to hit the ball first, so he gets the advantage first.

: hit his 2nd shot more effectively with his modern racket than he could

Again, this logic is faulty.

If it was true, it would be impossible to win more> than 50% of return points;

: The server gains more, because he goes first in that sequence. He gets

: See?>

This is not true, because returner's '2' is much better than server's '3'.

: > Actually, all reason says that larger sweet spot helps> : > returner more than server. Size of sweet spot is largely irrelevant on> : serves,> : > because server controls position of the ball with extreme accuracy.> : > Large sweet spot may be even detrimental if it comes with cost of

: Don't go there.>

Let's go there.

We've been over that a million times. Just stick to my> : sequence. It explains what we've observed in real life: There's been far> : more "complaints" since the intro of modern rackets about huge serving> : dominating the game, and virtually nothing about huge returning. Is

No, but it is coincidental. There were big servers in the wood era> (Ashe, Tilden, Tanner etc.). There were matches were one player served

: > Again, this logic is faulty.>

: How can that be so? It can't.>

Of course it can. Advantage which returner gets to his own first shot

: > : The server gains more, because he goes first in that sequence. He

: ... but that's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is> : between the returner's 2 and the server's *1*. The pairings are 1-2 ...

See above.

: And all one has to do is watch even little guys like Hewitt and Agassi> : hitting 115-120 mph serves to see what has happened to the server's

See above.

: No, anyone can see that the serving is far huger (pace + placement +

Sure it is. But returning is even more huge.

oh wait a minute...

In short, if the inequity between the quality of the serve and the ability> to effectively return is great enough, there is not true S&V game> developed.

So you think that it would be better to rally with Hewitt?

Yes. It's easy to fall into a sweep game because you, too, have a modern> racquet with which to clobber a returner's weak return. You'll hit that> muthah about 6-10 feet inside the baseline, stepping forward.

Agassi arrived on tour with pretty much the same modern OS graphite> frame he uses now. He was remarkable for his hitting style, ability to> hit on the rise, spin/power combo, and his returns. He was the first> big player to use a full OS frame. His serve was completely> unremarkable despite the big racquet. The improvement in speed and> power of Agassi's serve has come from better strength and technique.

Guys like Sampras> and Ivo have always had the type of technique that would product big> serves, regardless of racquet. They would not need to change a thing> in their serve technique to play with wood, and of course they would> still serve monsters and be the best servers of all time.

I won't believe that until I see you come> around on this topic.

(last year we> saw tape> > of tanner serving to borg at 79 W... his balls were dribbling back to> the> > court wall, pathetic).>

That's stupid--the idea that Tanner couldn't blast a big serve with his> PDP aluminum. I saw it.

There was a time you heard that, and still do occasionaly. Ivo would> have served huge with a wooden spoon.

You always focus only on the racquets. I do think pros in general put> a lot more emphasis on serves than they used to

and the techniques are> clearly better. Imagine what would happen if they didn't?

Oh, Jesus. Borg is an idiot. Mac is

You have shown that you only give credence to isolated quotes that you> think support your fantasy.

: Exactly - huge serving makes that unnecessary. So why do you say "other

: around"..?>

Because you have cause-effect wrong. Players hit more flat serves because> s&v is obsolete. Flat serves did not make s&v obsolete...

: > Admittably not many followers of> : > that practice left. Not that many players hit heavy kick serves

: ? Most 2nd serves are heavy-kick serves.>

Most 2nd serves are not 'heavy'...

Agassi is usually top of the ATP stats list for number of> second serves returned- about 58/59%. Conversely, he is no where to be> seen in the list for first serves returned these days.

: Every player has a big flat serve, and a big kicker. The flat serve is> : usually reserved for going down the "t". And sure there's no reason to

Not true, there has been flat-serving net rushers. It's just less

: No. The only thing that should follow is that serving is much bigger and

: returner has fewer chances to make a dent in the serve. Volleying is a

Again,

this suits your logic 100%.

: In the old days, since serves weren't very big, a server who didn't rush

: net risked having the returner "chip and charge", putting him under the

: who could close to the net first would likely win the point.>

Nonsense. There were big servers in the old days.

But because s&v was more viable> in the old days, more people rather developed their game and serve around

: With today's huge serving, there's little fear that the returner can

And for 3424th time, Jaros' theoretizing fails to meet the real world.> Big servers of the '90s (Golden Era of big serving) WERE net-rushers.> Krajicek, Rusedski, Sampras, Flipper, even Goran always came in behind

: > But it is a long match, and everything counts. Getting the ball over

: net> : > is better than not getting it.>

: Yes, perhaps over 50 points, maybe one extra will be won by the returner> : thanks to a modern-racket-aided­ off-center return that flutters back in.

: compare that to 5-10 extra serve points won thanks to big "unreturnable"> : serves.>

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that servers actually get this extra> advantage. Evidence and reason points to the contrary.

: > : And that explains what we see in reality over the past 20 years -

: serve> : > : dominance.> : >> : > Except of course, that big servers don't dominate...>

: Everyone has a pretty big serve these days. You need one - even> : Hewitt/Agassi types do. Didn't used to be that way under wood...>

Agassi is a big server? I guess that Gaudio, Nalbandian, Coria and> Henman are also 'big servers'...

: > Maybe in some bizarro world.>

: Then the whole tennis community including champs like mac, laver, and

Giving the amount of substances they've enjoyed over the years (or at

: > Of course, you are completely glossing over the fact that average top

: > player of '90s/2000s is both taller and trains more than his '70s> : counterpart...>

: I'm not glossing anything. Athletes are bigger/stronger. No doubt about> : that. That's one reason the game is "bigger" power-wise. But it's no> : surprise that no one uses a wood racket anymore. Those were ditched in

: early 80s.>

Nobody is arguing that wooden racquets are better (except Scarpitti).> This has no relevance to the point.

Serving is huger than ever, and what's remarkable is how everyone> : has a pretty big serve. In the 80s, Becker stood out for a couple of

Except, of course, that there had been plenty of players who could serve> well over 120mph (if measured). Hell, even Mac could serve that.

Where were the big servers in late '80s? After all, they were playing with

: The rackets keep getting better, the serves keep getting bigger. Roddick

: hitting 150 with a 102" racket these days.>

Roddick is pretty much only big server using that large racquet. Agassi is> still playing with his old Prince stick as far as I know. And again,> you can't compare radar readings directly. New radars give extra 10mph,> easily (or more accurately, old radars didn't measure that).

: Returners? They lunge and dive and play the percentages as best they

And yet they dominate the game, not the servers. How come?

: And that's despite all the changes made to slow down the serve, etc.

...which were also peak years for Agassi, Chang, Courier...

: As for the rise in the mid-80s, well it naturally takes time for new> : possibilities to be exploited.>

Why would it? A good server with wooden racquet should obviously> have a huge serve with graphite. An immediate advantage.

: There really isn't any reason to follow a 130 mph t-painter into the

: backstop...>

Yet that's exactly what most of those players tend to do...

: No it doesn't. I just explained what suits my logic. It isn't surprising

: all - in fact it makes sense- that the s/v game has declined with modern> : rackets - huge serving. I know it seems a little paradoxical on the

Your explanation has zero bearing on real world.

: Yes, relative to their own time. But not by today's standards.>

I flat out disagree. Of course, graphite is better than wood even> for server. But ace is an ace pretty much regardless of with what> is has been hit.

: > But because s&v was more viable> : > in the old days, more people rather developed their game and serve

: It was more viable in an era when 3 slams were on grass, and when

: ball).>

Except, of course, that usually that 'good play' return could also> be handled by attacking player.

Each and every expert has quoted modern racquets as biggest reason> for demise of s&v play. Everyone.

: Always? Are you kidding? Those guys played far more of a serve-sweep

'Serve&sweep' as you call it IS s&v game.

: As for the rest of the real world: which one of us is bucking the fact

: returning?>

And more of the real world: complaints about 'big serving' is not a new> phenomenom. First documented complaints date back to 1895! Much> experimenting was done at the old Pro Tour in the '60s to reduce serving> superiority of Pancho Gonzales; second serve abolished, service line moved> back...serving 'problem' has always existed and has really nothing to do> with modern racquets.

: Evidence? We have virtually the whole tennis community complaining about

: serving, nothing about big returning.>

Virtually whole? Oh, you mean such general sports columnists who complain> about 'serve machines like Moya and Costa'...

: > : Everyone has a pretty big serve these days. You need one - even> : > : Hewitt/Agassi types do. Didn't used to be that way under wood...> : >> : > Agassi is a big server? I guess that Gaudio, Nalbandian, Coria and> : > Henman are also 'big servers'...>

: What i meants was that Agassi is a big server compared to wood days.>

Not really,

: Are you contradicting the evidence yet again? In the mid-80s, Mac and

: Hoad said that Becker easily served bigger than anyone else ever had -> : tanner, gonzalez, etc.>

Geez, are you going to bring up that Tanner debate again, despite being> totally embarrassed in it?

: Nope, i explained that. It took a while for guys who had grown up with

So where are the players who became serving giants after they worked out> 'a while' with graphite?>

Oh, nowhere.

: > And yet they dominate the game, not the servers. How come?>

: In Yama-land, perhaps...?>

Lets look at ATP top 10, then, shall we? Oh, I count one predominantly> server, 3 or 4 who are about as good returners and servers and rest> are returners.

: When the first modern rackets came out> : early-mid 80s, they were being used by guys who grew up with wood and

: had played with wood/metal for years and swung the newer rackets and> : strategized with them like they would with wood and primitive metal.

: rackets...>

But Becker had plenty of peers. Why wasn't there an immediate surge of

: Hey, when are you going to get around to explaining why the tennis

: ever complained about huge returning, even today, when you claim huge> : returning is dominating the game?>

There are complaints about huge returning. You have just missed them.

complaining has come since then. As for what happened in pre-historic

I explained above a few days back>

"golden era of 70:ies had shorter top players than any other era"

.. but why were they the best players over taller guys?> Bigger guys just came back mid 80:ies...

Lendl was 6'2" and won in early 80s. He didn't serve nearly as big as

PS - Laver was what, 5'7"..?

.. but why were they the best players over taller guys?>

Perhaps basketball (or other at that time more popular sports) just

I can't believe you're arguing this - Krajicek, Sampras,> Rusedski etc were/are all net-rushers.

: It completely explains the real world. The big servers you call "net> : rushers" have been serve and sweepers, i.e., the rush the net

'Occasionally' as in 'always'.

: > I flat out disagree. Of course, graphite is better than wood even> : > for server. But ace is an ace pretty much regardless of with what> : > is has been hit.>

: Yes, but you can hit aces a lot easier with modern fibres. They provide

: only more pace, but crucially, more control and spin as well. Does no

I agree with this. All ace-per-match records have been set after 1990.

: > Except, of course, that usually that 'good play' return could also> : > be handled by attacking player.>

: Yes, if by "attacking" you mean "net rushing". But taking two steps in

But it was also less likely, because there were fewer killer returns

: Remember, the old serve-volley play was as much defensive as offensive.

: rushed the net after your serve not only because you had a chance to win

: point with a volley, but also because if you didn't rush the net, there

: a good chance the returner would chip or drive your serve and follow his> : return to the net, and then you'd lose. As noted earlier, there was a

And any guess why that is no longer true?

: > Each and every expert has quoted modern racquets as biggest reason> : > for demise of s&v play. Everyone.>

: Name one.>

Jon Wertheim, Mac, Martina Navratilova, BJK...

And then explain why the whole tennis world has talked about the> : "problem" of huge serving for the past 20 years, but nothing ever about

: returning.>

Because not everyone sees it as a 'problem' but as a solution.

: > : Always? Are you kidding? Those guys played far more of a serve-sweep> : style> : > : than pure s/v (mac and edberg, eg).> : >> : > 'Serve&sweep' as you call it IS s&v game.>

: No it isn't. It's hitting the serve (we're talking first serve here)

Except, of course, that that is not how big servers of the '90s played.> They came in and went for a volley as their first in-play shot. Everyone.> If returner managed to hit an exceptionally deep/hard return, they got

: Anyone who has followed tennis for the past 30+ years like myself knows

: complaining has come since then. As for what happened in pre-historic

Why not?

: > Virtually whole? Oh, you mean such general sports columnists who

: LOL. No one complains about huge serving on clay,>

You'd be wrong in this one. Most people who complaint about big serving> are those who don't know difference between clay and carpet.

: > Not really,>

: Really. That 117 mph slap-shot he hits down the "t" would have been> : positively huge in mac/borg/connors days.>

Agassi would not have been clocked that with old radars and old racquets.

: > Geez, are you going to bring up that Tanner debate again, despite

: ROFL! If by "embarrassed" you mean "Jaros totally annihalted Yama et

You mean the thread where you dismissed direct evidence about Tanners'

: > : > And yet they dominate the game, not the servers. How come?> : >> : > : In Yama-land, perhaps...?> : >> : > Lets look at ATP top 10, then, shall we? Oh, I count one predominantly> : > server, 3 or 4 who are about as good returners and servers and rest> : > are returners.>

: Some of the guys in the top 10 are clay courters. And remember, Agassi

: Hewitt types would be big servers 20+ years ago.>

Perhaps in the same sense as Borg was fairly big server at his day. Not

: > But Becker had plenty of peers. Why wasn't there an immediate surge of> : young,> : > big servers then? Yet 'huge serve' era didn't really begin until 1992.>

: Who knows? Might as well ask why there wasn't an immediate deluge of> : Agassi-type returners when oversized rackets appeared in 1978. I never

But there was - it is undeniable that grass/hc/carpet was being

: > There are complaints about huge returning. You have just missed them.>

: Name them then. By all means.>

Ivanisevic and Bjorkman come to mind who have openly complained how hard

There have been several columnists in Tennis Magazine and elsewhere who> have bemoaned death of s&v game. Nobody has cited big serving as> cause for this. Everyone has mentioned modern racquets as one of the> main culprits.

Rusedski classic? Good one. His game is as ugly as his face.

Once> Sampras made the transition to s-v, he came in on everything--first and> second. Don't tell me you missed that.