PDA

View Full Version : Lendl vs. Becker - 1991 Australian Open final


Pages : [1] 2 3

BreakPoint
01-05-2008, 11:30 AM
Now that's what I'm talking about!!! :grin:

I just watched the replay of the '91 Australian Open final between Lendl and Becker and it was so refreshing watching these two guys play as compared to most of the pros playing today. This is when real men played tennis - two warriors using the entire court and variety of shots. No grunting, no shrieking, no capri pants, no sleeveless shirts, no extreme topspin-only, no baseline bashing-only, no two-handed backhands, no western grips, etc. This was about big serves, all-court play, ripping one-handed backhands crosscourt and down-the-line, chipping and slicing backhands when needed, serve and volleying to mix things up, using all angles of the court, hitting the ball precisely into the baseline corners, hitting mostly flat, attacking the net, hitting great approach shots, chipping and charging, wearing real shorts and not "longs", polo shirts with collars, heavy midsize racquets (was Lendl's under 80 sq. in.?), no light midplus nor oversized racquets, etc.

This was so much more enjoyable to watch than most of today's pros, with the exception of Federer.

Man, I wish tennis could be like that again! :|

TonyB
01-05-2008, 11:53 AM
Yup, awesome match.

I already posted about this one here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173173

CEvertFan
01-05-2008, 07:03 PM
I miss those days too. The days when tennis wasn't all about hitting the ball as hard as you possibly can, but using your brain and strategy as well as power. I too also prefer the one handed backhand (I use a one handed backhand when I play) as opposed to the two hander. Also I agree that those capri shorts have to go and they should be banned immediately. Maybe if _____ wore normal shorts he wouldn't then have to constantly pull his underwear out of his ***.

That match was a great clash between Lendl and Becker and Lendl was always one of my favorite players going back to when I first got into tennis in the 80s. Powerful forehand, very good serve, and a great one handed backhand especially down the line and he hit the ball that hard with such a small headed, very tightly strung racket.

ericsson
01-06-2008, 02:30 AM
I agree BP, that kind of tennis is the most enjoyable to watch, to me Federer belongs in that era, not now...

FedForGOAT
01-06-2008, 01:14 PM
Now that's what I'm talking about!!! :grin:

I just watched the replay of the '91 Australian Open final between Lendl and Becker and it was so refreshing watching these two guys play as compared to most of the pros playing today. This is when real men played tennis - two warriors using the entire court and variety of shots. No grunting, no shrieking, no capri pants, no sleeveless shirts, no extreme topspin-only, no baseline bashing-only, no two-handed backhands, no western grips, etc. This was about big serves, all-court play, ripping one-handed backhands crosscourt and down-the-line, chipping and slicing backhands when needed, serve and volleying to mix things up, using all angles of the court, hitting the ball precisely into the baseline corners, hitting mostly flat, attacking the net, hitting great approach shots, chipping and charging, wearing real shorts and not "longs", polo shirts with collars, heavy midsize racquets (was Lendl's under 80 sq. in.?), no light midplus nor oversized racquets, etc.

This was so much more enjoyable to watch than most of today's pros, with the exception of Federer.

Man, I wish tennis could be like that again! :|

I cannot agree that Lendl hit mostly flat.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-06-2008, 02:25 PM
What a great match! I remember it so clearly from all those years ago because Becker got SPANKED in the first set but remained composed and came back for a tough four set win. All court tennis is so much more entertaining. CC

BreakPoint
01-06-2008, 02:27 PM
I cannot agree that Lendl hit mostly flat.
Compared to Nadal or Roddick, he did.

BTW, there is no such thing as a completely flat shot. "Flat" in tennis means no loppy topspin. Watch Lendl hit his backhand and forehand, they are flatter than most pros hit them today, more like Blake's. Were you playing or watching tennis during Lendl's entire career?

I recall watching Lendl play Vince Van Patten in the 1st round on an outside court at the 1979 US Open. Lendl hit a lob that went over the back fence. I thought to myself - "Geez, this guy will never make it as a pro". Boy, am I glad I didn't place a bet on that! :wink: :lol: LOL

Richie Rich
01-06-2008, 02:41 PM
i bet lendl and becker would still hit a heavier ball than most of the pros today.

Sixpointone
01-06-2008, 03:06 PM
I recall watching the Finals back when it actually happened and truly enjoyed the replay. It is one of the reasons that I enjoy the Tennis Channel.

BreakPoint
01-06-2008, 03:20 PM
i bet lendl and becker would still hit a heavier ball than most of the pros today.
I agree. Those heavy racquets produced heavy balls. You really can't compensate for weight.

35ft6
01-06-2008, 03:27 PM
I miss those days too. The days when tennis wasn't all about hitting the ball as hard as you possibly can, but using your brain and strategy as well as power.Lendl and Becker used to be criticized for this, for mindlessly bashing. Lendl was often compared to a robot.

scotus
01-06-2008, 03:32 PM
Does anyone know why Becker rushed off the court after the match and could not even make a proper winner's speech?

ollinger
01-06-2008, 04:33 PM
Interesting match to watch -- I was awed by the way Becker absolutely knifed his volleys and played on the edge, seeming to love going for the bold shot. I recall that Tiriac once chastised him for not playing more sensibly; Becker complained that he liked to have fun out there.

hoosierbr
01-06-2008, 04:40 PM
That was a great match, Dracula vs. Boom-Boom. I really liked how Lendl rocked the eagle shirt. Mizuno was it?

What was nice about that match was that it showed Lendl was a sufficient all-court player who could attack the net with success, he always gets labeled as a guy who couldn't volley to save his life and didn't win Wimbledon as a result.

Also, really illustrates how, in my opinion, Lendl had one of the smoothest, aesthetically pleasing and effective service motions ever.

And when he serves to stay in the match in the fourth set you see his nerves slowly go until they shatter completely. I believe that was his last slam final.

Richie Rich
01-06-2008, 04:44 PM
Does anyone know why Becker rushed off the court after the match and could not even make a proper winner's speech?

he went and jumped into the river near the stadium. i think

BounceHitBounceHit
01-06-2008, 05:16 PM
he went and jumped into the river near the stadium. i think

I thought that was Courier................:confused: CC

Richie Rich
01-06-2008, 05:30 PM
I thought that was Courier................:confused: CC

i think he copied becker - but it was so long ago and i have trouble remembering things from a week ago!

EDIT - you are right. Becker apparently ran around a gum tree when he ran out of the stadium. Courier jumped in the river

couch
01-06-2008, 05:33 PM
Haven't seen that match in a while, certainly was a great one. I checked and I think it's on again Tuesday on Tennis Channel and I'm gonna record it.

Those late 80's early 90's matches bring back some great memories as that's when I started playing at the ripe old age of 19 (1989) and being a huge Agassi fan. I also remember I'd have my grandfather record the matches on his VCR and then mail them to me at college so I could watch them. LOL No cable in the dorms back then, only in the main areas on each floor. :)

CEvertFan
01-06-2008, 09:05 PM
Lendl and Becker used to be criticized for this, for mindlessly bashing. Lendl was often compared to a robot.


Maybe for the time they did but compare them to today's pros and you see them using angles and spins and volleys much more judiciously and much more effectively than most any pro playing today (Federer might be an exception to that rule) and not just focusing on power to the exclusion of anything else which is unfortunately what we see all too much of these days.

BreakPoint
01-06-2008, 09:14 PM
Maybe for the time they did but compare them to today's pros and you see them using angles and spins and volleys much more judiciously and much more effectively than most any pro playing today (Federer might be an exception to that rule) and not just focusing on power to the exclusion of anything else which is unfortunately what we see all too much of these days.
Right on!! I couldn't have said it any better myself. :)

BreakPoint
01-06-2008, 09:16 PM
What a great match! I remember it so clearly from all those years ago because Becker got SPANKED in the first set but remained composed and came back for a tough four set win. All court tennis is so much more entertaining. CC
Craig,

Your new avatar is very fitting for this thread. :)

HappyChappy
01-06-2008, 09:37 PM
1)Becker had a Western grip on his forehand

2)Lendl had a semi western

3)Both players hit with a huge amount of topspin

4)It was pretty typical/indistinguishable of today's style, lot's of pretty mindless baseline bashing, just going for random winners.Lots of their shots went in, that's why this match was so amazing, but if you ever saw there USO final which was unbelievably error strewn with the most aggressive baseline bashing I have ever seen in my life, they both played like james blake, you'd change your mind about their stylistic superiority.

BreakPoint
01-06-2008, 09:58 PM
1)Becker had a Western grip on his forehand

2)Lendl had a semi western

3)Both players hit with a huge amount of topspin

4)It was pretty typical/indistinguishable of today's style, lot's of pretty mindless baseline bashing, just going for random winners.Lots of their shots went in, that's why this match was so amazing, but if you ever saw there USO final which was unbelievably error strewn with the most aggressive baseline bashing I have ever seen in my life, they both played like james blake, you'd change your mind about their stylistic superiority.
Sorry, but this does not look like a full western forehand grip to me. If anything, it's closer to an eastern grip:

http://i15.tinypic.com/6oloqkl.jpg

And Lendl's forehand grip also looks more eastern than semi-western to me:

http://i9.tinypic.com/6skodxk.jpg

BTW, neither was hitting massive topspin that was going 6 feet over the net a la Nadal. Their shots looked much more penetrating than loopy.

BreakPoint
01-07-2008, 01:55 AM
BTW, this 1991 AusOpen final between Lendl and Becker is being shown again on The Tennis Channel on:

Monday, Jan. 7th at 12:00pm EST/9:00am PST
and
Tuesday, Jan. 8th at 12:00pm (noon) EST/9:00am PST (Maybe as the TTC online schedule regarding this match is totally unreliable.)

Enjoy!! :)

Note: I had to edit the above because TTC's online schedule regarding this match has been off. They tend to show this match when the schedule says it's supposed to show a Williams sisters AO match and vise versa. The same thing happened last week. Anyway, the match is on right now!

HappyChappy
01-07-2008, 08:12 AM
you can't judge by looking at pictures like that, anyway, this is getting ridiculous.Becker says he has a western grip and lendl says he uses a semi western.Not all the great players of all time use eastern grips Breakpoint

hoodjem
01-07-2008, 09:05 AM
Sorry, but this does not look like a full western forehand grip to me. If anything, it's closer to an eastern grip:

http://i15.tinypic.com/6oloqkl.jpg

And Lendl's forehand grip also looks more eastern than semi-western to me:

http://i9.tinypic.com/6skodxk.jpg

BTW, neither was hitting massive topspin that was going 6 feet over the net a la Nadal. Their shots looked much more penetrating than loopy.


From these photos Becker's grip looks to be between an Eastern and a semi-Western. Lendl's grip is a bit harder to judge, but I would have to say maybe even a Continental. (I try to look at where the "V" between the index finger and thumb falls on the bevels.)

By the way, I saw Becker in person play at Wimby (when he was unknown) in 1985. He hit with incredible speed and power with sizable topspin but only 2-3 feet over the net.

BreakPoint
01-07-2008, 10:31 AM
you can't judge by looking at pictures like that, anyway, this is getting ridiculous.Becker says he has a western grip and lendl says he uses a semi western.Not all the great players of all time use eastern grips Breakpoint
Well, as we've seen from this forum, most people don't really know the proper names of the grips they really use and that would probably include some pros. Also, back then anything that was even a bit more extreme than a "normal" proper eastern grip was probably described as a "western grip". Borg used to say he used a western forehand grip, but in all the pics I've seen of him hitting forehands, he was using an eastern grip or a mild semi-western at the very most.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-07-2008, 01:10 PM
Craig,

Your new avatar is very fitting for this thread. :)

Thanks! :)

You will appreciate that I actually changed it in response to watching this match on TTC Classics!!

Best, and Happy New Year!

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-07-2008, 01:14 PM
From these photos Becker's grip looks to be between an Eastern and a semi-Western. Lendl's grip is a bit harder to judge, but I would have to say maybe even a Continental. (I try to look at where the "V" between the index finger and thumb falls on the bevels.)

By the way, I saw Becker in person play at Wimby (when he was unknown) in 1985. He hit with incredible speed and power with sizable topspin but only 2-3 feet over the net.

Yes. I watched him from 10-15 feet away on multiple occasions (at the old RCA Championships in Indy) and he appeared to be using something between an Eastern and SW forehand grip (like I do now!). He just RIPPED the ball deep with TONS of pace and a modest amount of topspin. Net clearance of say 3 feet or so. :) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-07-2008, 01:16 PM
Well, as we've seen from this forum, most people don't really know the proper names of the grips they really use and that would probably include some pros. Also, back then anything that was even a bit more extreme than a "normal" proper eastern grip was probably described as a "western grip". Borg used to say he used a western forehand grip, but in all the pics I've seen of him hitting forehands, he was using an eastern grip or a mild semi-western at the very most.

Agreed. No way was Borg using a full western. His strokes were long, loopy, and 'classic'. He DID hit with good deal of topspin (for HIS time) but nothing compared to today's players. :) CC

scotus
01-07-2008, 01:54 PM
he went and jumped into the river near the stadium. i think

Becker did come back for the awards ceremony but stated that he was sorry for not being able to say a thing. It was quite bizarre to say the least.

Moose Malloy
01-07-2008, 02:14 PM
Does anyone know why Becker rushed off the court after the match and could not even make a proper winner's speech?

Becker did come back for the awards ceremony but stated that he was sorry for not being able to say a thing. It was quite bizarre to say the least.

Becker was overcome with emotion at having achieved the #1 ranking for the 1st time in his career.

He never celebrated like that when he won 3 wimbledons & 1 uso.
I'm sure everyone in the crowd understood why he was speechless & didn't consider it to be 'bizarre.'

Moose Malloy
01-10-2008, 10:16 AM
just read this on tennis.com:

"But most entertaining of all may have been the vintage Aussie Open final from 1991 that the Tennis Channel was running, between Boris Becker and Ivan Lendl. Those guys were playing some ball. (See the last game here.) Id forgotten how complete a player and outstanding an athlete Becker was. He broke Lendl with a running, hooking forehand pass to win the third set, and then won the match in the fourth by taking a forehand return on the rise and rifling it down the line for a winner.

That was 17 years ago, and Id say either of these guys would be Top 5 now, even Top 3, without changing a thing, including their racquets. Hopefully they would change their shirts, however. Lendl had what I think was an eagle screaming across his chest, while Becker might have been mistaken for a NASCAR driver with the Ford patch on his shoulder and the yellow mullet draped over his neck.

Weve all heard that tennis evolves over the decades, but I think its safe to say that the evolution has slowed considerably in the last decade and a half. Rebound Ace in Melbourne routinely brought out the best in players, but Becker and Lendl were using the same power-baseline style we see today, with big serves and more forays to net from Becker. Id forgotten how solid Lendl had made his backhand by his later years; he had something like 15 winners from that side in this match, and it was tough to attack. As for Becker, the quality and consistency of his return was a stunner. His big serve, big forehand, and all-court skill would make him a tough match-up for anyone today, including Federer and Nadal."

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewrap/2008/01/8-questions-for.html#comments

Nice to see a tennis writer admit that he forgot a lot about how some great players played. It puts a lot of praise by the experts today in perspective. I wonder what Cliff Drysdale & co would think after re-visting this match. Most of their analysis when comparing players/eras is based on old memories.

BreakPoint
01-10-2008, 10:40 AM
.....That was 17 years ago, and Id say either of these guys would be Top 5 now, even Top 3, without changing a thing, including their racquets. ....

.....His big serve, big forehand, and all-court skill would make him a tough match-up for anyone today, including Federer and Nadal.".......

Nice to see a tennis writer admit that he forgot a lot about how some great players played. It puts a lot of praise by the experts today in perspective. I wonder what Cliff Drysdale & co would think after re-visting this match. Most of their analysis when comparing players/eras is based on old memories.
I wholeheartedly agree! :)

NoBadMojo
01-10-2008, 10:47 AM
just read this on tennis.com:

"But most entertaining of all may have been the vintage Aussie Open final from 1991 that the Tennis Channel was running, between Boris Becker and Ivan Lendl. Those guys were playing some ball. (See the last game here.) Id forgotten how complete a player and outstanding an athlete Becker was. He broke Lendl with a running, hooking forehand pass to win the third set, and then won the match in the fourth by taking a forehand return on the rise and rifling it down the line for a winner.

That was 17 years ago, and Id say either of these guys would be Top 5 now, even Top 3, without changing a thing, including their racquets. Hopefully they would change their shirts, however. Lendl had what I think was an eagle screaming across his chest, while Becker might have been mistaken for a NASCAR driver with the Ford patch on his shoulder and the yellow mullet draped over his neck.

Weve all heard that tennis evolves over the decades, but I think its safe to say that the evolution has slowed considerably in the last decade and a half. Rebound Ace in Melbourne routinely brought out the best in players, but Becker and Lendl were using the same power-baseline style we see today, with big serves and more forays to net from Becker. Id forgotten how solid Lendl had made his backhand by his later years; he had something like 15 winners from that side in this match, and it was tough to attack. As for Becker, the quality and consistency of his return was a stunner. His big serve, big forehand, and all-court skill would make him a tough match-up for anyone today, including Federer and Nadal."

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewrap/2008/01/8-questions-for.html#comments

Nice to see a tennis writer admit that he forgot a lot about how some great players played. It puts a lot of praise by the experts today in perspective. I wonder what Cliff Drysdale & co would think after re-visting this match. Most of their analysis when comparing players/eras is based on old memories.

i agree that both would be Top 5ers right now, but there is no way they would be playing the same same style they were in 91 nor would they be using the same racquets. you cant do a couple thousand UE's in a match anymore and still win. that just isnt possible. the only thing i question is if they are fast enough as tennis is a running game more so than ever and not a hitting game..it's turned into smething resembling bicycling

BreakPoint
01-10-2008, 10:59 AM
i agree that both would be Top 5ers right now, but there is no way they would be playing the same same style they were in 91 nor would they be using the same racquets. you cant do a couple thousand UE's in a match anymore and still win. that just isnt possible. the only thing i question is if they are fast enough as tennis is a running game more so than ever and not a hitting game..it's turned into smething resembling bicycling
Hmmm......I've watched this match a few times over the past couple of weeks and I didn't notice "a couple of thousand UE's" in the match. In fact, I think there were no more unforced errors in this match than the average ATP match today, and perhaps even fewer.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2008, 12:34 PM
Hmmm......I've watched this match a few times over the past couple of weeks and I didn't notice "a couple of thousand UE's" in the match. In fact, I think there were no more unforced errors in this match than the average ATP match today, and perhaps even fewer.

oh sure..anyone who knows tennis knows that there are much fewer UE's now than then for a number of reasons

BounceHitBounceHit
01-10-2008, 01:00 PM
oh sure..anyone who knows tennis knows that there are much fewer UE's now than then for a number of reasons

Greetings Mojo,

What are the reasons that we see fewer unforced errors nowadays?

Allow me to say (because of the context) that I was truly not aware this is the case, but do find it interesting.

Best,

CC

CEvertFan
01-10-2008, 01:11 PM
I think the opposite is true. We see more UEs then ever because when a player is hitting the ball as hard as possible there isn't much room for consistency or accuracy, so more UEs are generated. If it's any consolation, it's even worse on the women's side than on the men's.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2008, 01:17 PM
Greetings Mojo,

What are the reasons that we see fewer unforced errors nowadays?

Allow me to say (because of the context) that I was truly not aware this is the case, but do find it interesting.

Best,

CC

Hi Craig..check it out sometime...watch Laver play back in the day....UE's all over the place...in fact he could stink it up at times making all kinds of errors and recover by reeling off a series of magical winners and still win. he could get away with it because opponents were also making mistakes. the Lendl/Becker era there were fewer...and now fewer still.

the racquets have bigger sweetzones and they play a lower risk style of tennis now versus then dont you agree? higher net clearance/more spin. even watching the lendl/Becker match, you didnt see much net clearance...they hit with spin, but lower trajectory (which was a lot more common back then)....much higher risk and therefore more UE's..i will say there were more 'what i call' forced errors back even when lendl played becker in that match. example: becker pressuring lendl by hitting a hard sliced backhand and coming in behind it. this produced the error several times. not really a UE point, but certainly not a winner......a forced error. this types of shots are missing from the game i think...instead of getting the opponent to hit a forced error, they just hit winners...thoughts?

BreakPoint
01-10-2008, 01:20 PM
oh sure..anyone who knows tennis knows that there are much fewer UE's now than then for a number of reasons
Um...did you actually see this match? If so, could you please share with us where you saw the "thousands of unforced errors"?

Like I said, I've seen this match a few times now and I don't think there were any more unforced errors in this match than you would typically see in the average ATP match today. In fact, I think there were fewer as both Lendl and Becker were hitting with incredible control and precision.

hoosierbr
01-10-2008, 02:27 PM
Watching matches from 15-20 years ago makes me wonder if the quality of shotmaking was better than it is today. Lot more errors true but more interesting rallies and matches and stunning winners.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-10-2008, 03:17 PM
Hi Craig..check it out sometime...watch Laver play back in the day....UE's all over the place...in fact he could stink it up at times making all kinds of errors and recover by reeling off a series of magical winners and still win. he could get away with it because opponents were also making mistakes. the Lendl/Becker era there were fewer...and now fewer still.

the racquets have bigger sweetzones and they play a lower risk style of tennis now versus then dont you agree? higher net clearance/more spin. even watching the lendl/Becker match, you didnt see much net clearance...they hit with spin, but lower trajectory (which was a lot more common back then)....much higher risk and therefore more UE's..i will say there were more 'what i call' forced errors back even when lendl played becker in that match. example: becker pressuring lendl by hitting a hard sliced backhand and coming in behind it. this produced the error several times. not really a UE point, but certainly not a winner......a forced error. this types of shots are missing from the game i think...instead of getting the opponent to hit a forced error, they just hit winners...thoughts?

Hey Mojo,

Interesting points. Although I don't perceive a lower rate of UE's nowadays, what you are saying does make sense. I think guys have also taken the net out of play by using Luxilon string, and that is a factor here.

I know my game style is based on controlling the point by moving the ball around the court with different spins, height, and pace. I look to force errors by attacking weak(er) shots, and by consistently hitting deep. I also know everyone I play seems to think I use an 'Old School' approach. ;) I actually see myself as a blend of the old and the new.

Best,

CC

stormholloway
01-10-2008, 04:29 PM
There are always going to be more errors with smaller racquet heads and less spinny strings, all things being equal. Seems like a technological issue to me.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2008, 04:51 PM
Watching matches from 15-20 years ago makes me wonder if the quality of shotmaking was better than it is today. Lot more errors true but more interesting rallies and matches and stunning winners.

the variety of shots and contrasting style matches was certainly greater then. passing shots are pretty non existent now with people not getting to net. approach shots have been replaced by winners..the one thing that has changed for the better is that a lot more serves are being put into play

even at my lowly 5.0 level there isnt the percentage to play serve/volley other than just to mix it up a little and it is really difficult to be at net and that's what i used to do

hope your year is off to a great start Randy, and that those knees are back to good. Mojo

Gasquetrules
01-10-2008, 04:54 PM
The recent revolution in string technology has changed the game. Players can hit harder and still control the ball better with today's poly-based string, and thus produce fewer unforced errors. I can well see why Rod Laver could make a lot of errors, hitting with a wooden racquet and gut string. It just amazes me how consistent Borg was with the same setup.

I've got a couple of ESTUSA Powerbeams just like Becker played with at that time. I string them with Big Banger Ace (18 guage) and they play great! All the power you need. My go-to stick is a Gamma G325, which is a retro-stick quite similar to racquets from the late 80s. I use TiMo 18 and Banger Ace, depending on the opponent. I get plenty of power and much more consistent results with this style of heavy, flexible, thin-beamed frame than with the newer light-weight powerful frames. Like the Powerbeam, the G325 is fine for an all-court game with a one-handed backhand.

I'm a huge fan of '80s tennis, and I've stated on a previous thread on this subject that I think Boris Becker is the most talented and complete player to ever play the game. Great serve (by any era or standard); great return (especially the backhand drive return); the best groundstrokes the game had ever seen when he burst upon the scene in 1985; and one of the top-five vollyers of all time; and a tremendous natural athlete! He was the total package!!!! He could hit from the baseline on equal terms with Lendl, Agassi or any of the best players of his era; and he was terrific at net. Probably only McEnroe and Edberg were better pure volleyers.

Go to Roger Federer's official website, and you will see that the two players he idolized while growing up were Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. It shows!

I'm also a huge Lendl fan... the most dominant player of the '80s, a decade filled with tennis greats!

One of the reasons that I admire the French tennis system is that they turn out so many solid players who play an all-court game similar to the style of Becker: one-handed backhands, ample topspin off both sides to hold their own from the baseline while always looking to get to net.

In some ways Richard Gasquet is a nice blend of this classic style with today's game. He plays with the new poly-based strings and a very powerful racquet, but plays with a lot of variety from all over the court and can play well on any surface. He generates a lot of topspin (partly because of the strings) but volleys quite well and is always looking to get to the net to end the point. Certainly not the cookie-cutter type of baseline player that US junior and collegiate tennis churns out.

Becker did hit with a lot of topspin by 1985 standards, but the players that followed quickly caught up. And I also think the definition of what constitutes a western and semi-western grip has changed over the past 30 years.

For debatable reasons Boris Becker didn't win as many grand slam titles as he could have -- or should have -- but when he was at the top of his game he could beat all the best players of his era -- and did! And he moved amazingly well for such a big and powerful man.

I've got several matches on DVD of Lendl and Becker, and it is wonderful stuff. Certainly tennis today is no better... and only rarely so good.

Gasquetrules
01-10-2008, 05:18 PM
Now that I think upon the issue, for most of the 1980s tennis was amazing because of the incredible consistency that was so often displayed. Recall the 1987 US Open final between Lendl and Wilander. Half the points in that match were rallies of 30 or more points, often with rallies much longer than that. Get on red clay and you could watch 50 to 80 stroke rallies, all with very good depth and placement. Lendl prevailed against Wilander in the '87 final, so the following year Wilander shotened the rallies and came to net much more quickly, forcing Lendl to do the same.

I recall the Lipton final in the late 80s between Lendl and Mecir, with both men moving with silky smoothness on the baseline trading dozens of groundstrokes to decide one point. Mecir's flawless precision finally utterly frustrated Lendl, forcing him to go for more and more powerful shots and lose the match.

Becker had the ability to ramp up the power-level from the baseline and blow his opponents away. So Lendl had to hit with more power, too, or lose on all surfaces but clay. Lendl really began the power surge in the early 80s, Becker pushed it to a higher level, and then Agassi came along and made hard-hitting mandatory in the pro game by 1990. That's the main reason Wilander hung it up, despite winning three grand slam titles in 1988 and finishing the year at #1.

So yeah, these guys could play unbelievably consistent tennis with basic graphite frames and gut string, but as the players got bigger and stronger and finally grew up playing with graphite from childhood power became the way to win, and unforced errors naturally increased -- along with the fantastic shot making.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2008, 06:30 PM
The recent revolution in string technology has changed the game. Players can hit harder and still control the ball better with today's poly-based string, and thus produce fewer unforced errors. I can well see why Rod Laver could make a lot of errors, hitting with a wooden racquet and gut string. It just amazes me how consistent Borg was with the same setup.

I've got a couple of ESTUSA Powerbeams just like Becker played with at that time. I string them with Big Banger Ace (18 guage) and they play great! All the power you need. My go-to stick is a Gamma G325, which is a retro-stick quite similar to racquets from the late 80s. I use TiMo 18 and Banger Ace, depending on the opponent. I get plenty of power and much more consistent results with this style of heavy, flexible, thin-beamed frame than with the newer light-weight powerful frames. Like the Powerbeam, the G325 is fine for an all-court game with a one-handed backhand.

I'm a huge fan of '80s tennis, and I've stated on a previous thread on this subject that I think Boris Becker is the most talented and complete player to ever play the game. Great serve (by any era or standard); great return (especially the backhand drive return); the best groundstrokes the game had ever seen when he burst upon the scene in 1985; and one of the top-five vollyers of all time; and a tremendous natural athlete! He was the total package!!!! He could hit from the baseline on equal terms with Lendl, Agassi or any of the best players of his era; and he was terrific at net. Probably only McEnroe and Edberg were better pure volleyers.

Go to Roger Federer's official website, and you will see that the two players he idolized while growing up were Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. It shows!

I'm also a huge Lendl fan... the most dominant player of the '80s, a decade filled with tennis greats!

One of the reasons that I admire the French tennis system is that they turn out so many solid players who play an all-court game similar to the style of Becker: one-handed backhands, ample topspin off both sides to hold their own from the baseline while always looking to get to net.

In some ways Richard Gasquet is a nice blend of this classic style with today's game. He plays with the new poly-based strings and a very powerful racquet, but plays with a lot of variety from all over the court and can play well on any surface. He generates a lot of topspin (partly because of the strings) but volleys quite well and is always looking to get to the net to end the point. Certainly not the cookie-cutter type of baseline player that US junior and collegiate tennis churns out.

Becker did hit with a lot of topspin by 1985 standards, but the players that followed quickly caught up. And I also think the definition of what constitutes a western and semi-western grip has changed over the past 30 years.

For debatable reasons Boris Becker didn't win as many grand slam titles as he could have -- or should have -- but when he was at the top of his game he could beat all the best players of his era -- and did! And he moved amazingly well for such a big and powerful man.

I've got several matches on DVD of Lendl and Becker, and it is wonderful stuff. Certainly tennis today is no better... and only rarely so good.

Poly alone wasnt it. It was poly coupled with larger headed powerful racquets a la PureDrive that changed how the game was played I think.

Poly was available when Lendl/Becker were in their primes and even earlier. It was the cheapest string you could find and nobody would use it because of the downsides many have come to know of but somehow be willing to endure.

I think Luxilon and Babolat are forever indebted to one another..

35ft6
01-10-2008, 08:23 PM
Responding to earlier posts, in that picture, Lendl was probably returning a big serve, thus the eastern/continental forehand grip. You can find videos and pictures of Federer doing the same thing at times. They both wait with backhand grips, so sometimes they block back returns when they don't have time to switch grips.

I've been watching this match, too, and I don't think they could be top 3 today let alone with the same racket. Top 10, probably. Lendl might have to switch rackets. And I'm old enough to have seen plenty of these guys in their primes in case you're wondering.

Variety isn't a weapon in and of itself. It might make for more entertaining tennis, but in terms of winning I tend to think that results speak for themselves, that individuals aside, the most effective playing styles (effective being defined here as "most likely to give you a win") can be determined as being such by looking at rankings/results. Lendl and Becker were a generation that grew up when people played with wood, so they were sort of in that transitional period when new materials were making serve and volley a riskier proposition but there were still guys raised on wood doing it. So yeah, they played with more variety and if you enjoy that type of tennis, which most of us do, they can be considered "better" in those terms. But in terms of being able to step into a time machine, departure 1991, arrival 2008, and dominating, don't think so.

Of course I'm not saying people shouldn't try to develop a well rounded game.

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 01:00 AM
Thanks! :)

You will appreciate that I actually changed it in response to watching this match on TTC Classics!!

Best, and Happy New Year!

CC
I thought you'd appreciate this one too, Craig. :)

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/08/boom_boom_2.jpg

This one might actually have been taken during that '91 AO.

Happy New Year to you, too. :D

DNShade
01-11-2008, 01:33 AM
It really amazes me when I read some of the posts of people out here. it makes me wonder if some of these people have ever stepped on a tennis court before. If you look at the 91 Aus final and think that is any question at all that these guys would be top five or higher now - even with the same rackets they used then - then you are an idiot. Rackets and strings don't make that much of a difference - they really don't. No matter what all the people trying to sell you stuff say. As someone who has been around top level players then and now - a great player is a great player, period. And Lendl and Becker would school most of the top players today. That's just the plain and simple truth.

And more UE then that now? Have you been to an ATP match lately and actually sat there court side? I sometimes get embarrassed at the level of play and errors I see.

And by the way, I'll meet anyone anyone on court with one of my old Estusas strung with VS gut and you can bring your Pure Drive or what have you with whatever the hot poly is and we can see what difference equipment make.

*By the way I'm not some old school wackjob that just pines for the good old days - hell I use poly's and hybrids myself - but you have to admit that there was a much larger group of interesting and talented players back then than right now. I hope that changes soon, so we can all be treated to many great matches in the future.

BeHappy
01-11-2008, 01:31 PM
I agree, the racquet Federer is using is basically an customized version of the racquet Chris Evert used in 1985.

NoBadMojo
01-11-2008, 02:58 PM
It really amazes me when I read some of the posts of people out here. it makes me wonder if some of these people have ever stepped on a tennis court before. If you look at the 91 Aus final and think that is any question at all that these guys would be top five or higher now - even with the same rackets they used then - then you are an idiot. Rackets and strings don't make that much of a difference - they really don't. No matter what all the people trying to sell you stuff say. As someone who has been around top level players then and now - a great player is a great player, period. And Lendl and Becker would school most of the top players today. That's just the plain and simple truth.

And more UE then that now? Have you been to an ATP match lately and actually sat there court side? I sometimes get embarrassed at the level of play and errors I see.

And by the way, I'll meet anyone anyone on court with one of my old Estusas strung with VS gut and you can bring your Pure Drive or what have you with whatever the hot poly is and we can see what difference equipment make.

*By the way I'm not some old school wackjob that just pines for the good old days - hell I use poly's and hybrids myself - but you have to admit that there was a much larger group of interesting and talented players back then than right now. I hope that changes soon, so we can all be treated to many great matches in the future.

wow...everyone else on the TW forum likely can't
even begin to dream about being as cool as you seem to think you are.

your post makes no sense.

stormholloway
01-11-2008, 04:35 PM
Right, I guess Ivan Lendl couldn't beat Davydenko... is that really what people are saying? These guys were hitting winners from everywhere. Lendl was smacking backhand passes like they were going out of style, and he still lost.

This idea that the players of today are so much better is ridiculous. I think Lendl and Becker in their primes would beat anyone in the top ten on a fast court except for Federer.

And I'm sure polyester strings have improved greatly since then, or players would have been using them back then.

NoBadMojo
01-11-2008, 04:50 PM
Right, I guess Ivan Lendl couldn't beat Davydenko... is that really what people are saying? These guys were hitting winners from everywhere. Lendl was smacking backhand passes like they were going out of style, and he still lost.

This idea that the players of today are so much better is ridiculous. I think Lendl and Becker in their primes would beat anyone in the top ten on a fast court except for Federer.

And I'm sure polyester strings have improved greatly since then, or players would have been using them back then.

really dont think lendl would get many games from daveydenko using that old gear with that old technique..just a guess......he would obviously adjust and do fine at the top level with current gear and current technique..or not...daveydenko is much faster than lendl..but then again some people dont think athletes get better as time passes or that court speed matters or the gear matters, or the training is more advanced now than then

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 05:41 PM
Not looking to pick a fight but just in my own opinion regarding Davydenko and Lendl, it would be a close match I think if Lendl were fit and had modern gear. Not sure technique is the issue because Lendl stayed around into his 30's and still gave more "modern players," like Agassi, Sampras, Courier, etc. more than a few beatings.

Davydenko is a poor man's Lendl, baseline brawler who dislikes coming forward but with no weapons outside his speed. Frankly I'm amazed he has stayed in the Top 5 for three years running. Guys like Coria and Schuettler who had the same kind of game faded after a while. Lendl had the huge forehand and it would still be big in today's game with a modern racquet.

However, I think it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that either Becker or Lendl could use their old racquets and compete with today's top guys. Sorry, no way. With modern stuff? Way.

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 06:33 PM
However, I think it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that either Becker or Lendl could use their old racquets and compete with today's top guys. Sorry, no way. With modern stuff? Way.
Sorry, but, way.

Federer's K90 is smaller and has a higher swingweight and static weight than Becker's Estusa PBP. If Federer could beat the crap out of everyone with his K90, I don't see why Becker couldn't with his PBP, even today.

And if Lendl could beat almost anybody in the late-80's/early 90's with his tiny 75 sq. in. racquet even though almost all of his opponents used bigger racquets (e.g., Becker (92), Chang (107), Agassi (107), McEnroe (82), Sampras (85), Edberg (85), Wilander (90?), etc., I think he could still do so today if he were in his prime.

stormholloway
01-11-2008, 06:34 PM
What exactly is wrong with Lendl's technique? Lendl was an animal in his training as well. He had 4 inches on Davydenko, so quickness is obviously in Davydenko's favor.

Lendl is a champion and a legend. Davydenko is a grinder, and, while he is impressive, he has nothing that would give Lendl trouble. I can't believe people are even suggesting that Lendl is no better than Davydenko. Lendl's shotmaking is superior in every way.

superman1
01-11-2008, 08:23 PM
It's more than the racquets, it's the strings. The strings these days are just ridiculous. Since Agassi is the universal tennis measuring tool, use him. His ball striking was never better than when he was an old geezer. And it seemed like he was putting less effort into his shots than back when he was a kid and often got air as he whipped the forehand.

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 08:44 PM
Sorry, but, way.

Federer's K90 is smaller and has a higher swingweight and static weight than Becker's Estusa PBP. If Federer could beat the crap out of everyone with his K90, I don't see why Becker couldn't with his PBP, even today.

And if Lendl could beat almost anybody in the late-80's/early 90's with his tiny 75 sq. in. racquet even though almost all of his opponents used bigger racquets (e.g., Becker (92), Chang (107), Agassi (107), McEnroe (82), Sampras (85), Edberg (85), Wilander (90?), etc., I think he could still do so today if he were in his prime.

Arguing with you is pointless and I don't wish to waste my time. But...

As I said before, it's only my opinion, Lendl's racquet was ancient by the time he hit 30 and, as I recall, he was using two different size racquets: one bigger one for Wimbledon so as to have a better chance to beat the bigger hitters of the day, 1992 I think it was he retired after taking a set off of Goran. By the time he played his last year I think he was using some kind of custom racquet, Bosworth maybe? Not sure. However, he was a great player and if he used a modern racquet he'd still be great. Fed's K90 is a modern racquet, though it may be small-headed and not too many players use a 90 anymore.

Becker is a better example. I think he took his Puma mold to different companies, Estusa and then Head after they went out of business. Becker was always more a modern player anyway, he was a teenager when he beat Lendl to win Wimbledon and was always looking for an extra edge.

Still, I can respect those who think the opposite. I've no problem with that. I just disagree.

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 09:20 PM
As I said before, it's only my opinion, Lendl's racquet was ancient by the time he hit 30 and, as I recall, he was using two different size racquets: one bigger one for Wimbledon so as to have a better chance to beat the bigger hitters of the day, 1992 I think it was he retired after taking a set off of Goran. By the time he played his last year I think he was using some kind of custom racquet, Bosworth maybe? Not sure. However, he was a great player and if he used a modern racquet he'd still be great. Fed's K90 is a modern racquet, though it may be small-headed and not too many players use a 90 anymore.

But you didn't just say that it was only your opinion, you said it would be "ludicrous" to suggest otherwise. That's basically saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is crazy.

Lendl had a prototype of a bigger racquet made for him to use at Wimbledon, but he never actually used it at Wimbledon. He never felt comfortable with it so he stuck with his old small racquet at that year''s Wimbledon. Ironic that he felt that a larger racquet might help him at Wimbledon, where smaller racquets have always done well, but he could win multiple French Opens with no problem with his tiny racquet.

Federer's K90 is only "modern" in the sense that it was introduced in 2007. IMO, it basically plays like a 90 sq. in. version of the PS 6.0 85, which was designed in 1982. If you can play well with a K90, then you should have no problem also playing well with Becker's Estusa PBP. Thus, if Federer can win with a K90, he should still be able to win with a PBP, just like Becker. So in a sense, Wilson went back in time with the K90 and produced a racquet that's almost the same as racquets that were made in the 80's.

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 09:27 PM
But you didn't just say that it was only your opinion, you said it would be "ludicrous" to suggest otherwise. That's basically saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is crazy.

Lendl had a prototype of a bigger racquet made for him to use at Wimbledon, but he never actually used it at Wimbeldon. He never felt comfortable with it so he stuck with his old small racquet at that year''s Wimbledon. Ironic that he felt that a larger racquet might help him at Wimbledon, where smaller racquets have always done well, but he could win multiple French Opens with no problem with his tiny racquet.

Federer's K90 is only "modern" in the sense that it was introduced in 2007. IMO, it basically plays like a 90 sq. in. version of the PS 6.0 85, which was designed in 1982. If you can play well with a K90, then you should have no problem also playing well with Becker's Estusa PBP. Thus, if Federer can win with a K90, he should still be able to win with a PBP, just like Becker. So in a sense, Wilson went back in time with the K90 and produced a racquet that's almost the same as racquets that were made in the 80's.

Understanding the modern game and thinking that using one of Lendl's racquets to play Nadal and being able to win is pretty ludicrous. That's a fact. I can't think of anyone who would make such an argument besides you. Look at what happened to Borg when he tried to come back using his old equipment? How many matches did he win? Zero. Yes, it was wood against graphite but Lendl's old frame against a Babolat? Come on, you're a smart guy, BP. Get real.

The K90/Estusa thing is silly and you should know better. Really, I think you're pretty knowledgable about tennis and some of the attacks you take are unwarranted but stuff like that adds fuel to fire.

But, hey, I don't wish to. So if you really feel that way I'll respect that. Can you be courteous enough to reciprocate?

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 09:47 PM
Understanding the modern game and thinking that using one of Lendl's racquets to play Nadal and being able to win is pretty ludicrous. That's a fact. I can't think of anyone who would make such an argument besides you. Look at what happened to Borg when he tried to come back using his old equipment? How many matches did he win? Zero. Yes, it was wood against graphite but Lendl's old frame against a Babolat? Come on, you're a smart guy, BP. Get real.

The K90/Estusa thing is silly and you should know better. Really, I think you're pretty knowledgable about tennis and some of the attacks you take are unwarranted but stuff like that adds fuel to fire.

But, hey, I don't wish to. So if you really feel that way I'll respect that. Can you be courteous enough to reciprocate?
I think there may be some confusion here: I'm not saying that any pro can pick up Lendl's racquet and proceed to beat Nadal. I'm saying that Lendl can pick up his old racquet in his prime and have a good chance at beating Nadal. The racquet does not matter all that much. It's Lendl's style of play, how he hits the ball, his fitness and speed, and what he knows between the ears that matter a lot more.

Borg came back after not having played tennis for almost 10 years and being 10 years older with 10 year older legs. That was a lot bigger problem than his racquet. I'm talking about Lendl in his prime playing the top pros today with his old racquet. Besides, there's a much bigger difference between a 65 sq. in. wood racquet and a 95 sq. in. graphite racquet than there is between Lendl's old graphite racquet and Nadal's Babolat.

Could you please elaborate on what's so "silly" about the Estusa/K90 thing? Can you please explain exactly what makes the K90 "modern"? To me, there's nothing at all "modern" about the K90 other than the paintjob. It feels more like a wood racquet than anything currently on the market, IMO. It has a small head, thin beam, box beam, heavy weight, standard string pattern, leather grip, etc., so to me, there's nothing about the K90 that feels or plays "modern". And all of that applies to the Estusa PBP as well. Now, a Babolat APD, that's modern.

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 09:52 PM
I think there may be some confusion here: I'm not saying that any pro can pick up Lendl's racquet and proceed to beat Nadal. I'm saying that Lendl can pick up his old racquet in his prime and have a good chance at beating Nadal. The racquet does not matter all that much. It's Lendl's style of play, how he hits the ball, his fitness and speed, and what he knows between the ears that matter a lot more.

Borg came back after not having played tennis for almost 10 years and being 10 years older with 10 year older legs. That was a lot bigger problem than his racquet. I'm talking about Lendl in his prime playing the top pros today with his old racquet. Besides, there's a much bigger difference between a 65 sq. in. wood racquet and a 95 sq. in. graphite racquet than there is between Lendl's old graphite racquet and Nadal's Babolat.

Could you please elaborate on what's so "silly" about the Estusa/K90 thing? Can you please explain exactly what makes the K90 "modern"? To me, there's nothing at all "modern" about the K90 other than the paintjob. It feels more like a wood racquet than anything currently on the market, IMO. It has a small head, thin beam, box beam, heavy weight, standard string pattern, leather grip, etc., so to me, there's nothing about the K90 that feels or plays "modern". And all of that applies to the Estusa PBP as well. Now, a Babolat APD, that's modern.

You just answered your own question about the K90 thing - to you there's not much difference between it and Lendl's racquet. To the vast majority of others I'm willing to be they'd disagree. I'm doing you a favor by trying to help you save face. I guarantee if you made that remark to Lendl himself he'd laugh you off the golf course.

You seem determined to win this and any argument so it's not worth my time. I tried to be courteous and even defended you. What did you give back? Nothing.

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 10:00 PM
I tried to be courteous, I defended you and what do you give in return? Nothing, just the same old stuff. Sorry, but you've proven it's not worth it to engage with you. I've explained my position, you haven't other than you seem determined to win the argument. I won't litter this thread any more. Please respect others, if not me, and do the same.
Actually, I'm trying really hard to understand your position.

If Federer can beat Nadal with his K90, I just don't quite understand why Becker with his Estusa PDP or Lendl with his Adidas or Mizuno racquet can't also beat Nadal in their primes? :confused:

I mean, how many times did Sampras with his old-school 85 sq. in. racquet spank Agassi with his "modern" 107 sq. in. racquet at the US Open and at Wimbledon? Doesn't that pretty much tell you that the racquet does not really matter all that much? Isn't how used to and comfortable you are with your racquet and how good of a player you are much more important?

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 10:05 PM
You just answered your own question about the K90 thing - to you there's not much difference between it and Lendl's racquet. To the vast majority of others I'm willing to be they'd disagree. I'm doing you a favor by trying to help you save face. I guarantee if you made that remark to Lendl himself he'd laugh you off the golf course.

I never compared the K90 with Lendl's racquet. I said if you can play well with the K90, you should also play well with the Estusa PDP. That was the racquet that Becker used, not Lendl. And I said that because the K90 is very similar to the PDP. Similar head size, weight, and swingweight. The PDP is a hair bigger (92 sq. in.), a bit lighter (12.4 oz.), and the swingweight is a bit lower (326). So I'm not exactly sure why I need to save face.

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 10:13 PM
I understand what you're saying, BP. It's the player not the racquet. I understood it the first time. What I'm saying is that I agree for the most part with that but with Lendl's and Becker's racquets I don't think they'd match up well against modern Babolats or Princes. I think most people would agree with me.

Sampras' PS 85 isn't a great example because even that was more "modern" than Lendl's racquet which was, if I recall, basically the same mold that he took with him every time he made a switch be it Addidas or Mizuno that he'd been using most of his career.

So we disagree on that point but agree that mostly it's the person not the racquet which is why, as I said, with a modern racquet Becker and Lendl would still be top players.

What I don't understand is how you find what I've just said again so offensive.

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 10:25 PM
What I'm saying is that I agree for the most part with that but with Lendl's and Becker's racquets I don't think they'd match up well against modern Babolats or Princes. I think most people would agree with me.
Actually, I think if you read all of the posts above in this thread that you'll find there are several people that would disagree with you.

Sampras' PS 85 isn't a great example because even that was more "modern" than Lendl's racquet which was, if I recall, basically the same mold that he took with him every time he made a switch be it Addidas or Mizuno that he'd been using most of his career.

Lendl's Adidas GTX Pro came out in 1981, while the PS 6.0 85 came out in 1982, so I would say they are about the same as far as how "modern" they were at the time.

What I don't understand is how you find what I've just said again so offensive.
I apologize if you thought that I thought what you said was offensive. That's not how I meant for it to come across. However, saying that people with a different opinion as yours are being "ludicrous" is a bit much, don't you think?

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 10:30 PM
Actually, I think if you read all of the posts above in this thread that you'll find there are several people that would disagree with you.

Lendl's Adidas GTX Pro came out in 1981, while the PS 6.0 85 came out in 1982, so I would say they are about the same as far as how "modern" they were at the time.

I apologize if you thought that I thought what you said was offensive. That's not how I meant for it to come across. However, saying that people with a different opinion as yours are being "ludicrous" is a bit much, don't you think?

The mold for Lendl's racquet was a bit older, I think. Bill Scanlon wrote about this in his book.

The fact that several people on this board may agree with you is hardly representative of a majority of knowledgable tennis folks. My point is if you ask players and coaches the very same question, including the men in question, I'd bet my last dollar they'd side with me.

I stand by what I said before but I could have used a different word so for that I apologize. I don't wish to start a war of words with anyone on this board as it's litter.

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 10:39 PM
The mold for Lendl's racquet was a bit older, I think. Bill Scanlon wrote about this in his book.

According to this Lendl's racquet history at the bottom of this webpage:
http://www.woodtennis.com/lendl/

The Mizuno racquet that Lendl used in this 1991 Aus Open final against Becker was designed in 1990 and had a 10-15% bigger head than his Adidas racquet. That would make the racquet he used in this match much more "modern" than the PS 6.0 85.

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 10:43 PM
According to this Lendl's racquet history at the bottom of this webpage:
http://www.woodtennis.com/lendl/

The Mizuno racquet that Lendl used in this 1991 Aus Open final against Becker was designed in 1990 and had a 10-15% bigger head than his Adidas racquet. That would make the racquet he used in this match much more "modern" than the PS 6.0 85.

If he used it. There was a lot of talk, Scanlon writes about this, and even some on this board discussed whether Lendl actually used that racquet. He had an all products deal, I think, just like with Addidas.

I still stand by what I said and so do you. That's fine by me.

Richie Rich
01-11-2008, 10:49 PM
If he used it. There was a lot of talk, Scanlon writes about this, and even some on this board discussed whether Lendl actually used that racquet. He had an all products deal, I think, just like with Addidas.

I still stand by what I said and so do you. That's fine by me.

i think he really switched. head was bigger but throat and handle are same as the adidas

BreakPoint
01-11-2008, 10:52 PM
If he used it. There was a lot of talk, Scanlon writes about this, and even some on this board discussed whether Lendl actually used that racquet. He had an all products deal, I think, just like with Addidas.

I don't know if he actually used the Mizuno or not. But according to that website, both the Kneissl White Star model and the Adidas GTX Pro-T model that Lendl used were 80 sq. in. I find this a bit hard to believe as they look smaller than that to me, more like 75 sq. in. at the most. So either they measured them differently, like with Head racquets, or maybe they are actually bigger than they look due to the egg shape (wider at the bottom than at the top).

hoosierbr
01-11-2008, 10:55 PM
I don't know if he actually used the Mizuno or not. But according to that website, both the Kneissl White Star model and the Adidas GTX Pro-T model that Lendl used were 80 sq. in. I find this a bit hard to believe as they look smaller than that to me, more like 75 sq. in. at the most. So either they measured them differently, like with Head racquets, or maybe they are actually bigger than they look due to the egg shape (wider at the bottom than at the top).

I think they were smaller as well, part of why I don't think if he used a racquet with a 75 sq in head he'd be able to keep up with all of Nadal's crazy spin. Now, with the Mizuno racquet?

There's a clip of Lendl playing Sampras in Australia in 1994 using some kind of custom racquet that is a lot bigger than what he normally played with. Not sure what the specs of that were but that's more in the ballpark.

stormholloway
01-12-2008, 12:41 AM
Understanding the modern game and thinking that using one of Lendl's racquets to play Nadal and being able to win is pretty ludicrous. That's a fact. I can't think of anyone who would make such an argument besides you. Look at what happened to Borg when he tried to come back using his old equipment? How many matches did he win? Zero. Yes, it was wood against graphite but Lendl's old frame against a Babolat? Come on, you're a smart guy, BP. Get real.

The fact that you bring up the Borg comeback, where he took a 10 year layoff and used a wooden racquet is the most ridiculous statement of all. That hardly compares to Lendl using a graphite racquet in his prime. Idiotic, to put it mildly.

The K90/Estusa thing is silly and you should know better. Really, I think you're pretty knowledgable about tennis and some of the attacks you take are unwarranted but stuff like that adds fuel to fire.

I've played extensively with both racquets. The Estusa is FAR more forgiving than the K90. I find it rather easy to swing.

As for Lendl-Nadal. Lendl is exactly the type of player that Nadal loses to: flat powerful hitters that go for their shots. Just look at how Blake handles Nadal. Are we to presume James Blake is better than Ivan Lendl? No part of Blake's game is better than Lendl's.

BreakPoint
01-12-2008, 01:13 AM
You seem determined to win this and any argument so it's not worth my time. I tried to be courteous and even defended you. What did you give back? Nothing.
BTW, I'm not trying to "win" this argument. I'm just trying to understand the reasons behind your position better. So far, I don't think you've really explained it very well nor given any real valid reasons. It seems you've just deferred by saying that other players and coaches would agree with you. Perhaps if you were able to provide some tangible reasons, I would be convinced enough to change my position.

If you were able to answer this question, it would help me to understand your position much better:

Assuming Federer and Becker are equally talented, if Federer is able to beat Nadal with his 90 sq. in. racquet, why wouldn't Becker be able to beat Nadal with his 92 sq. in. racquet? :confused:

BTW, I think Becker might even give Nadal more trouble than Federer because he has a bigger serve, is a better serve and volleyer, can come into the net off of a return, and is harder to pass at the net.

DNShade
01-12-2008, 01:22 AM
wow...everyone else on the TW forum likely can't
even begin to dream about being as cool as you seem to think you are.

your post makes no sense.

First of all, I know I'm cool - I don't just think it. And feel free to "dream to be as cool" as I am. Go right ahead. Maybe someday you'll get there.

Second of all - just because you didn't understand my post, doesn't mean it didn't make sense. It makes perfect sense and my point was quite clear. Both these guys were great and would be in the top echelon of tennis whenever they played - and new equipment isn't the end all. It also seems that quite a few people out here agree.

The Estusa can stand up just fine in todays game and could be used top pros right now. Lendl's stick I never hit much with - and seemed to be suited for a very specific type of player - but in his hands he could certainly use it and go toe to toe with players right now. I don't care how much spin you put on the ball...

"Here endith the lesson."
-Jim Malone "The Untouchables"

NoBadMojo
01-12-2008, 05:00 AM
What exactly is wrong with Lendl's technique? Lendl was an animal in his training as well. He had 4 inches on Davydenko, so quickness is obviously in Davydenko's favor.

Lendl is a champion and a legend. Davydenko is a grinder, and, while he is impressive, he has nothing that would give Lendl trouble. I can't believe people are even suggesting that Lendl is no better than Davydenko. Lendl's shotmaking is superior in every way.

you're not understanding that the technique lendl used differs from the technique used presently. he could adapt. how well is just wild speculation.

David L
01-12-2008, 08:28 AM
Too much is made of racquets on these boards. Ridiculous suggestions that such and such player would get better results with a larger head or a certain type of racquet etc. Ever since I've been coming here I've always thought these types of suggestions were strange and indicative of the recreational player who does not have very good technique or ability. Someone with good ability has no trouble playing with the conventional racquets of old. It's not about the racquet, it's what you can do with it and how comfortable you are with it. Putting Agassi's racquet in Sampras' hand, would not help his game.

Federer uses a conventional racquet. It is not modern in any sense, unless you're comparing it to the wood era. It is not a widebody, the beam is thin at 18mm and boxed just like Becker's racquet and all the conventional racquets of old. The head is not excessively large at 90 sq inches. It's on the heavy side. It's a conventional old school racquet in the spirit of the 80s. Maybe some people are confusing his racquet with some of the others from the K Factor line. The racquet Federer uses is nothing like these. Furthermore, a lot of the pros use the same racquet as Federer or similarly conventional racquets. From an equipment point of view, Becker would be fine with his Estusa. Lendl's Adidas racquet was unique to him and he could hang with Becker and others using their larger heads, so he would probably not be severely handicapped either today.

The biggest obstacles Becker and Lendl would encounter would not have to do with equipment, but with the way they played the game and the way it is played today. Both were decent movers, but not great, they also needed time to set up for their strokes and found enough of it to reach the top back then. Today, players not only hit harder across the board, but also take the ball earlier, with safety and consistency, robbing opponents of time. Today's game is less about big, powerful sluggers from the baseline or aggressive server and volleyers and more about quickness in movement and recovery. It's about getting to balls and getting them back with enough on them. This is why Davydenko can do so well. Federer, Ferrer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian. All are very good movers and regularly take the ball early, with the exception of Nadal on the latter point. Agassi used to routinely beat Becker because he never gave Becker any time, and Lendl never really saw Agassi out of his teens after Agassi found his game in the 90s. Becker and Lendl were big juggernauts, who I'm sure would do very well today, as any great champion would, but who would also find they were a step off the pace when it came to the movement required to reach the top. This would be an area they would have to improve.

stormholloway
01-12-2008, 10:38 AM
you're not understanding that the technique lendl used differs from the technique used presently. he could adapt. how well is just wild speculation.

If I'm not understanding it, then explain it. How is Lendl's technique not suited to today's game? McEnroe can go toe to toe with any pro today and he's like 50 years old. And look at his technique: it's more old school than Laver's.

I do think Lendl would have to go with a larger racquet head in today's game simply to keep up with the pace of today's ball.

hoosierbr
01-12-2008, 11:23 AM
BTW, I'm not trying to "win" this argument. I'm just trying to understand the reasons behind your position better. So far, I don't think you've really explained it very well nor given any real valid reasons. It seems you've just deferred by saying that other players and coaches would agree with you. Perhaps if you were able to provide some tangible reasons, I would be convinced enough to change my position.

If you were able to answer this question, it would help me to understand your position much better:

Assuming Federer and Becker are equally talented, if Federer is able to beat Nadal with his 90 sq. in. racquet, why wouldn't Becker be able to beat Nadal with his 92 sq. in. racquet? :confused:

BTW, I think Becker might even give Nadal more trouble than Federer because he has a bigger serve, is a better serve and volleyer, can come into the net off of a return, and is harder to pass at the net.

If you're not trying to win the argument why do you keep going back to it? I gave one simple, valid reason why Lendl couldn't beat Nadal using his old racquet - Lendl's old racquet is simply that old. Nadal's racquet is made from more modern materials, is lighter and has more inherent power than what Lendl used.

As for Becker, if he felt his old racquets were good enough to compete with today's players why has he been designing new, modern racquets at Volkl for the last few years? Volkl boasts the best in modern engineering and technology. Is it just technology for technology's sake or is there something to updating these racquets?

I'm not assuming anything, I know for a fact that the vast majority of players and coaches would agree with me that Lendl in prime condition using his old racquet would get smoked by Nadal using his Babolat. Using the same racquet, Nadal's or Lendl's, and it's a different story entirely.

hoosierbr
01-12-2008, 11:24 AM
The fact that you bring up the Borg comeback, where he took a 10 year layoff and used a wooden racquet is the most ridiculous statement of all. That hardly compares to Lendl using a graphite racquet in his prime. Idiotic, to put it mildly.

I've played extensively with both racquets. The Estusa is FAR more forgiving than the K90. I find it rather easy to swing.

As for Lendl-Nadal. Lendl is exactly the type of player that Nadal loses to: flat powerful hitters that go for their shots. Just look at how Blake handles Nadal. Are we to presume James Blake is better than Ivan Lendl? No part of Blake's game is better than Lendl's.

This was just silly and petty but it made me laugh. Thanks!

stormholloway
01-12-2008, 11:34 AM
If you're not trying to win the argument why do you keep going back to it? I gave one simple, valid reason why Lendl couldn't beat Nadal using his old racquet - Lendl's old racquet is simply that old. Nadal's racquet is made from more modern materials, is lighter and has more inherent power than what Lendl used.

As for Becker, if he felt his old racquets were good enough to compete with today's players why has he been designing new, modern racquets at Volkl for the last few years? Volkl boasts the best in modern engineering and technology. Is it just technology for technology's sake or is there something to updating these racquets?

Then why is Federer essentially using a 20 year old racquet? I think Lendl with a 75 sq. inch racquet would be in trouble. Not only that but his racquet wasn't far from being from the wooden era in its design. I'm pretty sure he was using the same racquet against Borg in 1981, and Borg beat him in the French with his woodie.

I think it would be prudent for Lendl to upgrade his racquet to compete today, but unless someone has a time machine, it doesn't matter. Lendl is fat and doesn't even play tennis.

This was just silly and petty but it made me laugh. Thanks!

Your lack of elaboration or specificity is a dead giveaway.

hoosierbr
01-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Then why is Federer essentially using a 20 year old racquet? I think Lendl with a 75 sq. inch racquet would be in trouble. Not only that but his racquet wasn't far from being from the wooden era in its design. I'm pretty sure he was using the same racquet against Borg in 1981, and Borg beat him in the French with his woodie.

I think it would be prudent for Lendl to upgrade his racquet to compete today, but unless someone has a time machine, it doesn't matter. Lendl is fat and doesn't even play tennis.



Your lack of elaboration or specificity is a dead giveaway.

We agree on the first part, which if you had read my posts, was the point I was making to BP, to no avail. Lendl's old GTX or whatever it was called might not survive unbroken playing against a Nadal or Andreev, someone who hits a heavy ball.

No need to be specific, the argument is too far out there to be debated. But hey, name-calling is a dead giveaway.

You and BP are now on my ignore list. If you can act like adults then I'll reconsider.

stormholloway
01-12-2008, 11:46 AM
We agree on the first part, which if you had read my posts, was the point I was making to BP, to no avail. Lendl's old GTX or whatever it was called might not survive unbroken playing against a Nadal or Andreev, someone who hits a heavy ball.

No need to be specific, the argument is too far out there to be debated. But hey, name-calling is a dead giveaway.

I never called you any name. Please re-read.

But anyway, all retired players who still play will tell you that the strings have made a huge impact. The racquets have as well, probably to a slightly lesser degree. Any player can add a poly to his old frame and will simply hit a better ball. Any player cannot necessarily switch frames because this changes the comfort.

The combination of strings and racquet improvements means that anyone not updating in these fashions will be automatically at a disadvantage. Without a poly, Lendl's accuracy would have to be spot on for him to beat the likes of Nadal. Balls that flew long 20 years ago drop a foot inside the baseline today. I think it's just that simple.

But I hate the notion that today's players are somehow less talented. To me, players like Andreev play such uninspired tennis. All things being equal, Ivan would have Igor for lunch.

hoosierbr
01-12-2008, 11:54 AM
I never called you any name. Please re-read.

But anyway, all retired players who still play will tell you that the strings have made a huge impact. The racquets have as well, probably to a slightly lesser degree. Any player can add a poly to his old frame and will simply hit a better ball. Any player cannot necessarily switch frames because this changes the comfort.

The combination of strings and racquet improvements means that anyone not updating in these fashions will be automatically at a disadvantage. Without a poly, Lendl's accuracy would have to be spot on for him to beat the likes of Nadal. Balls that flew long 20 years ago drop a foot inside the baseline today. I think it's just that simple.

But I hate the notion that today's players are somehow less talented. To me, players like Andreev play such uninspired tennis. All things being equal, Ivan would have Igor for lunch.

This is what drives me nuts. We agree on all these things, I've said so many times. Part of the reason there aren't any serve-and-volleyers left is that strings like Luxilon make passing shots so much easier to hit.

I said before if you had read closely that give Lendl the same racquet as Nadal or Davydenko or Andreev or whoever, with the exception of Fed perhaps, and in his prime condition he'd be a top player no question. Same with Becker. Great players are great players.

Why that offends you guys I don't get.

stormholloway
01-12-2008, 11:56 AM
This is what drives me nuts. We agree on all these things, I've said so many times. Part of the reason there aren't any serve-and-volleyers left is that strings like Luxilon make passing shots so much easier to hit.

I said before if you had read closely that give Lendl the same racquet as Nadal or Davydenko or Andreev or whoever, with the exception of Fed perhaps, and in his prime condition he'd be a top player no question. Same with Becker. Great players are great players.

Why that offends you guys I don't get.

I wasn't offended, and I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I was just voicing my opinion. It had little to do with what you said.

BreakPoint
01-12-2008, 12:31 PM
If you're not trying to win the argument why do you keep going back to it? I gave one simple, valid reason why Lendl couldn't beat Nadal using his old racquet - Lendl's old racquet is simply that old. Nadal's racquet is made from more modern materials, is lighter and has more inherent power than what Lendl used. Federer's K90 is pretty old too because it's based on 25 year old technology, but that hasn't stopped him from beating Nadal. And Lendl's racquet is pretty powerful too because it has so much mass, and mass = power. And, yes, Lendl is his prime was strong enough and fit enough to swing his heavy racquet fast for hours. You make it sound as if "lighter" is a good thing. If that were true, why do almost all pros add lead tape to their lightweight racquets? Besides, there's a lot more to tennis than just power.

As for Becker, if he felt his old racquets were good enough to compete with today's players why has he been designing new, modern racquets at Volkl for the last few years? Volkl boasts the best in modern engineering and technology. Is it just technology for technology's sake or is there something to updating these racquets?
Becker is designing racquets for recreational players, not the pros, because that's who most of his customers are. Perhaps that's why so few pros or even just top recreational players uses Volkls? He is not designing racquets for himself to use in his prime, but is designing a racquet for himself to use as an old man. Yes, it is technology for technology's sake. Many people believe that racquets just keep getting worse and worse every year the more so-called" technologies" that racquet companies keep putting into their racquets. Perhaps that's why Wilson finally took out all of that B.S. technology and gave us an essentially 25 year-old racquet in the K90. Look, I know you've said before that you have trouble using racquets like the K90/nCode 90/PS 6.0, but that does not mean that pros like Federer, Lendl or Becker can't use them either, right?

I'm not assuming anything, I know for a fact that the vast majority of players and coaches would agree with me that Lendl in prime condition using his old racquet would get smoked by Nadal using his Babolat. Using the same racquet, Nadal's or Lendl's, and it's a different story entirely.
If that's a "fact", then why are so many people even just here already disagreeing with you? :confused: BTW, are these "vast majority of players and coaches" that you refer to mostly Babolat (or other "modern" racquet) users or are they mostly K90/nCode90/PS 6.0/Estusa users?

NoBadMojo
01-12-2008, 01:22 PM
Federer's K90 is pretty old too because it's based on 25 year old technology, but that hasn't stopped him from beating Nadal. And Lendl's racquet is pretty powerful too because it has so much mass, and mass = power. And, yes, Lendl is his prime was strong enough and fit enough to swing his heavy racquet fast for hours. You make it sound as if "lighter" is a good thing. If that were true, why do almost all pros add lead tape to their lightweight racquets? Besides, there's a lot more to tennis than just power.

Becker is designing racquets for recreational players, not the pros, because that's who most of his customers are. Perhaps that's why so few pros or even just top recreational players uses Volkls? He is not designing racquets for himself to use in his prime, but is designing a racquet for himself to use as an old man. Yes, it is technology for technology's sake. Many people believe that racquets just keep getting worse and worse every year the more so-called" technologies" that racquet companies keep putting into their racquets. Perhaps that's why Wilson finally took out all of that B.S. technology and gave us an essentially 25 year-old racquet in the K90. Look, I know you've said before that you have trouble using racquets like the K90/nCode 90/PS 6.0, but that does not mean that pros like Federer, Lendl or Becker can't use them either, right?

If that's a "fact", then why are so many people even just here already disagreeing with you? :confused: BTW, are these "vast majority of players and coaches" that you refer to mostly Babolat (or other "modern" racquet) users or are they mostly K90/nCode90/PS 6.0/Estusa users?

I dont think you even bother to read what people you are arguing with are posting. Hoosierbr said in his post some while ago that he put you on his ignore list yet you rattle on. This is in the same vein as me telling you hundreds of times that i dont wish to have 'conversations' with you which you are incapable of respecting as you continue on with your really inaccurate wildly speculative posts

BreakPoint
01-12-2008, 01:46 PM
I dont think you even bother to read what people you are arguing with are posting. Hoosierbr said in his post some while ago that he put you on his ignore list yet you rattle on. This is in the same vein as me telling you hundreds of times that i dont wish to have 'conversations' with you which you are incapable of respecting as you continue on with your really inaccurate wildly speculative posts
Whether or not Hoosierbr has put me on his ignore list or not is his business, not mine. The last I checked, he's not the only one who reads this forum.

hoosierbr
01-12-2008, 02:16 PM
I'm not sure why exactly what I've said draws such ire from a couple of posters.

I'm speaking for myself here based on my experiences as a tennis player. I used mids growing up all the way through playing Div 1 tennis because as a serve-and-volleyer a mid was the best racquet for my game.

But even I have realized that the game has progressed and if I wish to play good tennis at my level, I play Open USTA tourneys in Southern California and practice with players at the local universities, I need something a bit more forgiving.

I demoed both the K90 and NCode 90. I personally liked the NCode better but found the K90 was, I think, a better racquet overall. An improvement in some ways, bigger sweetspot and a nicer hit.

For a time I tried the RDX 500 Mid and while I loved that racquet it just wasn't doing it for me.

I don't know or presume to know what kind of player you are, BP, or how old you are, I'm 27. I want to take your side on this argument because I don't think a lot of this new racquet and string technology has improved the game, in fact in many ways it's done more harm than good. I'd like to believe that Lendl or Becker would be able to play against Nadal or Roddick using their old racquets and win. I just don't see it.

Even Sampras who used his PS 85 his whole career has said he wished he had switched to something like what he uses now while he still played. He uses, I think, the old Asian NCode that Fed used before the K90. And he's using a Luxilon hybrid. Now going from 85 to 90 may not seem like much a difference to you but it did to him. Just as there's quite a difference between a 90 and 95, at least to me.

Even Edberg uses something bigger now and he was my idol. He's still in incredible shape, doesn't seem to have gained any weight and plays three times a week with Swedish juniors. Yet he had trouble beating Leconte and McEnroe and couldn't beat Tim Henman this last fall.

My point is I share your grief over the state of the game. I think Lendl and Becker and these other guys were great enough to adapt to modern racquets and strings and still kick butt.

From my experiences I hardly see any K90's or NCode 90's. I see the 95's. I see a ton of Babolats. I see a lot of Prince. A lot of Head. I think the vast majority of players today, based on sales figures, use these racquets. If more used mids then Yonex and Wilson wouldn't be the only ones making a mid. A mid.

stormholloway
01-12-2008, 02:20 PM
I fall in the middle here. I think the PS85's design was somewhat ahead of its time, especially compared to Lendl's frame. I think that's what the basic design hasn't changed much. It simply isn't obsolete. There aren't any new racquets out there that have a design like Lendl's GTX. That racquet is still very similar to wooden racquets of old.

Lendl won matches with it because he was great and felt comfortable with it, but I certainly think the design of that racquet has limitations, and I don't think it would be in his best interest to play with that frame today. He'd be far better off with a 90 inch Pro Staff variant.

hoosierbr
01-12-2008, 02:25 PM
I fall in the middle here. I think the PS85's design was somewhat ahead of its time, especially compared to Lendl's frame. I think that's what the basic design hasn't changed much. It simply isn't obsolete. There aren't any new racquets out there that have a design like Lendl's GTX. That racquet is still very similar to wooden racquets of old.

Lendl won matches with it because he was great and felt comfortable with it, but I certainly think the design of that racquet has limitations, and I don't think it would be in his best interest to play with that frame today. He'd be far better off with a 90 inch Pro Staff variant.

That's what I've been arguing all along. If Lendl used a racquet like what he used towards the end of his career or even if he used a PS, ok. But not the GTX. No way, no how.

Gasquetrules
01-12-2008, 05:43 PM
In my earlier post I stated the revolution in string technology since Becker and Lendl played has changed the game... and for the better, I think. It allows players to swing harder and still control the shots. Ironically, to me, the new strings make the older-style graphites even better and they make it possible for players like Nadal to use frames that a few years back were considered developmental frames for intermediate players.

Most pro player today still use thin-beamed frames similar to the early graphite frames developed by Wilson, Head and Prince. But stick a set of Big Banger strings in them and you can really take a big swing at the ball and control the shot. Without these strings Nadal could never have played with the frame he uses; neither could Gasquet have played with his Instinct XL Pro. They couldn't have harnessed the power.

I experimented with the Head Instinct, believing I needed to go to the newer racquet technology to keep up with the much younger players I often compete against. But after I discovered the new string technology, I found I could put these strings in any classic frame and play better tennis.

Sampras would has the same challenge today that Becker or Lendl would: making the change from natural gut to the new strings... and I won't say just poly, because some of these strings are nylon-based.

You can really hear the different sound the ball makes today when struck than it did just six or seven years ago. Really, it's changed since Guga Kuerten won his last French Open title.

I'm sure both Becker and Lendl would play better with the new strings than they did during their pro careers -- even if they kept their old racquets. And I believe that both Becker and Lendl -- but especially Becker -- have games that would give Nadal problems.

And if Guga Kuerten hadn't devoloped his unfortunate hip problem, Nadal would be lucky to have one French Open title today instead of three. A healthy Kuerten playing the way he did seven years ago would beat Nadal in straight sets easily, especially with Luxillon strings in his classic Head frame.

But you play with the equipment you have available to you at the time. And the things that are possible with the racquets and strings you have pretty much shape the possiblities -- and the probabilities -- of the way the game will be played.

I say that Boris Becker was the best player to ever play the game before Federer came along, and I would love to see Becker in his prime battle Federer today. Total package vs. total package. You think Becker hit the ball hard with gut, put modern strings in his Powerbeam and you would see awesome power. He'd be an easy top ten player today.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-12-2008, 06:15 PM
I say that Boris Becker was the best player to ever play the game before Federer came along, and I would love to see Becker in his prime battle Federer today. Total package vs. total package. You think Becker hit the ball hard with gut, put modern strings in his Powerbeam and you would see awesome power. He'd be an easy top ten player today.

Now THAT'S a match I would pay to see!

I certainly see Boom-Boom as one of the ALL-TIME greats. ;) Unfortunately he became, uh....shall we say 'distracted' along the way.

BTW, I've played the Estusa w/ Luxilon and it hits a monster-heavy ball with TONS of spin.

Best,

CC

David L
01-12-2008, 06:27 PM
An upload of the match, by a guy at MTF I think.

Becker v Lendl 91 Australian Open Final.

Set 1.http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S0S5DFCP
Set 2.http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MN2MJJ4F
Set 3.http://www.megaupload.com/?d=838O2RI0
Set 4.http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4X5FKZS

drakulie
01-13-2008, 08:19 AM
This is in the same vein as me telling you hundreds of times that i dont wish to have 'conversations' with you which you are incapable of respecting as you continue on with your really inaccurate wildly speculative posts

If you don't want BP to have conversations with you, then why is it that you directed this Post to BP?? hmmmm??????

Azzurri
01-13-2008, 09:55 AM
If you're not trying to win the argument why do you keep going back to it? I gave one simple, valid reason why Lendl couldn't beat Nadal using his old racquet - Lendl's old racquet is simply that old. Nadal's racquet is made from more modern materials, is lighter and has more inherent power than what Lendl used.

As for Becker, if he felt his old racquets were good enough to compete with today's players why has he been designing new, modern racquets at Volkl for the last few years? Volkl boasts the best in modern engineering and technology. Is it just technology for technology's sake or is there something to updating these racquets?

I'm not assuming anything, I know for a fact that the vast majority of players and coaches would agree with me that Lendl in prime condition using his old racquet would get smoked by Nadal using his Babolat. Using the same racquet, Nadal's or Lendl's, and it's a different story entirely.

I just can't take your posts any longer. Your arguement is so ridiculous. I now know you never even watched Lendl in the 80's and 90's because you are so clueless its giving me a headache.

1. U R CLUELESS
2. Technology? Give me a break. Anyone w/a brain knows the "new technology" is mostly talk by the tennis companies to keep selling racquets.
3. So Lendl never beat anyone w/ a 100+ inch racquet head???? Plenty of players were using large headed racquets in his day.
4. POWER? Please call Federer and tell him his racquet does not have enough power. Please go tell him that.
5. I know this for a fact...you have detroyed this thread with your lunacy.

My take: Becker and Lendl would have been just as dominant today as they were in their day. Its not like it was 50 years ago. The type of racquet did not differ that much from today's (if you believe the new technology is a load of crap). I use Safin and other players as an example. If the new technology actually worked, then why doies he insist on playing with an "old" racquet PJ'd to look like the new ones. We all know many, many players PJ OLD racquets.

EDIT: I noticed you are 27 yrs old...now it makes sense. you were too young to be a fan back then. So its your age that makes you very clueless.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-13-2008, 10:39 AM
I think lendl and becker would get beat pretty bad today. Lendl would get blown away from the baseline and beckers serve and volley would not work and his baseline game would not be good enough. How would MartinaNav and Chris Evert, Steffi Graf- compete today? They would get blown away!! Sampras-Agassi- are one of the rare 80's players to do well with current pace. Chang- Even Courier i think would really struggle. But here's the thing, even fed and almost everybody is just baseline bashing nowdays. The pace is way faster than in the 80s-90's. I myself dont like the majority of players today, and like all of the players above more, i just dont think most of them would be current GS contenders.

!Tym
01-13-2008, 10:53 AM
1. Becker's with Volkl now for one reason and one reason only now..."money, money, money," as the Million Dollar Man would say. Actually, two, he's also German and an entrepreneur who saw an opportunity to create his own line and own logo with a German company, I mean WHO *wouldn't* take that bet? Becker doesn't care very much at all about his on-court performance anymore, how often do you see him play on the seniors tour or just as often sign up then pull out at the last second infuriating exhibition organizers (or even McEnroe who was scheduled to play Becker at the US Open in a gala match until pulling out at the last second for luke warm reasons). The fact is though when Becker was playing FOR REAL, he wasn't so keen on switching from his trusty old Estusa mold. He played just fine in taking the 95 Aussie Open using this thing called "the modern game" to do so. You can DEFINITELY play "modern" tennis with the old frames. Have you ever tried using a wood racket against good players? I have. You'd be surprised how much your strokes can still hold up. In fact, I foudn that my volleys never felt better or more natural than when volleying with a wood racket. It's not the weight of the racket, but the dimensions just make you feel like you can be so much more precise with how easily you line up and track the ball. It's a *significant* advantage of the wood racket frame profile in my opinion.

2) Lendl's racket had a profile like a wood racket with a similar head size. The advantage of the narrow shaft profile is that it allows FARRRRRR superior tracking and "feel" through the air. The disadvantage is that it's not as stable as the wider "V" throats of today. The Prince Mono and Fischer Mono rackets tried to give you the advantages of the older frame style but with the stability of graphite behind them...problem was they were still torquey. Lendl solved this problem with his frame in my opinion because his had the weight of a thousand unpeeled onions behind them, meaning, he packed on the weight on his stick and believe you me his opponents FELT that weight, the weight of Lendl's groundies I don't think can be appreciated on t.v. But the reality is that I've seen them push a young Agassi's rip-roaring groundies into oblivion. Young Agassi's pace was all flash and hair, but Lendl's was all substance. Precise, deep, and something about it just had a way of pushing people back and making their rackets twist. It's not something you could always see on t.v. just by looking at the ball, but the facts and guys like Brad Gilbert and Larry Stefanki will attest to that immense heaviness.

Old and crippled bad back Lendl still managed to pound out Agassi, Courier, Stich, Bruguera, Korda, Muster, and others which is REALLY saying something in my opinion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Lendl's racket was NOT a disadvantage TO HIS GAME. I mean just look at his strokes and the guy's physique. He may not have been burly, but in my opinion his fitness and FUNCTIONAL strength (much more important that "brute" weight lifting strength in tennis) were OFF THE CHARTS for a tennis player in ANY era.

The guy was a cyborg machine, and his stroke techniques were plodding, methodical, and most of all PRECISE. There was very little wasted motion on his swings, he set his racket to the exact plane of the ball on his take-backs as well as any player I've ever seen this side of Connors. He would hinge his elbow, loading it up like a spring, then WHAM he'd catapult that racket straight forward like a mallot. It was an incredibly simple and deliberate technique that he employed but incredibly effective. To hit with that technique though and still expect to control the ball, you CAN'T use a Pure Drive no way. Your balls, EVEN WITH Luxilon, would shoot straight to the back fence. Nadal relies more on brute-junk (i.e. overwhelming pace + spin vs. pin-point placement) to do damage with his groundies, Lendl relied on highly ACCURATE pace. Lendl was a sniper from the baseline, and his serves and groundies were made for games like "knock down the drums" and "knock down the pins!" at the higher levels in Virtua Tennis 3...just saying.

Is it true that a bigger head is more foregiving? Sure, but NOT ALWAYS. I find a 90sq. inch Yonex to feel WAAAAY more foregiving for me than a 95"-98" thin-beam but conventional head shape player's racket.

In fact, I found the Rossignol FT 5.80 to play about as well and natural feeling on my groundies as any racket I've ever tried. I RARELY mishit with that racket, which defied all logic to me, because the racket head itself was TINY. How tiny? 85sq. inches tiny!!!

I couldn't believe it from how cleanly I struck the ball with it, but it was true. My only explanation is that that racket's EXACT dimensions and frame profile just felt PERFECT *for me* on my groundstrokes. This allowed me to more precisely maneuver, angle, and track my racket through the air on my swings time after time thus resulting in clean contact time after time, DESPITE the small head size. Why is that? Very simple to me, because finding a racket that *comfortably tracks to YOUR unique swing* is in fact actually MORE important than the head size. If you track and line-up your swing correctly, head size shouldn't matter nearly as much, as you're eliminating the variables. The "whiplash" strokes of Nadal? For THAT kind of swing, for sure the Babolat aero effect is a perfect match, but it's different strokes for different folks as EVERY kind of racket design has an advantage for every disadvantage INCLUDING Lendl's *seemingly* obsolote design that he made NOT obsolete by actually *winning* so dong much with it.

Look at Agassi's swing's. His forehand motion in particular, his swing to me is taylor made for the unique aerodynamics of an OS racket; thus he gets the benefits of an OS without as many of the negatives. Same with Sampras and a small headed frame. For me, I think the Bruguera forehand technique feels MUCH more natural with a Yonex head shape than the traditional oval, but that's just me. Again, frame aerodynamics being suited to a particular stroking style are incredibly important though to personal performance.

The thing is if people want to make a big deal about Lendl's racket being such a disadvantage, then what does that say about guys like Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, in other words, EVERY OTHER top player he ever faced during his prime once wood rackets became extinct who used a "bigger head" than he. If you really believe that he was at such a distinct disadvantage, then he should not have won hardly AT ALL considering that he's playing the best players on the face of the planet on a daily basis. If you believe that, then you're essentially saying Lendl was the single, most *talented*, player in the history of the game.

...and, of course, that would be ludicrous. After all, Lendl was never really known for his pure talent per say, but rather his ludicrous work ethic that made up for his slightly eggregious talent level...right?

Fact, I've seen a young Agassi try and stuff balls down Lendl's throat with his fancy OS wand, and yet Lendl's tiny head still managed to hold up just fine and he was not mishitting and whiffing to the moon. The fact is Lendl with his tiny head was one of the cleanest, purest, ball strikers to ever grace this planet earth. Fact, he and his racket were MADE FOR EACH OTHER and nobody else. The results don't lie, and certainly Lendl's prodigious bank account doesn't seem to mind that the man carried a very, very small stick. :wink:

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-13-2008, 11:24 AM
1 Federer , R. 7180
2 Nadal , R. 5780
3 Djokovic , N. 4315
4 Davydenko , N. 2825
5 Ferrer , D. 2615
6 Roddick , A. 2530
7 Gonzalez , F. 2005
8 Gasquet , R. 1895
9 Murray , A. 1830
10 Nalbandian , D


Ask yourself honestly if Lendl could beat any of these guys in his prime ?

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 11:28 AM
1 Federer , R. 7180
2 Nadal , R. 5780
3 Djokovic , N. 4315
4 Davydenko , N. 2825
5 Ferrer , D. 2615
6 Roddick , A. 2530
7 Gonzalez , F. 2005
8 Gasquet , R. 1895
9 Murray , A. 1830
10 Nalbandian , D


Ask yourself honestly if Lendl could beat any of these guys in him prime ?
Yes, all of them, including Federer, AND with his old racquet. And Becker could, too, with his old racquet.

BTW, may I ask how old you are? Judging by this post and your previous one, I'm guessing that you weren't watching a whole lot of tennis from 1982-1994. Am I right?

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-13-2008, 11:39 AM
BP i watched all them players play live. I'm a little younger than sampras..:)

Now when you look at the current top 10 i can see that most of them dont seem to be "champions" like becker-edberg-etc.. I just dont think you realize how good that list is and what level you need to be to beat those guys..

hoosierbr
01-13-2008, 01:16 PM
I just can't take your posts any longer. Your arguement is so ridiculous. I now know you never even watched Lendl in the 80's and 90's because you are so clueless its giving me a headache.

1. U R CLUELESS
2. Technology? Give me a break. Anyone w/a brain knows the "new technology" is mostly talk by the tennis companies to keep selling racquets.
3. So Lendl never beat anyone w/ a 100+ inch racquet head???? Plenty of players were using large headed racquets in his day.
4. POWER? Please call Federer and tell him his racquet does not have enough power. Please go tell him that.
5. I know this for a fact...you have detroyed this thread with your lunacy.

My take: Becker and Lendl would have been just as dominant today as they were in their day. Its not like it was 50 years ago. The type of racquet did not differ that much from today's (if you believe the new technology is a load of crap). I use Safin and other players as an example. If the new technology actually worked, then why doies he insist on playing with an "old" racquet PJ'd to look like the new ones. We all know many, many players PJ OLD racquets.

EDIT: I noticed you are 27 yrs old...now it makes sense. you were too young to be a fan back then. So its your age that makes you very clueless.

This made me laugh. I'm clueless? Even funnier the second time. If you read what I had posted, oh never mind.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-13-2008, 02:51 PM
1. Becker's with Volkl now for one reason and one reason only now..."money, money, money," as the Million Dollar Man would say. Actually, two, he's also German and an entrepreneur who saw an opportunity to create his own line and own logo with a German company, I mean WHO *wouldn't* take that bet? Becker doesn't care very much at all about his on-court performance anymore, how often do you see him play on the seniors tour or just as often sign up then pull out at the last second infuriating exhibition organizers (or even McEnroe who was scheduled to play Becker at the US Open in a gala match until pulling out at the last second for luke warm reasons). The fact is though when Becker was playing FOR REAL, he wasn't so keen on switching from his trusty old Estusa mold. He played just fine in taking the 95 Aussie Open using this thing called "the modern game" to do so. You can DEFINITELY play "modern" tennis with the old frames. Have you ever tried using a wood racket against good players? I have. You'd be surprised how much your strokes can still hold up. In fact, I foudn that my volleys never felt better or more natural than when volleying with a wood racket. It's not the weight of the racket, but the dimensions just make you feel like you can be so much more precise with how easily you line up and track the ball. It's a *significant* advantage of the wood racket frame profile in my opinion.

2) Lendl's racket had a profile like a wood racket with a similar head size. The advantage of the narrow shaft profile is that it allows FARRRRRR superior tracking and "feel" through the air. The disadvantage is that it's not as stable as the wider "V" throats of today. The Prince Mono and Fischer Mono rackets tried to give you the advantages of the older frame style but with the stability of graphite behind them...problem was they were still torquey. Lendl solved this problem with his frame in my opinion because his had the weight of a thousand unpeeled onions behind them, meaning, he packed on the weight on his stick and believe you me his opponents FELT that weight, the weight of Lendl's groundies I don't think can be appreciated on t.v. But the reality is that I've seen them push a young Agassi's rip-roaring groundies into oblivion. Young Agassi's pace was all flash and hair, but Lendl's was all substance. Precise, deep, and something about it just had a way of pushing people back and making their rackets twist. It's not something you could always see on t.v. just by looking at the ball, but the facts and guys like Brad Gilbert and Larry Stefanki will attest to that immense heaviness.

Old and crippled bad back Lendl still managed to pound out Agassi, Courier, Stich, Bruguera, Korda, Muster, and others which is REALLY saying something in my opinion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Lendl's racket was NOT a disadvantage TO HIS GAME. I mean just look at his strokes and the guy's physique. He may not have been burly, but in my opinion his fitness and FUNCTIONAL strength (much more important that "brute" weight lifting strength in tennis) were OFF THE CHARTS for a tennis player in ANY era.

The guy was a cyborg machine, and his stroke techniques were plodding, methodical, and most of all PRECISE. There was very little wasted motion on his swings, he set his racket to the exact plane of the ball on his take-backs as well as any player I've ever seen this side of Connors. He would hinge his elbow, loading it up like a spring, then WHAM he'd catapult that racket straight forward like a mallot. It was an incredibly simple and deliberate technique that he employed but incredibly effective. To hit with that technique though and still expect to control the ball, you CAN'T use a Pure Drive no way. Your balls, EVEN WITH Luxilon, would shoot straight to the back fence. Nadal relies more on brute-junk (i.e. overwhelming pace + spin vs. pin-point placement) to do damage with his groundies, Lendl relied on highly ACCURATE pace. Lendl was a sniper from the baseline, and his serves and groundies were made for games like "knock down the drums" and "knock down the pins!" at the higher levels in Virtua Tennis 3...just saying.

Is it true that a bigger head is more foregiving? Sure, but NOT ALWAYS. I find a 90sq. inch Yonex to feel WAAAAY more foregiving for me than a 95"-98" thin-beam but conventional head shape player's racket.

In fact, I found the Rossignol FT 5.80 to play about as well and natural feeling on my groundies as any racket I've ever tried. I RARELY mishit with that racket, which defied all logic to me, because the racket head itself was TINY. How tiny? 85sq. inches tiny!!!

I couldn't believe it from how cleanly I struck the ball with it, but it was true. My only explanation is that that racket's EXACT dimensions and frame profile just felt PERFECT *for me* on my groundstrokes. This allowed me to more precisely maneuver, angle, and track my racket through the air on my swings time after time thus resulting in clean contact time after time, DESPITE the small head size. Why is that? Very simple to me, because finding a racket that *comfortably tracks to YOUR unique swing* is in fact actually MORE important than the head size. If you track and line-up your swing correctly, head size shouldn't matter nearly as much, as you're eliminating the variables. The "whiplash" strokes of Nadal? For THAT kind of swing, for sure the Babolat aero effect is a perfect match, but it's different strokes for different folks as EVERY kind of racket design has an advantage for every disadvantage INCLUDING Lendl's *seemingly* obsolote design that he made NOT obsolete by actually *winning* so dong much with it.

Look at Agassi's swing's. His forehand motion in particular, his swing to me is taylor made for the unique aerodynamics of an OS racket; thus he gets the benefits of an OS without as many of the negatives. Same with Sampras and a small headed frame. For me, I think the Bruguera forehand technique feels MUCH more natural with a Yonex head shape than the traditional oval, but that's just me. Again, frame aerodynamics being suited to a particular stroking style are incredibly important though to personal performance.

The thing is if people want to make a big deal about Lendl's racket being such a disadvantage, then what does that say about guys like Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, in other words, EVERY OTHER top player he ever faced during his prime once wood rackets became extinct who used a "bigger head" than he. If you really believe that he was at such a distinct disadvantage, then he should not have won hardly AT ALL considering that he's playing the best players on the face of the planet on a daily basis. If you believe that, then you're essentially saying Lendl was the single, most *talented*, player in the history of the game.

...and, of course, that would be ludicrous. After all, Lendl was never really known for his pure talent per say, but rather his ludicrous work ethic that made up for his slightly eggregious talent level...right?

Fact, I've seen a young Agassi try and stuff balls down Lendl's throat with his fancy OS wand, and yet Lendl's tiny head still managed to hold up just fine and he was not mishitting and whiffing to the moon. The fact is Lendl with his tiny head was one of the cleanest, purest, ball strikers to ever grace this planet earth. Fact, he and his racket were MADE FOR EACH OTHER and nobody else. The results don't lie, and certainly Lendl's prodigious bank account doesn't seem to mind that the man carried a very, very small stick. :wink:

Excellent post. ;)

BTW, I can't say with certainty who might win if Lendl or Becker were to take on any of the current ATP Top 10, assuming all the participants arrive at their 'Peak'. (Capitalization intended) However, I am pretty sure the result would not be PRIMARILY driven by the contestants choice of frames.

Best,

CC

hoosierbr
01-13-2008, 04:07 PM
It's all well and good for posters to say that they've hit with these older racquets and their strokes are still ok but how many used these older frames, hitting against an ATP pro? That's the difference. That's the only way to make any definitive judgements on this subject. Go and do that and come back and report.

Azzurri
01-13-2008, 04:25 PM
This made me laugh. I'm clueless? Even funnier the second time. If you read what I had posted, oh never mind.

good..never mind. can't argue with the clueless. kinda like argueing with dead people, rocks, walls, etc.

Azzurri
01-13-2008, 04:30 PM
BP i watched all them players play live. I'm a little younger than sampras..:)

Now when you look at the current top 10 i can see that most of them dont seem to be "champions" like becker-edberg-etc.. I just dont think you realize how good that list is and what level you need to be to beat those guys..

I doubt you wathced these players, don't believe you. Becker and Lendl would be able to compete and play within the top 10 and give Fed a run for his money. Lendl was a better player than Agassi, Agassi played and played well against today's players. if you think Lendl could not compete, then I guess Agassi was a mirage. Agassi played with all those guys.

You have noi clue who Lendl was and how he domianted the tour for many years during the golden age of tennis.

Azzurri
01-13-2008, 04:58 PM
1 Federer , R. 7180
2 Nadal , R. 5780
3 Djokovic , N. 4315
4 Davydenko , N. 2825
5 Ferrer , D. 2615
6 Roddick , A. 2530
7 Gonzalez , F. 2005
8 Gasquet , R. 1895
9 Murray , A. 1830
10 Nalbandian , D


Ask yourself honestly if Lendl could beat any of these guys in his prime ?

wow...I really am astounded by the stupidity on these boards.

Z-Man
01-13-2008, 06:25 PM
wow...I really am astounded by the stupidity on these boards.

Indeed. TW should start selling Clown Shoes. Call me crazy, but after watching an old Evert-Navratilova AO final, I think either of them would be successful in today's game--and that's without any grunting or crying on the changeovers.

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 06:42 PM
It's all well and good for posters to say that they've hit with these older racquets and their strokes are still ok but how many used these older frames, hitting against an ATP pro? That's the difference. That's the only way to make any definitive judgements on this subject. Go and do that and come back and report.
Huh? But I don't think any of us here have claimed that we're as talented or as good as either Lendl or Becker in their primes have we? It's not about any of us here hitting with these old racquets against an ATP pro. It's about Lendl and Becker in their primes using their old frames against an ATP pro. That's a huge difference, wouldn't you agree? I assumed you had understood that.

BTW, if I did play against an ATP pro, I really don't think my racquet will make much difference in the result.

David L
01-13-2008, 06:44 PM
It's all well and good for posters to say that they've hit with these older racquets and their strokes are still ok but how many used these older frames, hitting against an ATP pro? That's the difference. That's the only way to make any definitive judgements on this subject. Go and do that and come back and report.But Federer and many other players do use these old style frames and are not handicapped by them. Granted, no one uses a frame like Lendl's, but that was even true during Lendl's time. There are many, however, using frames which share similar characteristics to Becker's Estusa. Even many players using oversized heads, are using oversized conventional rackets reminiscent of the Prince Graphite. Agassi's racket was essentially the Prince Graphite thoughout his career, even when he went to Donnay and Head.

Conventional rackets are sufficient for the male pros today. They don't need the widebodies which are sold to the public, they have enough power within themselves. If anything, they have to find ways of curtailing the power in the racket, if they really want to swing at the ball, yet still retain feel and control. This is essentially what Federer has opted for. Roddick has gone out to maximize his power with a widebody, but does not really have the feel. I noticed when Serena Williams won the Aussie Open last year she was using what looked to me like a thin beamed, old school, conventional racket. Now I think she's back to a widebody. The women need the widebodies to get power, Serena is one of the exceptions. Men, on the other hand, do not need widebodies for power. The K90, Prostaff, Prince Graphite, Estusa, Prestige Classic etc are all rackets which any pro would be fine with on the tour today. Of course, their strokes and game would have to suit these rackets, Nadal's game may suffer if he started using the K90, but it suits Federer's technique. As someone said earlier, a lot of the pros are already using older style, 18mm beam frames under paint-jobs. The materials are things like graphite, kevlar etc. It's not as if we are talking about wood. Also, if a player finds they want more power with a conventional racket, they can just lower the tension in the strings.

Azzurri
01-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Indeed. TW should start selling Clown Shoes. Call me crazy, but after watching an old Evert-Navratilova AO final, I think either of them would be successful in today's game--and that's without any grunting or crying on the changeovers.

Its not as if we are talking about Don Budge from 1938. Lendl retired in the middle 90's fro goodness sake. Two major problems on the board..teens and newbie tennis fans. Neither watched or paid much attention to tennis in the 80's to mid 90's. now they think they are experts.:evil:

Azzurri
01-13-2008, 07:00 PM
But Federer and many other players do use these old style frames and are not handicapped by them. Granted, no one uses a frame like Lendl's, but that was even true during Lendl's time. There are many, however, using frames which share similar characteristics to Becker's Estusa. Even many players using oversized heads, are using oversized conventional rackets reminiscent of the Prince Graphite. Agassi's racket was essentially the Prince Graphite thoughout his career, even when he went to Donnay and Head.

Conventional rackets are sufficient for the male pros today. They don't need the widebodies which are sold to the public, they have enough power within themselves. If anything, they have to find ways of curtailing the power in the racket, if they really want to swing at the ball, yet still retain feel and control. This is essentially what Federer has opted for. Roddick has gone out to maximize his power with a widebody, but does not really have the feel. I noticed when Serena Williams won the Aussie Open last year she was using what looked to me like a thin beamed, old school, conventional racket. Now I think she's back to a widebody. The women need the widebodies to get power, Serena is one of the exceptions. Men, on the other hand, do not need widebodies for power. The K90, Prostaff, Prince Graphite, Estusa, Prestige Classic etc are all rackets which any pro would be fine with on the tour today. Of course, their strokes and game would have to suit these rackets, Nadal's game may suffer if he started using the K90, but it suits Federer's technique. As someone said earlier, a lot of the pros are already using older style, 18mm beam frames under paint-jobs. The materials are things like graphite, kevlar etc. It's not as if we are talking about wood. Also, if a player finds they want more power with a conventional racket, they can just lower the tension in the strings.

I salute you..well said. anyone not understanding your post just has little understanding of the game.

hoosierbr
01-13-2008, 07:08 PM
Huh? But I don't think any of us here have claimed that we're as talented or as good as either Lendl or Becker in their primes have we? It's not about any of us here hitting with these old racquets against an ATP pro. It's about Lendl and Becker in their primes using their old frames against an ATP pro. That's a huge difference, wouldn't you agree? I assumed you had understood that.

BTW, if I did play against an ATP pro, I really don't think my racquet will make much difference in the result.

You still don't get it. My point is how can you or I or anyone say that Lendl and Becker using their old frames would compete w/today's top guys? You and other posters went on about you've hit w/older frames and your strokes don't really suffer. Ok, but have you ever used those older frames against an ATP pro? If you did you wouldn't be so quick to say the racquet wouldn't be a handicap. A few pros still use older mids, true and God bless them, but the majority do not.

Yes, pros use older racquets under pj's but nothing even close to Lendl's frame from those years. I don't know about the Estusa racquet or what it was made from or how old it is. All I do know is that Becker used it for a time and stopped after the company went out of business.

Someone asked Lendl if he felt he could beat Fed at his prime and Lendl's answer, a good one, was that it's impossible to say because you have to be on court w/someone to feel how they hit the ball. Becker has said time and again that the only players from HIS era that could beat Fed would be Sampras on grass and maybe hard courts and Edberg on indoor carpet. Not him. And no one bothered to ask them if they used their old equipment what the score would be.

So after the two guys in question have said they either couldn't beat Fed or didn't know how can you or anyone go so far as to say they could and with their old equipment? I think they'd know better than any of us.

Players from that era doing exhibitions and senior tours w/the exception of Courier use something bigger and have gone on record as saying they wished these frames were around when they played because they made their lives easier. Guys like Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras. And yet people on this board contradict them. How does that make any sense?

None of this takes away from Lendl's greatness. One of the GOAT and to this day isn't given the respect he deserves.

Edit: ran across an interview from Edberg recently who said he didn't think he'd have much chance against Fed. Krajicek, his press conference about the Rotterdam field, said if he served well maybe but Fed returns so well that it's hard to say.

Agassi, who played and beat three generations, said he eventually accepted that Fed was better than him. He also said Fed was the best he'd ever seen. Are you going to question Agassi's credentials too?

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 07:26 PM
You still don't get it. My point is how can you or I or anyone say that Lendl and Becker using their old frames would compete w/today's top guys? You and other posters went on about you've hit w/older frames and your strokes don't really suffer. Ok, but have you ever used those older frames against an ATP pro? If you did you wouldn't be so quick to say the racquet wouldn't be a handicap. A few pros still use older mids, true and God bless them, but the majority do not.

Yes, pros use older racquets under pj's but nothing even close to Lendl's frame from those years. I don't know about the Estusa racquet or what it was made from or how old it is. All I do know is that Becker used it for a time and stopped after the company went out of business.

Someone asked Lendl if he felt he could beat Fed at his prime and Lendl's answer, a good one, was that it's impossible to say because you have to be on court w/someone to feel how they hit the ball. Becker has said time and again that the only players from HIS era that could beat Fed would be Sampras on grass and maybe hard courts and Edberg on indoor carpet. Not him. And no one bothered to ask them if they used their old equipment what the score would be.

So after the two guys in question have said they either couldn't beat Fed or didn't know how can you or anyone go so far as to say they could and with their old equipment? I think they'd know better than any of us.

Players from that era doing exhibitions and senior tours w/the exception of Courier use something bigger and have gone on record as saying they wished these frames were around when they played because they made their lives easier. Guys like Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras. And yet people on this board contradict them. How does that make any sense?

None of this takes away from Lendl's greatness. One of the GOAT and to this day isn't given the respect he deserves.

Edit: ran across an interview from Edberg recently who said he didn't think he'd have much chance against Fed. Krajicek, his press conference about the Rotterdam field, said if he served well maybe but Fed returns so well that it's hard to say.
If no one can say how Lendl or Becker would have done against today's pros with their old racquet unless they actually played against them, how can they themselves say how they would have done? :confused:

BTW, we're not just talking about Federer here are we? Isn't Federer several levels above the average ATP pro? Lendl and Becker would likely have more trouble with Federer (not that they would have no chance) but how about the other 500+ pros out there? Besides, you just said above that Lendl stated that he didn't know if he could beat Federer unless he played against him and NOT that he felt he could never beat Federer. And how do you know Becker was not just being modest or if he was talking about playing Federer is his prime or about using his Volkl?

Edberg being modest? Wow, that's so against his Swedish temperment. :o

BTW, I see from your sig that you use the TT Warrior. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I found that frame to be way too light and flimsy and totally unusable.

And like I said before, if I played against an ATP pro, my racquet wouldn't matter. I'd get smoked regardless.

NoBadMojo
01-13-2008, 07:28 PM
A few points I'd like to make.

I feel sorry for people coming to the TW forum hoping to learn something about tennis. You have clueless people here telling people who arent clueless they are clueless and people thinking they are right simply because they relentlessly outpost others.

It;s impossible to say how Lendl and becker would do on tour now. No one knows including lendl and becker

Many pros are NOT using older technology. Guess the experts here have never heard of the Pure Drive or even know that it is a popular racquet on tour or that it was designed for the occassional 3.0 female and wouldnt even be considered a tweener, but falls in the game improvement category

also feds racquet <whatever it is and nobody here really knows> is nowhere close to frames from 20 years ago...the graphite used in tennis racquets today is generations different than what was used 20 years ago. 20 years ago the graphite was MUCH heavier, less strong, and more flexible

The game is different now then even 91. the gear is different and the technique is different, the style of play differs a lot and the sdtrategy differs, and this makes it impossible for people to make these wild claims about how well an old player would do now. and to say they could not only be a top player now, but to be a top player with their old obsolete gear is simply absurd

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 07:33 PM
Agassi, who played and beat three generations, said he eventually accepted that Fed was better than him. He also said Fed was the best he'd ever seen. Are you going to question Agassi's credentials too?
Yet, McEnroe who has seen players from even more eras, including Federer, still thinks that Laver was the greatest ever.

What's the difference between Agassi getting smoked by Lendl in his late-teens versus getting smoked by Federer in his mid-30's other than that he had much older legs when he played against Federer?

hoosierbr
01-13-2008, 07:39 PM
If no one can say how Lendl or Becker would have done against today's pros with their old racquet unless they actually hit with them, how can they themselves say how they would have done? :confused:

BTW, we're not just talking about Federer here are we? Isn't Federer several levels above the average ATP pro? Lendl and Becker would likely have more trouble with Federer (not that they would have no chance) but how about the other 500+ pros out there? Besides, you just said above that Lendl stated that he didn't know if he could beat Federer unless he played against him and NOT that he felt he could never beat Federer. And how do you know Becker was not just being modest or if he was talking about playing Federer is his prime or about using his Volkl?

Edberg being modest? Wow, that's so against his Swedish temperment. :o

BTW, I see from your sig that you use the TT Warrior. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I found that frame to be way too light and flimsy and totally unusable.

And like I said before, if I played against an ATP pro, my racquet wouldn't matter. I'd get smoked regardless.

Look if you want to contradict what Becker, Lendl, Edberg, etc. said by saying they're modest, fine. But I don't recall anyone ever calling Becker or Lendl modest back in the day. No one accused Agassi of being too polite.

But hey, whatever. We disagree and that's fine. I'm really startled that someone who has an opinion that is contrary to others being ruthlessly attacked as clueless and a newbie who knows nothing b/c I don't agree. But speaking as a former Div 1 college player who, back then, hit and played against guys currently on the ATP tour I think I have some credibility. I don't know you or any other posters who called me names but I'll put my credentials up against anyone's anyday. I call them like I see them and I tried to be respectful which wasn't reciprocated. And I don't cede the moral high ground b/c plenty of folks in this thread do nothing but start fights for hell of it.

And now, BP, though not reciprocated I'll give you the respect of pointing out I don't think you're a loon as you've been accused of and I've even defended you in the past. And the fact you couldn't give a little of that back by saying we can agree to disagree is really unfortunate.

As for your comment about my racquet, I used 12+ oz mids most of my competitive playing years but have since moved to something bigger and more forgiving because to play w/these younger guys I need all the help I can get. Sad coming from someone not yet 30.

hoosierbr
01-13-2008, 07:40 PM
Yet, McEnroe who has seen players from even more eras, including Federer, still thinks that Laver was the greatest ever.

What's the difference between Agassi getting smoked by Lendl in his late-teens versus getting smoked by Federer in his mid-30's other than that he had much older legs when he played against Federer?

Agassi won all four Grand Slams, something neither Lendl did or Fed (yet). And he almost beat Fed to win the USO at 35. Lendl's back gave out in his last years and he wasn't a force anymore, Agassi finished in Top 8 at 35.

End of story.

David L
01-13-2008, 07:50 PM
I doubt you wathced these players, don't believe you. Becker and Lendl would be able to compete and play within the top 10 and give Fed a run for his money. Lendl was a better player than Agassi, Agassi played and played well against today's players. if you think Lendl could not compete, then I guess Agassi was a mirage. Agassi played with all those guys.

You have noi clue who Lendl was and how he domianted the tour for many years during the golden age of tennis.Becker and Lendl would be competitive today, but Federer would have their number. Also, I don't know if we can say Lendl was better than Agassi. Lendl used to beat him a lot, but this was when Agassi was a teenager, before he really became the aggressive baseliner who emerged in the 90s. Becker saw that aggressive baseliner and used to lose to him routinely. Lendl and Becker were more complete than Agassi, but not categorically better.

I think one of the main developments we have seen in the game, in some ways spearheaded by Agassi, that would give Lendl and Becker trouble, would be the pace at which it is played today. Players are hitting harder and taking the ball earlier, such that today's game sometimes resembles ping pong more than tennis. Agassi used to run Becker ragged because he took the ball so early and robbed time. Today, the movement of the players is so much better than it was. Power and foot speed are the watch words when you look at players like Federer, Nadal, Blake, Djokovic etc. They are strong guys who can hit the cover off the ball like Becker and Lendl, but they are not heavy set. They are fleet of foot, get to absolutely everything and do something with the ball. In the match for this thread, Becker and Lendl were slugging away there, but a lot of those balls which were not coming back, probably would be coming back a lot more today and earlier. Also, with the slower courts, consistently hitting those power shots would present considerably more challenge, especially for a player like Becker who often played a high risk, low patience game. In all his time he never won one clay court tournament.

Becker and Lendl were great players by any eras standards, but I'm not so sure they could just waltz into this era in their primes and start dominating. They would for sure have their hands full. They look big and intimidating, but that doesn't win you matches. Look at all the big guys out there getting schooled by Federer, Davydenko and Ferrer. We know diminutive Mcenroe, Borg and Connors handed out a few lessons to Lendl as well, before they started getting old or retired. Unless we see players play each other, it's very hard to tell what would happen, but Lendl and Becker certainly would not have it easy. Looking at Becker and Agassi in isolation, who would have guessed their h2h. Tennis is not like weightlifting or running. It's not about pushing the body to its maximum. It has constraints, it's about keeping the ball in the lines. There's a lot to be said for consistency and control over power and brute force. There are lots of ways to win a tennis match, and it's not at all clear Lendl and Becker would have the current crop of players beat.

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 09:10 PM
Look if you want to contradict what Becker, Lendl, Edberg, etc. said by saying they're modest, fine. But I don't recall anyone ever calling Becker or Lendl modest back in the day. No one accused Agassi of being too polite.

But hey, whatever. We disagree and that's fine. I'm really startled that someone who has an opinion that is contrary to others being ruthlessly attacked as clueless and a newbie who knows nothing b/c I don't agree. But speaking as a former Div 1 college player who, back then, hit and played against guys currently on the ATP tour I think I have some credibility. I don't know you or any other posters who called me names but I'll put my credentials up against anyone's anyday. I call them like I see them and I tried to be respectful which wasn't reciprocated. And I don't cede the moral high ground b/c plenty of folks in this thread do nothing but start fights for hell of it.

And now, BP, though not reciprocated I'll give you the respect of pointing out I don't think you're a loon as you've been accused of and I've even defended you in the past. And the fact you couldn't give a little of that back by saying we can agree to disagree is really unfortunate.

As for your comment about my racquet, I used 12+ oz mids most of my competitive playing years but have since moved to something bigger and more forgiving because to play w/these younger guys I need all the help I can get. Sad coming from someone not yet 30.

I wish to play good tennis for as long as I can and not sure how'll long that'll be as my left knee more than likely will have to be replaced this year. In the meantime I won't handicap myself by playing older equipment I can no longer use effectively even though I'm older, more experienced and better trained and more fit than ever.
Just for the record, I don't think I've ever called you names.

And I do respect your opinion, but I also want to understand where you're coming from better. And yes, I agree that we disagree about some of these points.

However, just because a pro says something does not necessarily make it true or accurate. Remember a few dozen posts ago when the example of Borg claiming that he used a western forehand grip was cited? :wink:

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 09:18 PM
Becker and Lendl would be competitive today, but Federer would have their number. Also, I don't know if we can say Lendl was better than Agassi. Lendl used to beat him a lot, but this was when Agassi was a teenager, before he really became the aggressive baseliner who emerged in the 90s. Becker saw that aggressive baseliner and used to lose to him routinely. Lendl and Becker were more complete than Agassi, but not categorically better.

......Looking at Becker and Agassi in isolation, who would have guessed their h2h.
Perhaps part of the reason is that Agassi figured out how to read where Becker was about to serve by noting which side of his mouth he was sticking his tongue out during his service motion. True story. Agassi revealed this tidbit to McEnroe on the air during last year's US Open when he was commentating during the Federer-Roddick QF match. :shock:

David L
01-13-2008, 10:06 PM
Perhaps part of the reason is that Agassi figured out how to read where Becker was about to serve by noting which side of his mouth he was sticking his tongue out during his service motion. True story. Agassi revealed this tidbit to McEnroe on the air during last year's US Open when he was commentating during the Federer-Roddick QF match. :shock:Yeah I heard the story, but Agassi also revealed he later let Becker know while they were still competitors. In any case, as one of the best returners of all time, Agassi wouldn't really need the help of that little tell, if it was really even that helpful. He's handled players with bigger and better serves in the form of Sampras and Ivanisevic, and Becker was beaten by many players who had no way near Agassi's ability as a returner.

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 10:18 PM
Yeah I heard the story, but Agassi also revealed he later let Becker know while they were still competitors. In any case, as one of the best returners of all time, Agassi wouldn't really need the help of that little tell, if it was really even that helpful. He's handled players with bigger and better serves in the form of Sampras and Ivanisevic, and Becker was beaten by many players who had no way near Agassi's ability as a returner.
Actually, Agassi said he revealed that fact to Becker only long after Becker had retired. And Agassi did say it was very helpful in returning Becker's serve.

!Tym
01-13-2008, 10:29 PM
But speaking as a former Div 1 college player who, back then, hit and played against guys currently on the ATP tour I think I have some credibility. I don't know you or any other posters who called me names but I'll put my credentials up against anyone's anyday. I call them like I see them and I tried to be respectful which wasn't reciprocated. And I don't cede the moral high ground b/c plenty of folks in this thread do nothing but start fights for hell of it.

And now, BP, though not reciprocated I'll give you the respect of pointing out I don't think you're a loon as you've been accused of and I've even defended you in the past. And the fact you couldn't give a little of that back by saying we can agree to disagree is really unfortunate.

As for your comment about my racquet, I used 12+ oz mids most of my competitive playing years but have since moved to something bigger and more forgiving because to play w/these younger guys I need all the help I can get. Sad coming from someone not yet 30.

I don't think one's playing level matters in this discussion, it's more about personal preference. If it's in your head that you need a bigger head, you will *regardless of level*. Remember, if you're playing at a lower level, the same rules apply only that while a 100mph serve to you might feel like an impossible rocket to return, to a pro it'd feel like plunking shrimp from the barbie. I find that people fall into two camps in discussions such as these, and my gut feeling is that neither is wrong per say, but more so how a particular person thinks vs. another.

Some players (again regardless of levels, as it's all relative) feel like they want a racket that gives them total confidence to swing out, as when they feel inhibited, their footwork also becomes tentative and thus their whole game suffers. Other good players are always looking for a tech advantage and feel it helps their game. The point is, if it's in your head one way or the other, your body and game will respond in like from my experience. This coming from someone who once thought switching to an OS racket was my godsend, and then thought switching to a small headed frame was my godsend, and thought that a widebody was the answer, and so on and so forth. What I found is that eventually my mind came to find a way to dislike *something* about ANY racket I've ever used, and that it was time to move on to something bigger, badder, better so to speak.

This said, now that my ability to run for anything at all is basically disfunctional now due to injury for nearly two years that I no longer have interest in playing anymore as I can't play with the level of players I used to (guys who got as high as the 700s on the ATP, college players, open players, or at least guys with form good enough to get other players to look twice, etc. in other words basically the same "level" of guy you hit with if it matters)? Well, what I realize now is that the "latest and greatest" racket only seems to matter most to those who are still functional enough to assert their body.

In occasionally (i.e. VERY occasionally "casually" hitting with some lower level players who are just happy to get someone with the illusion of "pro form" to hit with them), in occasionally hitting with these kind of players at a rate of about once every three or four months or so; I've discovered that my strokes don't really go away miraculously. In fact, I've discovered that even without the ability to run I can still "toy" with them just based on having more devoloped technique than them. In this time, I've discerned that even when forced to stretch the racket makes no difference to me as I'll go ahead and switch between three, four different models every few rallys to fight off the boredom and keep me interested.

What's most important in tennis is simply that you're personally comfortable and happy with and NOT second guessing what you're using, even more important than most important though by a loooooong shot is crisp footwork and unhampered movement.

I've been forced to switch to radically different rackets on the fly on magical "zone" days after having broken all the strings in my rackets and needing to borrow someone else's. What I discovered is that if I was in the zone, it was always because I felt like I was moving fluidly and naturally that day, my hops were in rhythm so to speak. Switching rackets mid-stream remarkably never had an affect on me if I was already in the zone when making the switch. Switching racket mid-stream when I was having junk day, however? And the results would be wildly unpredictable, as on bad days I'm in the *active mindset* of second guessing everything this side of the north pole to the south pole.

The older pros who say the new rackets make their lives easier and are so advantageous that they don't know how they lived without them? Is that really a controlled experiement? I mean does Michael Stich still gracefully glide and make lines like he's in a tutu on swan lake as he did in his prime? I think not.

When you're physically declining...yet STILL hitting with players who have strokes enough to *push* him (which I'm NOT by the players I now hit with every few months), of course, you're going to feel like the newer, lighter, space technology is better in my opinion.

But, if Stich's in his prime given the choice of a more powerful racket or his very precise and sublimey touch me all over Fischer, which racket would suit his *prime* level strokes and movement better? In my opinion, he might answer one thing or another based on how his current physical level is making him feel; but unless he were in his prime, he truly would not be able to say for certain which suited him better in my opinion.

If he were in his prime, and taking bigger cuts at the ball more frequently, he might find that he loses too much of his famous precision in using the more powerful racket. He might also find that the less forgiving racket wouldn't be as much of a problem on the run, as back then, well, he really could actually still run. Thus, in this case, one smaller stick might way the advantages of the bigger stick. Again, it's hard if not impossible to make blanket assumptions in cases like this.

It can and really does differ on a case by case basis in my opinion.

hoosierbr
01-13-2008, 10:48 PM
It can and really does differ on a case by case basis in my opinion.

I agree w/most of what you said. If you had read my posts I clearly stated that I feel it's more the player, the technique than the racquet. A good player can play well with anything.

I think what these retired pros are talking about is if they played now and were in prime condition they'd rather use these newer racquets not just because they may be more "user-friendly" and i use that term very loosely and generally, but that it's more the kind of player they'd be facing now as opposed to then. Guys like Tsonga who Tim Henman said was a big reason why he was retiring last year. These guys coming up are bigger, stronger, faster than ever before and play a different kind of tennis altogether. Agassi said he couldn't even compare how much the game had changed and progressed from the time he started to the time he retired. That should tell you something right there.

Roger Federer is sadly an exception to their rule but even he gets outmuscled by Nadal or outgunned by Nalbandian or outwitted and frustrated by Canas from time to time. Many have said that if he used a bigger, more powerful racquet he'd have a better shot at the French Open. I don't say that and never would because he plays with what he feels most comfortable with. Sampras said he wished he'd used a bigger racquet to play the French.

I brought up playing level because there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to think they're much better players than they really are and are experts. Or guys that watch a lot of tennis and can call up trivia and useless facts and try to pass it off as real world experience. You take your 25 year old racquets on the court with someone who is or isn't as good as you are and think that hey, if I can use this thing any pro can and must and should. Racquet techology stinks. It's a sham. That's not the way it works, sadly, because these new racquets and strings have done much damage to this beloved game in my opinion.

I will stand by what the guys who've been in the arena say and they say things have changed and if they still played they would have to as well. Maybe that's not the popular answer to give but it is the honest one.

Stich is an interesting example. During Wimbledon this year he talked about how much easier it was to hit winners with these new racquets and how he wished he could have done that when he played but racquets and strings weren't as advanced. If you've seen Stich in action recently he may be older and slower but the dude can still move like a dancer. Edberg too and he's not in very different condition from his playing days in terms of fitness. He plays with Swedish juniors and said that for the five years or so after he retired he could still hold his own with the current pros. But now he's using an NCode 90 for a couple of years and struggled a bit this fall in exhibitions though he can still kick a mean serve.

BreakPoint
01-13-2008, 11:41 PM
Guys like Tsonga who Tim Henman said was a big reason why he was retiring last year. These guys coming up are bigger, stronger, faster than ever before and play a different kind of tennis altogether.
It's funny that you mention Tsonga because in the few games that they showed tonight on ESPN2 of his match against Murray, I thought the women they showed tonight were hitting the ball harder than either Tsonga or Murray, especially Jankovic and Paszek, not to mention Davenport, Sharapova, and Serena.

Sampras said he wished he'd used a bigger racquet to play the French.
That's what he's been rumoured to have said after he retired (I still haven't seen a direct quote but more like a myth that has been floating around this board for years). I'm sure he tested some bigger racquets when he was still on tour but rejected all of them as they didn't work for his game.

I brought up playing level because there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to think they're much better players than they really are and are experts.
But I don't think you really need to be a great tennis player to be an expert on tennis, do you? Bud Collins is a renowned tennis expert but how well do you think he plays? Or how about Warren Bosworth or Nate Ferguson?

But now he's using an NCode 90 for a couple of years and struggled a bit this fall in exhibitions though he can still kick a mean serve.
But Edberg is also 42 years old and it's tough to still have the flexibility and speed to be a great serve and volleyer at that age.

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 03:56 AM
Becker and Lendl would be competitive today, but Federer would have their number. Also, I don't know if we can say Lendl was better than Agassi. Lendl used to beat him a lot, but this was when Agassi was a teenager, before he really became the aggressive baseliner who emerged in the 90s. Becker saw that aggressive baseliner and used to lose to him routinely. Lendl and Becker were more complete than Agassi, but not categorically better.

I think one of the main developments we have seen in the game, in some ways spearheaded by Agassi, that would give Lendl and Becker trouble, would be the pace at which it is played today. Players are hitting harder and taking the ball earlier, such that today's game sometimes resembles ping pong more than tennis. Agassi used to run Becker ragged because he took the ball so early and robbed time. Today, the movement of the players is so much better than it was. Power and foot speed are the watch words when you look at players like Federer, Nadal, Blake, Djokovic etc. They are strong guys who can hit the cover off the ball like Becker and Lendl, but they are not heavy set. They are fleet of foot, get to absolutely everything and do something with the ball. In the match for this thread, Becker and Lendl were slugging away there, but a lot of those balls which were not coming back, probably would be coming back a lot more today and earlier. Also, with the slower courts, consistently hitting those power shots would present considerably more challenge, especially for a player like Becker who often played a high risk, low patience game. In all his time he never won one clay court tournament.

Becker and Lendl were great players by any eras standards, but I'm not so sure they could just waltz into this era in their primes and start dominating. They would for sure have their hands full. They look big and intimidating, but that doesn't win you matches. Look at all the big guys out there getting schooled by Federer, Davydenko and Ferrer. We know diminutive Mcenroe, Borg and Connors handed out a few lessons to Lendl as well, before they started getting old or retired. Unless we see players play each other, it's very hard to tell what would happen, but Lendl and Becker certainly would not have it easy. Looking at Becker and Agassi in isolation, who would have guessed their h2h. Tennis is not like weightlifting or running. It's not about pushing the body to its maximum. It has constraints, it's about keeping the ball in the lines. There's a lot to be said for consistency and control over power and brute force. There are lots of ways to win a tennis match, and it's not at all clear Lendl and Becker would have the current crop of players beat.

Great points. I totally understand what you are saying and I agree with your thoughts for the most part. Maybe the reason I believe Becker and Lendl would still be great players even today is because of how great they were not that long ago. You mentioned Agassi being a little young against Lendl, but was he too young for Becker? Agassi could not beat either until 1990...this is when he started to beat Becker, but he still could not beat Lendl until 1992 and by that time Lendl was almost 33 years old.

My point was that Agassi competed against this generation and the Becker/Lendl's. Both Becker and Lendl were as good if not better players than Agassi throughout their career (I should say more consistent). Agassi won majors until 2003. Please don't tell me the game as evolved so much in 4 years? A young Agassi, Becker, Lendl and of course Pete (and a host of others) could easily compete with today's bashers. Also, you and other keep mentioning feats of strength by today's pro...ever hear of Fabrice Santoro? This guy competes w/out any of today's modern tactics. You see, this little Frenchman has skills that so many "modern" players don't possess. James Blake is a perfect example of a mindless player. Why do you think Federer is so dominant? Because he uses his brain.

One more thing...I don't think I was arguing so much that Lendl would be a great player with his old sticks. If a player from 20 years ago was magically placed in todays tour, why would they use an outdated racquet? I could see Lendl going to maybe a Babolat or Becker using a 95-98 in head racquet. I was not arguing so much for their equipment, but more so for their skills.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 04:26 AM
Michael Chang beat lendl to win the French. I suppose Chang would also be competitive too nowdays LOL..


Lendl or becker cant compare to Agassi after he dedicated himself to tennis and agassi was one of the few besides sampras who could compete with todays pace. He was a true punisher.. Agassi's fitness and dedication was always a ? How well becker or lendl would of done nobody knows but imo i dont think they could compete. And i dont care about their stupid racquets they used, i seen them play, they where great in their time, but that was 80's tennis and how they could adapt their game to current pace is a big? Agassi did prove he could, the others have not. Sampras and Agassi were the best of their generation period!

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 04:38 AM
I doubt you wathced these players, don't believe you. Becker and Lendl would be able to compete and play within the top 10 and give Fed a run for his money. Lendl was a better player than Agassi, Agassi played and played well against today's players. if you think Lendl could not compete, then I guess Agassi was a mirage. Agassi played with all those guys.

You have noi clue who Lendl was and how he domianted the tour for many years during the golden age of tennis.


Wow you dont believe me i'm crushed. I have my opinions but i wont state them as fact.. Just because my opinion dont agree with yours now i have not even seen lendl play and i'm just a teenager.. Funny stuff..

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 05:14 AM
Becker and Lendl would be competitive today, but Federer would have their number. Also, I don't know if we can say Lendl was better than Agassi. Lendl used to beat him a lot, but this was when Agassi was a teenager, before he really became the aggressive baseliner who emerged in the 90s. Becker saw that aggressive baseliner and used to lose to him routinely. Lendl and Becker were more complete than Agassi, but not categorically better.

I think one of the main developments we have seen in the game, in some ways spearheaded by Agassi, that would give Lendl and Becker trouble, would be the pace at which it is played today. Players are hitting harder and taking the ball earlier, such that today's game sometimes resembles ping pong more than tennis. Agassi used to run Becker ragged because he took the ball so early and robbed time. Today, the movement of the players is so much better than it was. Power and foot speed are the watch words when you look at players like Federer, Nadal, Blake, Djokovic etc. They are strong guys who can hit the cover off the ball like Becker and Lendl, but they are not heavy set. They are fleet of foot, get to absolutely everything and do something with the ball. In the match for this thread, Becker and Lendl were slugging away there, but a lot of those balls which were not coming back, probably would be coming back a lot more today and earlier. Also, with the slower courts, consistently hitting those power shots would present considerably more challenge, especially for a player like Becker who often played a high risk, low patience game. In all his time he never won one clay court tournament.

Becker and Lendl were great players by any eras standards, but I'm not so sure they could just waltz into this era in their primes and start dominating. They would for sure have their hands full. They look big and intimidating, but that doesn't win you matches. Look at all the big guys out there getting schooled by Federer, Davydenko and Ferrer. We know diminutive Mcenroe, Borg and Connors handed out a few lessons to Lendl as well, before they started getting old or retired. Unless we see players play each other, it's very hard to tell what would happen, but Lendl and Becker certainly would not have it easy. Looking at Becker and Agassi in isolation, who would have guessed their h2h. Tennis is not like weightlifting or running. It's not about pushing the body to its maximum. It has constraints, it's about keeping the ball in the lines. There's a lot to be said for consistency and control over power and brute force. There are lots of ways to win a tennis match, and it's not at all clear Lendl and Becker would have the current crop of players beat.


Good post and accurate. Lendl and becker would have their hands plenty full. What gets me is the posters here who claim things to be as fact.. They watch a old tennis match on the Tennis channel(awesome) and think they could compete today. As i said before i love these old matches and the players more than todays typical baseliners.. And it would be awesome to see someone like fed play against old greats like lendl. Realisticly i just cant imagine him competing or becker or edberg. As great as they were.. I know how great they were and it is crazy for anyone to say they could not do this etc. They are legends.. Just opinions by amatuers like myself. Same things get debated in all sports.. Rocky marciano vs ALi.. 1972 Dolphins against 2007 Patriots.. Etc Etc!

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 05:48 AM
Michael Chang beat lendl to win the French. I suppose Chang would also be competitive too nowdays LOL..


Lendl or becker cant compare to Agassi after he dedicated himself to tennis and agassi was one of the few besides sampras who could compete with todays pace. He was a true punisher.. Agassi's fitness and dedication was always a ? How well becker or lendl would of done nobody knows but imo i dont think they could compete. And i dont care about their stupid racquets they used, i seen them play, they where great in their time, but that was 80's tennis and how they could adapt their game to current pace is a big? Agassi did prove he could, the others have not. Sampras and Agassi were the best of their generation period!

Your MC analogy shows how little you know or understand about tennis. Great job!!!

Yes, Pete and Andre were the class of the 90's, no arguement here, but Lendl was a better player than Andre. Agassi NEVER dominated tennis. He was good for a long time and was competitive because of his natural abilties. Lendl DOMINATED his sport much the same way federer does today. You would not know that because you were 2 years old. Andre (and Pete) were my 2nd favorite players of all time to John McEnroe, so I have a biased opinion on those guys, but I am not stupid enough to say Agassi was a better player than Lendl. Go have another beer...you need one.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 05:56 AM
Now that's what I'm talking about!!! :grin:

I just watched the replay of the '91 Australian Open final between Lendl and Becker and it was so refreshing watching these two guys play as compared to most of the pros playing today. This is when real men played tennis - two warriors using the entire court and variety of shots. No grunting, no shrieking, no capri pants, no sleeveless shirts, no extreme topspin-only, no baseline bashing-only, no two-handed backhands, no western grips, etc. This was about big serves, all-court play, ripping one-handed backhands crosscourt and down-the-line, chipping and slicing backhands when needed, serve and volleying to mix things up, using all angles of the court, hitting the ball precisely into the baseline corners, hitting mostly flat, attacking the net, hitting great approach shots, chipping and charging, wearing real shorts and not "longs", polo shirts with collars, heavy midsize racquets (was Lendl's under 80 sq. in.?), no light midplus nor oversized racquets, etc.

This was so much more enjoyable to watch than most of today's pros, with the exception of Federer.

Man, I wish tennis could be like that again! :|


So only real men dont grunt, have one handed backhands, serve and volley? Lendl did not serve and volley. He was a baseliner. His backhand was great, but agassi would destroy him when he made his run and dedicated himself. Real shorts? I myself dont like looking at a players *** myself, maybe you do :)

Maybe you dont appreciate a two handed backhand player that baselines. But because lendl had a one hander he is ok by you? Please give me a break.. Your two handed backhand comments are also laughable, i know and can virtually prove the two hander is more effective while only a few can really compete in todays game with a one hander. People say well Fed has a one hander, yet it's his weakness but it dont matter... Comedy keeps me comming back here :) Wish some of you old timers were capable of baseline bashing but because you never could or compete with a steady two hander player you bash them.. I guess it takes only a man to play with a one hander and use slice forehands haha..

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 06:02 AM
so I have a biased opinion on those guys, but I am not stupid enough to say Agassi was a better player than Lendl.


Thats because you dont know about tennis to claim such a thing. Agassi's achievments but him ahead of lendl all day.

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 06:29 AM
Wow you dont believe me i'm crushed. I have my opinions but i wont state them as fact.. Just because my opinion dont agree with yours now i have not even seen lendl play and i'm just a teenager.. Funny stuff..

You wants Facts? OK....this proves Lendl was far more consistent (dominate) than Agassi at any point in his career. Agassi does not have the #'s to hold water in your arguement.

Lendl

GS: 8
Weeks at #1: 270 weeks..157 consecutive
Titles: 94 (but had won many more not recognized by ATP)
Finals apperances: 19
Record (including winning %): 1071-239 (81.8%)

and some tidbits:
Second (behind Connors with 788 weeks) in most consecutive weeks (626) among top 10 ranked players (May 19, 1980-May 11, 1992)
Second in career singles match wins (1,071) at ATP tournaments (Connors won 1,222 matches)
Most consecutive singles finals (18) in 1981 and 1982
Only male player to have won at least 90 matches in three consecutive years (1980-1982)
Only male player to have won at least 90 percent of his matches in five different years (1982: 106-9; 1985: 84-7; 1986: 74-6; 1987: 74-7; 1989: 79-7)

Agassi

GS: 8
Weeks at #1: 30??
Titles: 60
Finals apperances: 15
Record: 870-274

Agassi did win all 4 GS and a gold medal. Its not like I am saying Agassi is a hack, but if I really look a their respective careers, Lendl just had the better stats.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 06:38 AM
Sure lendl was more dominant back in his era.. He's 6-2 against agassi but thats when agassi was just a kid lets face it and lendl was in his prime.

Many of agassi GS wins came late 90's early 2000's. It would be debateable for lendl to have beat the players agassi did in that time frame. In prime agassi-the punisher-would beat a prime lendl imo.. Not saying he would destroy him, but would win..

"Agassi did win all 4 GS and a gold medal"

Case closed :)

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 06:39 AM
Thats because you dont know about tennis to claim such a thing. Agassi's achievments but him ahead of lendl all day.

Seriously...you have been a waste of my time. You provide nothing to this thread and frankly to the board itself. Its too bad you found it. :(

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 06:55 AM
Sure lendl was more dominant back in his era.. He's 6-2 against agassi but thats when agassi was just a kid lets face it and lendl was in his prime.

Many of agassi GS wins came late 90's early 2000's. It would be debateable for lendl to have beat the players agassi did in that time frame. In prime agassi-the punisher-would beat a prime lendl imo.. Not saying he would destroy him, but would win..

"Agassi did win all 4 GS and a gold medal"

Case closed :)

the words I just thought of: painfully clueless

again, you offer no substance. You like to make comparisons that can't be done.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 07:00 AM
Seriously...you have been a waste of my time. You provide nothing to this thread and frankly to the board itself. Its too bad you found it. :(


It does seem i found it before you..If you are such a tennis expert what took you so long to find TW? YOU provide nothing but dumb statistics on how lendl was so dominant blah blah. Agassi is considered greater i guarantee that. If you actually understood tennis and could convey higher levels of play you would understand that.. Not just former champions and how dominant they were. It's to bad you found this forum, nobody needs to bash people and call them "teens" or discredit their tennis history if they dont agree with your opinion. Comedy indeed again but when you have nothing else more to say you bash people for not agreeing with you... Pathetic!

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 07:18 AM
It does seem i found it before you..If you are such a tennis expert what took you so long to find TW? YOU provide nothing but dumb statistics on how lendl was so dominant blah blah. Agassi is considered greater i guarantee that. If you actually understood tennis and could convey higher levels of play you would understand that.. Not just former champions and how dominant they were. It's to bad you found this forum, nobody needs to bash people and call them "teens" or discredit their tennis history if they dont agree with your opinion. Comedy indeed again but when you have nothing else more to say you bash people for not agreeing with you... Pathetic!

considering how clueless you are, I have nothing else to say. you have yet to provide anything of substance.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 07:39 AM
Agassi won all four Grand Slams, something neither Lendl did or Fed (yet). And he almost beat Fed to win the USO at 35. Lendl's back gave out in his last years and he wasn't a force anymore, Agassi finished in Top 8 at 35.

End of story.


But lendl was more dominant lol..Anyone have stats? ;) Since agassi uses a two hander BreakP wont consider him greater. He probably thinks Mcenroe was better than agassi haha. Someone break out the statistics :)


Slappano-my lightweight k90 swingin friend, lighten up these forums are for fun dont be so offensive.

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 08:08 AM
But lendl was more dominant lol..Anyone have stats? ;) Since agassi uses a two hander BreakP wont consider him greater. He probably thinks Mcenroe was better than agassi haha. Someone break out the statistics :)


Slappano-my lightweight k90 swingin friend, lighten up these forums are for fun dont be so offensive.

Since you put it that way, no hard feelings:), but you are a bit clueless:|. John Mac was way, way better than Agassi. If Agassi dominated at any time in his career you would have an arguement, but he did not. Mac, Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Fed all dominated for a period of time. I would rate those guys ahead of Agassi.

Azzurri
01-14-2008, 08:10 AM
But lendl was more dominant lol..Anyone have stats? ;) Since agassi uses a two hander BreakP wont consider him greater. He probably thinks Mcenroe was better than agassi haha. Someone break out the statistics :)


Slappano-my lightweight k90 swingin friend, lighten up these forums are for fun dont be so offensive.

By the way, I just got myself a new Redondo (98). Will arrive this week. I will now be swinging with the big boys...:)

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 08:50 AM
Since you put it that way, no hard feelings:), but you are a bit clueless:|. John Mac was way, way better than Agassi.


Mac himself even says Agassi is considered greater than himself.. Right from Mac's mouth himself.

Have fun with redondo. Although the racquet you play with dont determine if you can "play with the big boys" :)

Z-Man
01-14-2008, 08:52 AM
Michael Chang beat lendl to win the French. I suppose Chang would also be competitive too nowdays LOL..


Actually, I think peak Chang was very similar to what we see now from David Ferrer except Chang was a little quicker and his backhand was mechanically smoother. Chang was 8-12 vs Sampras, 12-12 vs Courier, 2-5 vs Lendl, 1-5 vs Becker. Anyone who has beaten Pete 8 times deserves respect. Counterpunchers don't usually age well, but Chang was a factor for many years.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 09:04 AM
Actually, I think peak Chang was very similar to what we see now from David Ferrer except Chang was a little quicker and his backhand was mechanically smoother. Chang was 8-12 vs Sampras, 12-12 vs Courier, 2-5 vs Lendl, 1-5 vs Becker. Anyone who has beaten Pete 8 times deserves respect. Counterpunchers don't usually age well, but Chang was a factor for many years.

Deserves all the respect in the world! But could he compete with todays power game against somebody like Nalbandian? Agassi 80's game is radically different than before he retired when he was the punisher and competing with the likes of fed. You have to ask yourself if lendl-chang-courier-becker-edberg- could adapt like agassi. Probably not imo..

stormholloway
01-14-2008, 09:47 AM
McEnroe could still compete today with ATP pros. What makes you people think these players in their primes couldn't beat top ATP pros?

The idea is a demonstration in shortsightedness.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 10:02 AM
McEnroe could still compete today with ATP pros. What makes you people think these players in their primes couldn't beat top ATP pros?


Mcenroe did not win a GS after 1984. Power surpassed mcenroe in the 80's. Lendl-edberg-becker i think are greater than Mcenroe. The only players who could compete today with current top pros are Sampras and Agassi.. And even both of them would have their hands full right now with nadal-fed-etc..

stormholloway
01-14-2008, 10:24 AM
I don't really feel that power surpassed McEnroe. He simply never kept his form. He took a layoff and had some personal problems.

Sure doesn't seem like power has surpassed Fabrice Santoro and he competes at a high level.

ohlori
01-14-2008, 10:56 AM
Mcenroe did not win a GS after 1984. Power surpassed mcenroe in the 80's. Lendl-edberg-becker i think are greater than Mcenroe. The only players who could compete today with current top pros are Sampras and Agassi.. And even both of them would have their hands full right now with nadal-fed-etc..

Don't forget Karel Novacek - just kidding. A lot of today's players are indebted to Agassi of course. You can say the same for Monica Seles and the woman's game.
Players born before 1970 had a different approach to the game in general.
Personally I couldn''t care less if Laver or Newcombe could have competed with Lendl or Becker or Becker/Lendl with today's players.
You can only be the best of your own era, Boris Becker once said, or something in that vein.

ohlori
01-14-2008, 11:17 AM
Comparing different eras in tennis (or any other sport or field for matter) to find an GOAT is very messy and futile.
I'll precede my rant by stating that I idolise guys like Laver, Newcombe and McEnroe. I've only seen tapes of most of my heroes, but I do have a fair few tapes and have read a lot about them. Just love their attitude to the sport and the way they played their tennis.
I think that most of the top players today (if plonked straight in) would school most of the players in bygone eras, even if given the same racquets. In fact, if players today weren't better players than their forebears they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. They have too much stacked in their favour.
It's obvious that today players have access to better training, especially physical and mental. Technique is a bit more subjective I suppose, judging by the lack of variation, in particular volleying and slicing, in the modern game.
Nutrition is no doubt better. Not just player's diets but what they have available to eat while growing up. I would also think that they have better recovery facilities and methods. Speaking of recovery traveling in this day and age would be a lot less arduous than in the past.
They have better equipment. I think that this is more of a factor when they are young and learning to play the game. Imagine having to learn how to play tennis with an old Wilson Jack Kramer as your starter racquet! Makes it pretty difficult to start to learn the nuances of the game when you're too busy trying to heft a log around while also trying to find a pinpoint sweetspot on said log.
Federer and co have had much more tennis to draw upon than any other era. They can look at what has come before them to emulate and refine. Today's greats are built on the shoulders of past greats.
I think that its not a contradiction to say that Federer has taken tennis to a level that Laver never did, but that he is not greater. Mathematicians and Physicists haven taken Einstein's theories of relativity much further than he ever did, doesn't make them smarter. It's just progress.
Once in a while you get someone or a group who make an evolutionary jump. Tilden, Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer are all examples of these jumps. They've all made significant and lasting impressions on the game. Which one is the greatest? It's unfair and futile to try to answer that question. The playing field is too different and uneven

BreakPoint
01-14-2008, 11:31 AM
Michael Chang beat lendl to win the French. I suppose Chang would also be competitive too nowdays LOL..

Not with his OS racquet, no way! Now if he switched to a Mid, then maybe. ;-) :lol: LOL

Chang also only beat Lendl at the French Open by incorporating....ahem...."underhanded" tactics. :eek: LOL

BreakPoint
01-14-2008, 11:40 AM
Actually, I think peak Chang was very similar to what we see now from David Ferrer except Chang was a little quicker and his backhand was mechanically smoother. Chang was 8-12 vs Sampras, 12-12 vs Courier, 2-5 vs Lendl, 1-5 vs Becker. Anyone who has beaten Pete 8 times deserves respect. Counterpunchers don't usually age well, but Chang was a factor for many years.
But as you can clearly see from those H2H records, Chang had a worse record against both Lendl and Becker than against even Sampras and Courier. Doesn't that pretty much tell you that both Lendl and Becker were better? And Lendl was beating Chang when he was already an old man with old legs and Chang had fresh young legs.

BreakPoint
01-14-2008, 11:43 AM
Deserves all the respect in the world! But could he compete with todays power game against somebody like Nalbandian? Agassi 80's game is radically different than before he retired when he was the punisher and competing with the likes of fed. You have to ask yourself if lendl-chang-courier-becker-edberg- could adapt like agassi. Probably not imo..
And exactly what makes Agassi so special? :confused: Don't you think Lendl or Becker if they were both younger and also dedicated themselves could have also given Federer all that he could handle? BTW, Agassi wasn't exactly beating Federer the last few years that he was on tour.

NoBadMojo
01-14-2008, 11:56 AM
Comparing different eras in tennis (or any other sport or field for matter) to find an GOAT is very messy and futile.
I'll precede my rant by stating that I idolise guys like Laver, Newcombe and McEnroe. I've only seen tapes of most of my heroes, but I do have a fair few tapes and have read a lot about them. Just love their attitude to the sport and the way they played their tennis.
I think that most of the top players today (if plonked straight in) would school most of the players in bygone eras, even if given the same racquets. In fact, if players today weren't better players than their forebears they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. They have too much stacked in their favour.
It's obvious that today players have access to better training, especially physical and mental. Technique is a bit more subjective I suppose, judging by the lack of variation, in particular volleying and slicing, in the modern game.
Nutrition is no doubt better. Not just player's diets but what they have available to eat while growing up. I would also think that they have better recovery facilities and methods. Speaking of recovery traveling in this day and age would be a lot less arduous than in the past.
They have better equipment. I think that this is more of a factor when they are young and learning to play the game. Imagine having to learn how to play tennis with an old Wilson Jack Kramer as your starter racquet! Makes it pretty difficult to start to learn the nuances of the game when you're too busy trying to heft a log around while also trying to find a pinpoint sweetspot on said log.
Federer and co have had much more tennis to draw upon than any other era. They can look at what has come before them to emulate and refine. Today's greats are built on the shoulders of past greats.
I think that its not a contradiction to say that Federer has taken tennis to a level that Laver never did, but that he is not greater. Mathematicians and Physicists haven taken Einstein's theories of relativity much further than he ever did, doesn't make them smarter. It's just progress.
Once in a while you get someone or a group who make an evolutionary jump. Tilden, Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer are all examples of these jumps. They've all made significant and lasting impressions on the game. Which one is the greatest? It's unfair and futile to try to answer that question. The playing field is too different and uneven

good points all, but huge externals that really muck it up are the gear and the changes in the surfaces and the chemistry set/medicine cabinet. tennis isnt played in a vacuum and there are externals making it not possible to fairly compare players from different time periods..they can only be fairly compared to their contemporaries I feel. this all coupled with what you posted makes it impossible to fairly compare players from one time period to players from another. the game has changed so much in recent years that isnt even possible to fairly compare players from the sampras era to players of today and that is only a few years....going further back to the players this thread is about makes even less sense and going back to try and compare Laver to Sampras or fed is ridiculous. the only thing you can do is compare records and even that gets sticky when you have tennis before the Open era to consider. also some people have a different perception of what consitutes a better player..if you look at it from the perspective of players having the ability to hit a bigger variety of shots, no questions players from time gone by are better......but having variety doesnt make someone a better player as evidenced on the tour today (other than fed of course) where you have top10 players who cant even volley half decently. what we have are athletes adapting to the gear, the chemicals, and the surfaces..tennis aint played in a vacuum and to think that athletes of today arent better, faster, fitter, stronger etc is to deny there is such thing as evolving

BreakPoint
01-14-2008, 12:25 PM
So only real men dont grunt, have one handed backhands, serve and volley? Lendl did not serve and volley. He was a baseliner. His backhand was great, but agassi would destroy him when he made his run and dedicated himself. Real shorts? I myself dont like looking at a players *** myself, maybe you do :)

Maybe you dont appreciate a two handed backhand player that baselines. But because lendl had a one hander he is ok by you? Please give me a break.. Your two handed backhand comments are also laughable, i know and can virtually prove the two hander is more effective while only a few can really compete in todays game with a one hander. People say well Fed has a one hander, yet it's his weakness but it dont matter... Comedy keeps me comming back here :) Wish some of you old timers were capable of baseline bashing but because you never could or compete with a steady two hander player you bash them.. I guess it takes only a man to play with a one hander and use slice forehands haha..
Hey, go ahead and grunt like Sharapova, Seles, and Serena. Be my guest. Go ahead and play with a two-handed backhand like most women do. Be my guest. Just don't forget to wear your cute little tennis dress while you're doing it. ;-) LOL BTW, you must be pretty flexible if you're able to look at your own *** while you're playing tennis. LOL

You can prove that the 2HBH is better than the 1HBH? OK, please go ahead. I'd love to see this. BTW, please go tell Henin, Federer, and Roddick that the 2HBH is more effective than the 1HBH. So you say only a "few" can really compete in today's game with a one-hander? Aren't you really saying then that these "few" are just plain better than the rest?

Have you asked yourself why very few people with good 1HBH's ever say that they wished they were able to hit a 2HBH, while I hear lots of 2HBH players say that they wished they were able to hit a 1HBH? What does that tell you? Well, that tells me that most people only use 2HBH's because they're unable to hit a good 1HBH, but deep down inside they wish they could.

BTW, Federer's BH is only so-called a "weakness" as compared to his awesome forehand, which may be the best forehand ever in the game. If you have the best forehand of all time, your backhand is pretty much going to be considered your "weakness" no matter how good it is. Still, I'd bet a lot of people would love to have a weakness like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vrojpBD2iU

:)

BounceHitBounceHit
01-14-2008, 12:47 PM
Not with his OS racquet, no way! Now if he switched to a Mid, then maybe. ;-) :lol: LOL

Chang also only beat Lendl at the French Open by incorporating....ahem...."underhanded" tactics. :eek: LOL


Now just a minute there Mister! OBVIOUSLY, since Chang played with an over-size he would (of course!) still be competitive. Come on!! ;) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-14-2008, 12:49 PM
good points all, but huge externals that really muck it up are the gear and the changes in the surfaces and the chemistry set/medicine cabinet. tennis isnt played in a vacuum and there are externals making it not possible to fairly compare players from different time periods..they can only be fairly compared to their contemporaries I feel. this all coupled with what you posted makes it impossible to fairly compare players from one time period to players from another. the game has changed so much in recent years that isnt even possible to fairly compare players from the sampras era to players of today and that is only a few years....going further back to the players this thread is about makes even less sense and going back to try and compare Laver to Sampras or fed is ridiculous. the only thing you can do is compare records and even that gets sticky when you have tennis before the Open era to consider. also some people have a different perception of what consitutes a better player..if you look at it from the perspective of players having the ability to hit a bigger variety of shots, no questions players from time gone by are better......but having variety doesnt make someone a better player as evidenced on the tour today (other than fed of course) where you have top10 players who cant even volley half decently. what we have are athletes adapting to the gear, the chemicals, and the surfaces..tennis aint played in a vacuum and to think that athletes of today arent better, faster, fitter, stronger etc is to deny there is such thing as evolving

What Mojo said!............Seriously. What he said. :) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-14-2008, 12:54 PM
[QUOTE=Ultra2HolyGrail;2000015]Mcenroe did not win a GS after 1984. QUOTE]


True, but he won a Tier I ATP Doubles title very recently. He also beat (an admittedly rusty) Phillipousis pretty convincingly in singles on the Seniors Tour just a few months back.

The idea that Mac, Lendl, Becker, or Edberg couldn't compete nowadays seems a little odd to me. I mean, if they grew up nowadays and were on the circuit, perhaps they'd play differently, or use a different frame, or have eaten different food as children, etc, etc, etc......BUT they are all SUPREME athletes possessed of motor skills that are simply OFF THE CHARTS.

Best,

CC

NoBadMojo
01-14-2008, 01:48 PM
What Mojo said!............Seriously. What he said. :) CC

thanks Captain Craig. I had a moment of lucidity induced by a mega dose of Ginkgo Biloba coupled with an early jump into the bottle of Absinthe and I can briefly see the world with drunken clarity. There is a bit of bleeding coming from my eyes, but not that much pain involved.............

[]


True, but he won a Tier I ATP Doubles title very recently. He also beat (an admittedly rusty) Phillipousis pretty convincingly in singles on the Seniors Tour just a few months back.

The idea that Mac, Lendl, Becker, or Edberg couldn't compete nowadays seems a little odd to me. I mean, if they grew up nowadays and were on the circuit, perhaps they'd play differently, or use a different frame, or have eaten different food as children, etc, etc, etc......BUT they are all SUPREME athletes possessed of motor skills that are simply OFF THE CHARTS.

Best,

CC

What I dont think is reasonable is when people take something anomolous to build their case to make a general statement. examples are how well mac can play as an old guy and how well Fed plays now..those are both real exceptions and nothing to build any sort of basic premise on. Mac was unorthodox then and plays even more that way now in comparison to how the game is now. I really dont know how well those guys you mention could compete on Tour now given an even playing field..tennis was much more a hitting/hand/eye game then and is much more a running game now and those guys you mention <while great athletes with great hands> arent really fast and arent terrific movers compared to the guys now...i have no way of telling how much to attribute to their genetics rather than training..i suspect a lot of it is genetics which wouldnt give them the speed they need to play the game at top ten level now no matter how hard they triained..also since pro tennis now is more like bicycling these days, who knows if their bodies would hold up to the tour rigours..who amongst us is smart enough to know stuff like that with any type of certainty..i dont know how well they would do now.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-14-2008, 06:13 PM
thanks Captain Craig. I had a moment of lucidity induced by a mega dose of Ginkgo Biloba coupled with an early jump into the bottle of Absinthe and I can briefly see the world with drunken clarity. There is a bit of bleeding coming from my eyes, but not that much pain involved.............



What I dont think is reasonable is when people take something anomolous to build their case to make a general statement. examples are how well mac can play as an old guy and how well Fed plays now..those are both real exceptions and nothing to build any sort of basic premise on. Mac was unorthodox then and plays even more that way now in comparison to how the game is now. I really dont know how well those guys you mention could compete on Tour now given an even playing field..tennis was much more a hitting/hand/eye game then and is much more a running game now and those guys you mention <while great athletes with great hands> arent really fast and arent terrific movers compared to the guys now...i have no way of telling how much to attribute to their genetics rather than training..i suspect a lot of it is genetics which wouldnt give them the speed they need to play the game at top ten level now no matter how hard they triained..also since pro tennis now is more like bicycling these days, who knows if their bodies would hold up to the tour rigours..who amongst us is smart enough to know stuff like that with any type of certainty..i dont know how well they would do now.

Ahhh.......Genko and Absinthe! So THAT'S the REAL "Mojo Blend"!!! ;)

Nah, no general case building here. Just thinkin' aloud about how the 'runner's might stack up against the 'hitters', and 'touchy feely guys' if you want to break it out that way. ;) I think it's one of the cool things about tennis-so many ways to win. I'd say you see it even nowadays in the variety of styles that can still be successful on the tour.

Best,

CC

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 10:47 PM
Hey, go ahead and grunt like Sharapova, Seles, and Serena. Be my guest

Grunting is a art that only two handers only can master! The one hander can not learn this art because the shot is not good enough and consistent.. The one hander will not understand this but it's like marshal arts like when bruce lee suddenly attacks with hayaaa!!! Confidence would drop much faster to put so much effort and shank the ball consistently..

You can prove that the 2HBH is better than the 1HBH? OK, please go ahead. I'd love to see this. BTW, please go tell Henin, Federer, and Roddick that the 2HBH is more effective than the 1HBH. So you say only a "few" can really compete in today's game with a one-hander? Aren't you really saying then that these "few" are just plain better than the rest?

In feds case, and sampras, they are great but it's not because of their backhands. The French open also proves this..



Have you asked yourself why very few people with good 1HBH's ever say that they wished they were able to hit a 2HBH, while I hear lots of 2HBH players say that they wished they were able to hit a 1HBH? What does that tell you? Well, that tells me that most people only use 2HBH's because they're unable to hit a good 1HBH, but deep down inside they wish they could.

Deep down for me no-never thought of switching to a one hander.

BTW, Federer's BH is only so-called a "weakness" as compared to his awesome forehand, which may be the best forehand ever in the game. If you have the best forehand of all time, your backhand is pretty much going to be considered your "weakness" no matter how good it is.

Thats true, it's just that for fed and sampras their backhands are just "more" of a weakness than others with a more reliable two hander. Nadals forehand is better than his backhand, but you never hear anybody criticize his two hander.

Facts are!

Two of top30 in WTA is a one hander!

Mens. Top 10 dominated by Two handers with the exception of fed.

BreakPoint
01-14-2008, 11:18 PM
Grunting is a art that only two handers only can master! The one hander can not learn this art because the shot is not good enough and consistent.. The one hander will not understand this ....
One-handers don't grunt because it's a natural, free-flowing stroke which requires much less effort than the 2HBH. Two-handers grunt because it's an unnatural stroke which takes much more effort and takes much more out of you.

In feds case, and sampras, they are great but it's not because of their backhands. The French open also proves this..
But if their backhands were really that bad, they would never win anything because everyone would just pound their backhands all day long. They did pound their backhands but they still managed to win 14 and 12 Grand Slams, respectively. Hmmm...maybe their backhands are not really that bad after all.

BTW, what does the French Open have to do with it? Lendl won 3 French Opens with a 1HBH and using his tiny 75 sq. in. racquet.

Deep down for me no-never thought of switching to a one hander.
I never said you thought of switching. I said you wish you were able to hit a 1HBH. That's a big difference. You've probably never thought of switching to a 1HBH because you're unable to hit one so why waste time thinking about a pipe dream? But that doesn't mean you don't wish you were able to hit one.

Thats true, it's just that for fed and sampras their backhands are just "more" of a weakness than others with a more reliable two hander. Nadals forehand is better than his backhand, but you never hear anybody criticize his two hander.
Actually, I have heard people call Nadal's backhand a weakness plenty of times. And his opponents usually attack his backhand a lot more than his forehand.

Facts are!

Two of top30 in WTA is a one hander!
So you're confirming that the two-hander is a girly (i.e., sissy) stroke? (BTW, Schiavone (#24) is also a 1HBH).

Mens. Top 10 dominated by Two handers with the exception of fed.
Um.....how about Gonzalez (#7) and Gasquet (#8 )?

And how about Haas, Blake, Ljubicic, Robredo, and Youzhny, all of whom have recently been in the Top 10 and are all still in the Top 20?

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-14-2008, 11:50 PM
And exactly what makes Agassi so special? :confused:

Abilty to win all 4GS for one. Something Sampras-Federer-Mcenroe-Becker-Edberg- and countless others could not do. I put the all four GS acomplishment above petes and rogers total gs victories. Roger knows this and would do anything to lift this throphy :)


http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6159/17106739wb0.png

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 12:25 AM
One-handers don't grunt because it's a natural, free-flowing.

Well there is exceptions.. Guga learned the art and grunted and won the french open.. Notice the difficulty to do this?

So you're confirming that the two-hander is a girly (i.e., sissy) stroke? (BTW, Schiavone (#24) is also a 1HBH).

Typical ego maniac talking.. Fact is one hander cant compete on the womens tour. If the one hander was so good and natural and more powerfull dont you think their would be many more women with a one hander?


Um.....how about Gonzalez (#7) and Gasquet (#8 )?

And how about Haas, Blake, Ljubicic, Robredo, and Youzhny, all of whom have recently been in the Top 10 and are all still in the Top 20?

They are all great players but honestly do you see anyone of those guys winning a GS anytime soon? Have any of those guys won a GS?

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 01:19 AM
I put the all four GS acomplishment above petes and rogers total gs victories.

I don't. Not even close.

BTW, Agassi won the French Open out of sheer luck, IMO. He got spanked in the first two sets 6-1, 6-2. Then he was down several break points late in the 3rd set and the way Medvedev was easily holding his service games up until then, they might as well have been match points. Agassi never should have won that match. I think either Medvedev mentally went on vacation the next two sets or perhaps the Russian mafia paid him to lose, but to raise the odds of Agassi winning and to maximize his payout, he won the first two sets while money poured in betting on Medvedev to win. Anyway, we'll never know as Medvedev disappeared after that and is probably living on his own private island somewhere that he bought with his big payout. ;-) :shock:

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 01:29 AM
Well there is exceptions.. Guga learned the art and grunted and won the french open.. Notice the difficulty to do this? Well, I never said no one-hander ever grunts, you did. I was explaining why one-handers don't need to grunt.
Your statement:
Grunting is a art that only two handers only can master! The one hander can not learn this art because the shot is not good enough and consistent.

Fact is one hander cant compete on the womens tour.
You'd better tell that to Justine Henin because she must have missed the memo. Oh, if you've never heard of her, she happens to be the dominant #1 player on the women's tour.

If the one hander was so good and natural and more powerfull dont you think their would be many more women with a one hander?
No, because women are physically weaker than men are, so they need the strength of both arms. So what does that tell you about the men who need to use both arms?

They are all great players but honestly do you see anyone of those guys winning a GS anytime soon? Have any of those guys won a GS?
And how many guys with two-handed backhands have won a Grand Slam in the past 4 years?

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 02:09 AM
I don't. Not even close.

BTW, Agassi won the French Open out of sheer luck, IMO. He got spanked in the first two sets 6-1, 6-2. Then he was down several break points late in the 3rd set and the way Medvedev was easily holding his service games up until then, they might as well have been match points. Agassi never should have won that match. I think either Medvedev mentally went on vacation the next two sets or perhaps the Russian mafia paid him to lose, but to raise the odds of Agassi winning and to maximize his payout, he won the first two sets while money poured in betting on Medvedev to win. Anyway, we'll never know as Medvedev disappeared after that and is probably living on his own private island somewhere that he bought with his big payout. ;-) :shock:

Agassi made the finals 3 times at the french, how can it be luck when you've done it consistently? Luck? If fed and sampras are so dominating how come pete never made a final and fed has not won it yet..Why? Do they lack true baseline game? Agassi is in a very prestigious list that has won all 4 Grand Slams. How can you be above him if you are not on the list? ;)

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 02:21 AM
No, because women are physically weaker than men are, so they need the strength of both arms. So what does that tell you about the men who need to use both arms?

Henin is a women and uses a one hander, is she really a guy that she can be able use one hand? Obviously you dont need to be a man to have a one hander. Just admit that the vast majority of two handers will be more sucsessfull. Thats a fact on the womens tour, top5 men in the world, and ultimate proving ground the french open!

And how many guys with two-handed backhands have won a Grand Slam in the past 4 years?

Out of the top30 the only players to have Slams under their belt with a one hander is FED..
Roddick-nadal-moya-hewitt- all have GS under their belt. Who besides fed has any??
Who is realistically contenders to beat fed or nadal or win a GS this year? Probably not no one hander imo..

Azzurri
01-15-2008, 03:11 AM
Mcenroe did not win a GS after 1984. Power surpassed mcenroe in the 80's. Lendl-edberg-becker i think are greater than Mcenroe. The only players who could compete today with current top pros are Sampras and Agassi.. And even both of them would have their hands full right now with nadal-fed-etc..

You missed something here. Edberg was NOT a power player by any means, yet he won majors into the early 90's. Mac did not win any more majors because he had children, got maried, had a nut job wife, and a whole lot of other reasons (detailed in his book), so I doubt power had anything to do w/it.

SAMPRAS WOULD DESTROY NADAL (IN SAMPRAS PLAYING DAY PRIME).

Azzurri
01-15-2008, 03:13 AM
I don't really feel that power surpassed McEnroe. He simply never kept his form. He took a layoff and had some personal problems.

Sure doesn't seem like power has surpassed Fabrice Santoro and he competes at a high level.

I can only guess that Ultra never read Mac's book and he never actually watched Mac or anybody else in the mid 80's play.

ericsson
01-15-2008, 03:19 AM
My findings are that people who are using one handers are mostly have better slices too, so in general are handier on the BH. (exept for Rios, he could even hit one handers ;-)

Azzurri
01-15-2008, 03:27 AM
[QUOTE=Ultra2HolyGrail;2000015]Mcenroe did not win a GS after 1984. QUOTE]


True, but he won a Tier I ATP Doubles title very recently. He also beat (an admittedly rusty) Phillipousis pretty convincingly in singles on the Seniors Tour just a few months back.

The idea that Mac, Lendl, Becker, or Edberg couldn't compete nowadays seems a little odd to me. I mean, if they grew up nowadays and were on the circuit, perhaps they'd play differently, or use a different frame, or have eaten different food as children, etc, etc, etc......BUT they are all SUPREME athletes possessed of motor skills that are simply OFF THE CHARTS.

Best,

CC

Gotta hand it to you Dr. Clark....I have never heard someone bring up this point. We should be looking at their skill level regardless of when they played, but their playing style is all we have to go on so I understand why this point is never brought up, but I like it.

Azzurri
01-15-2008, 03:30 AM
Abilty to win all 4GS for one. Something Sampras-Federer-Mcenroe-Becker-Edberg- and countless others could not do. I put the all four GS acomplishment above petes and rogers total gs victories. Roger knows this and would do anything to lift this throphy :)


http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6159/17106739wb0.png

Dude,
you have seriously lost it. There is not one tennis "expert" that would place Agassi above Pete or Fed in terms of accomplishments. Please find me just ONE.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 04:39 AM
Andre has beaten federer. And took him to 5 sets at the US.Open...And he was in his 30's. WOW.. Sampras has never beat fed, and lost to fed when he was not even playing with his 90frame, and at wimbledon.. Not saying he could not beat him but he never did. Agassi could hang toe to toe with a much younger fed...Ask yourself this, would FED be able to beat andre when he is 34yo or be in the game at that age? One of feds strenthes his his movement and quickness. How would he fair when he losses a step..


Also how many australian opens and wimbledons did andre miss and pete never missed a tournament? Or had a bad years because andre actually enjoyed life.. Pete has 5 more GS wins. But never made the finals of the french.

I wont disagree people thinking fed's better, he probably is overall..

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 09:33 AM
You missed something here. Edberg was NOT a power player by any means, yet he won majors into the early 90's. Mac did not win any more majors because he had children, got maried, had a nut job wife, and a whole lot of other reasons (detailed in his book), so I doubt power had anything to do w/it.

Then why? Mac also used steriods which he admitted during his later years and still could not compete with power of other players, but claims he did not know what they were, but tatum knew somehow..lol. Mcenroe loved tennis too much for "personal" problems to be a excuse for his not winning for all those years.

SAMPRAS WOULD DESTROY NADAL (IN SAMPRAS PLAYING DAY PRIME).

I know sampras is a god to you, but no-hell no- he would not destroy nadal.. If Federer can not destroy nadal what makes you think Pete would? Nadal leads federer 8-6 overall!!

Azzurri
01-15-2008, 11:46 AM
Andre has beaten federer. And took him to 5 sets at the US.Open...And he was in his 30's. WOW.. Sampras has never beat fed, and lost to fed when he was not even playing with his 90frame, and at wimbledon.. Not saying he could not beat him but he never did. Agassi could hang toe to toe with a much younger fed...Ask yourself this, would FED be able to beat andre when he is 34yo or be in the game at that age? One of feds strenthes his his movement and quickness. How would he fair when he losses a step..


Also how many australian opens and wimbledons did andre miss and pete never missed a tournament? Or had a bad years because andre actually enjoyed life.. Pete has 5 more GS wins. But never made the finals of the french.

I wont disagree people thinking fed's better, he probably is overall..

Fed vs. Sampras is really tough to call. they played once and Pete was hitting his twilight and Fed was not even great yet. I would love to see a 21 year old Fed vs a 21 year old Pete...now that would have been awesome.
But you are coreect, Fed did win. Can't really argue that.

Yes, Agassi is an all-time great. That is why he was able to beat Fed, but Sampras had a 20-14 record vs Agassi and 6 more GS...sorry, but Andre can't hold a candle to Pete.

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 12:58 PM
Henin is a women and uses a one hander, is she really a guy that she can be able use one hand? Obviously you dont need to be a man to have a one hander.
No, you don't, but you do need to be a woman or an effeminate (i.e., weak) man to use a two hands.

Just admit that the vast majority of two handers will be more sucsessfull. Thats a fact on the womens tour, top5 men in the world, and ultimate proving ground the french open!
Then why have the most dominant top players in tennis history, both men and women, have had a one-handed backhand? :confused:
Laver, P. Gonzales, Rosewall, Emerson, Vilas, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, etc.
Smith-Court, Goolagong, Navratilova, Graf, Henin, etc.

And how is the French Open the "ultimate proving ground"? :confused: The last time I checked, Wimbledon was, is, and always will be the most prestigious and important tournament in tennis. And guess what type of player has dominated Wimbledon throughout history? Oh, yeah, 1HBH players.

But I guess Gaudio did prove how he could spank Coria with his 1HBH at the French. And not only Coria, Gaudio also beat Canas, Novak, Enqvist, Andreev, Hewitt, and Nalbandian, and then Coria in the final, ALL of whom have two-handed backhands, at that same French Open. So go tell Gaston Gaudio that a 1HBH player can't possibly compete with a 2HBH player at the French Open.

Out of the top30 the only players to have Slams under their belt with a one hander is FED..
Roddick-nadal-moya-hewitt- all have GS under their belt. Who besides fed has any??
Yeah, and Federer with his one-hander has more Grand Slam titles than ALL of the two-handers currently on the tour combined!!!

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 01:05 PM
Pete has 5 more GS wins.
Since when does 14 - 8 = 5? :confused:

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 01:07 PM
I know sampras is a god to you, but no-hell no- he would not destroy nadal.. If Federer can not destroy nadal what makes you think Pete would? Nadal leads federer 8-6 overall!!
Because Sampras has a much bigger serve than Federer, and he's a better serve and volleyer, is better at net, and attacks the net at every opportunity including off of the return of serve. Nadal would have no chance against Sampras in his prime. Nadal's topspin shots cross the net so high that it would be easy pickings for Sampras at the net.

stormholloway
01-15-2008, 01:10 PM
Mcenroe loved tennis too much for "personal" problems to be a excuse for his not winning for all those years.

It's amusing that you seem to know much about what goes on inside John McEnroe's mind. Anyone who is having serious personal issues is going to have trouble in his professional life. There are few instances to the contrary. In fact, I could make a list of players whose personal problems led to poor results on tour.

Richie Rich
01-15-2008, 01:15 PM
Because Sampras has a much bigger serve than Federer, and he's a better serve and volleyer, is better at net, and attacks the net at every opportunity including off of the return of serve. Nadal would have no chance against Sampras in his prime. Nadal's topspin shots cross the net so high that it would be easy pickings for Sampras at the net.

i'm not so sure it would be so easy. sampras has to get to the net first. look what correjta did to sampras during their memorable US Open match. it wasn't what i would call a cakewalk.

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 01:20 PM
i'm not so sure it would be so easy. sampras has to get to the net first. look what correjta did to sampras during their memorable US Open match. it wasn't what i would call a cakewalk.
But Corretja doesn't hit the ball with as much massive topspin as Nadal does. Also, as you recall, Sampras was pretty sick that day.

Richie Rich
01-15-2008, 03:03 PM
But Corretja doesn't hit the ball with as much massive topspin as Nadal does. Also, as you recall, Sampras was pretty sick that day.

he still hit fairly heavy top and it kept pete behind the baseline more than pete would have liked.

and pete was sick in the 5th set although he was looked ill from the third set onwards. i don't think he started the match sick.

Gasquetrules
01-15-2008, 04:05 PM
I was reading the article in The Deuce online magazine now out at the atptennis website, the one about Fabrice Santoro. Santoro played from the early 90s (during the latter years that Lendl and Becker played) until the present. He has numerous wins over Sampras, Agassi, Safin and most of the pros on the circuit today. His pro career spans the recent revolution in strings. Yet, the player he never beat and whom he praises most as being most solid and difficult for him to play is Yevghny Kafelnikov. Santoro went 0-7 against this great Russian.

So check Kafelnikov's record against Lendl and Becker. Heck, check Santoro's record against Lendl and Becker!!!

My point here is that Santoro picks a very good -- but not truly great -- player that was playing during the mid-90s as perhaps the toughest player he ever faced. And Santoro has recent wins over Roddick, Blake, and many other very good power players now playing on the tour.

What this all says is that there really isn't that much difference between the men on the tour today and the men on the tour 16 years ago early in Santoro's career. Santoro clearly doesn't think that today's players are collectively far superior to those of a generation ago.

After all, widebody racquets like the Babolats were available in the early 90s, but none of the pros played with them. The only thing that's made them playable at the pro level is the newer strings. But if you use Fabrice Santoro as a measuring stick Kafelnikov and the other top players from Becker's day would do fine today.

Gasquetrules
01-15-2008, 04:21 PM
Santoro went 0-1 vs. Ivan Lendl. Lendl beat Santoro easily in straight sets on clay in '93, 6-2, 6-3, I believe.

Santoro and Becker were 1-1.

Becker won two out of three sets on a hard court against Santoro, and Santoro took four sets to beat Becker on Clay... must've been at the French.

I think this settles the issue. If Santoro can take down almost any of today's players, but could not beat Lendl and split matches with Becker, then I think the question has been answered.

Agassi also spans these two periods, and as someone else pointed out, Agassi has done well against most of the top players of today, but didn't dominate either Becker or Lendl.

Azzurri
01-15-2008, 04:22 PM
Then why? Mac also used steriods which he admitted during his later years and still could not compete with power of other players, but claims he did not know what they were, but tatum knew somehow..lol. Mcenroe loved tennis too much for "personal" problems to be a excuse for his not winning for all those years.



I know sampras is a god to you, but no-hell no- he would not destroy nadal.. If Federer can not destroy nadal what makes you think Pete would? Nadal leads federer 8-6 overall!!

Please read Mac's book. He explains how he felt about tennis and his place in it. If you read it, please re-read it. You missed some things.

OK..point taken about Pete vs Nadal. The word destroy was not appropriate. To me Agassi was better than nadal and Pete handled Agassi, so that is where I come up with my conclusion.

35ft6
01-15-2008, 04:34 PM
If you're not trying to win the argument why do you keep going back to it? I gave one simple, valid reason why Lendl couldn't beat Nadal using his old racquet - Lendl's old racquet is simply that old. Nadal's racquet is made from more modern materials, is lighter and has more inherent power than what Lendl used. Nadal would crush Lendl on clay. Lendl might actually have the best chance on grass. Of course, I'm talking about each at their best. I wish I could post a video of Lendl playing Mecir from back in the day. It was moonball fest. Nadal is stronger and faster than Lendl, and hits harder.

35ft6
01-15-2008, 04:43 PM
Now that I think upon the issue, for most of the 1980s tennis was amazing because of the incredible consistency that was so often displayed. Recall the 1987 US Open final between Lendl and Wilander. More consistency or less power, aggression, and precision. Hard to say.

Here's a video of highlights of 1988 final between Wilander and Lendl.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Efmy72bXH0c

Highlights from 2007 Us Open match between Roddick and Federer:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo&feature=related

Are they really less precise today? They certainly hit a lot harder.

Gasquetrules
01-15-2008, 04:51 PM
Lendl and Kafelnikov never played a match on the ATP

Becker played Kafelnikov six times on the tour, all late in Becker's career, from '95 to '97. Becker went 4-2 against Kafelnikov, the player that Santoro says was the toughest opponent he ever faced.

I know tennis is a game of matchups, but if Santoro can get wins against the best players of both era's (including Sampras and Federer), it just shows that today's players clearly are not in a different league from those playing 15 or 20 years ago.

Santoro is 2-8 vs. Federer, with his wins coming early in Federer's career... but he still plays Federer tough. The last time they played was at Doha in 2006, which Fed won in two tie-break sets.

Santoro has never played Nadal. I hope he gets the opportunity before he retires at the end of the year.

35ft6
01-15-2008, 04:52 PM
Sorry, but, way.

Federer's K90 is smaller and has a higher swingweight and static weight than Becker's Estusa PBP. If Federer could beat the crap out of everyone with his K90, I don't see why Becker couldn't with his PBP, even today.

And if Lendl could beat almost anybody in the late-80's/early 90's with his tiny 75 sq. in. racquet even though almost all of his opponents used bigger racquets (e.g., Becker (92), Chang (107), Agassi (107), McEnroe (82), Sampras (85), Edberg (85), Wilander (90?), etc., I think he could still do so today if he were in his prime.It's not just the size of the heads, it's what they grew up playing with as a kid, when they stopped playing with wood, and how that might affect their mechanics. Guys just grow up today taking much bigger cuts at the ball. The guys who have that extra something that allows them to keep the ball in play end up becoming top pros. When Agassi came on the scene, people thought he hit with almost reckless pace. Quote from McEnroe:He burst onto the scene, of course. How else was a 16- year-old from Las Vegas with an alliterative, Europeansounding name and a mane of peroxide-blond hair supposed to make a debut? It came in Stratton Mountain, Vt., in the summer of 1986. Like Boris Becker the previous year at Wimbledon, the rise of Agassi and his whip-crack forehand signaled the beginning of the power era. Nobody has ever hit the ball that hard against me, John McEnroe said after ending Agassis Stratton run. And John had played Lendl and Becker a few times by then.

Gasquetrules
01-15-2008, 05:04 PM
Nadal would crush Lendl on clay. Lendl might actually have the best chance on grass. Of course, I'm talking about each at their best. I wish I could post a video of Lendl playing Mecir from back in the day. It was moonball fest. Nadal is stronger and faster than Lendl, and hits harder.


Lendl could certainly match Nadal's speed about the court. He used superior speed, strenght and stamina to beat Agassi at the US Open in '88. Lendl was amazingly fast.

And so was Boris Becker.

Gasquetrules
01-15-2008, 05:21 PM
Nadal's win's against Richard Gasquet show that he is vulnerable against players like Becker and Lendl.

All of the matchs between Nadal and Gasquet that I recall have followed the same pattern: Gasquet wins the first set with his superior all-court play and by serving well and coming to net. But because of his greater stamina, Nadal comes from behind and wins the match.

This was the pattern of their first pro Match in Monte Carlo in the semi-final after Gasquet had defeated Federer in three tough sets. This was also the pattern in their matchup at the 2007 Masters.

Gasquet has the talent to beat Nadal out of the blocks and win the first set by playing an all-court game very similar to the one Becker played. But so far Gasquet just hasn't had the stamina to keep it up long enough to pull out the win. This proves that if a player can serve big and volley well, plus not be terribly outhit on the baseline against Nadal, then Nadal can be beaten.

Both Lendl and Becker had much bigger serves than Gasquet, and both were stronger and fitter. So if Gasquet can consistently get the first set off Nadal, why shouldn't Boris Becker or Ivan Lendl be able to beat Nadal?

Nadal is just a sexier and slightly better version of Canas. There is nothing magical about him. I'd much rather watch a clay court match by Coria than Nadal.

Zimbo
01-15-2008, 05:42 PM
Nadal would crush Lendl on clay. Lendl might actually have the best chance on grass. Of course, I'm talking about each at their best. I wish I could post a video of Lendl playing Mecir from back in the day. It was moonball fest. Nadal is stronger and faster than Lendl, and hits harder.

I don't think Nadal would "crush" Lendl. Please, watch your adjectives. Let's stop comparing generations here. Current day Nadal vs Lendl with a 75 inch head frame, yes I'll give it to you Nadal would probably beat him more often then not. But give Nadal a smaller frame and the old school strings and it would be the reverse. Someone pointed out in an earlier post, if Lendl, Becker, Mac, etc.... grew up with graphite frames, food, training blah blah blah their strokes and game would probably have been different and they would most likely be able to hit with power more consistantly as the players now do. That said. Lendl played when the clay game was totally different then it is today. There were more rallies and point construction, but when he went for his forehand he had as much power or more off that wing then Nadal.

As for the Wilander vs Lendl match, I agree with you, today's game has a lot more power. But, you have to realize that when Lendl played Wilander he never went all out with his shots as compared to when for exampl he played Agassi or Becker. Those gays gave him pace to work with while Wilander didn't. Lendl had to play smarter when he played Mats. Lendl knew if he went for more power with Wilander he would lose in the end. Either Wilander would track those shots down and/or he would make too many unforce errors and lose. I bet the Lendl and Agassi '88 Masters round robin match could be on par with any match seen today when in comes to power.

That said, the arguement that has people on both poles in this post is really funny. Come on people, stop comparing generations. If you are going to do it, at least take into account that greats of the past could most likely adapt to the new game. Why not go deeper and realize that the past greats would probably have slightly different games if they came up today.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 08:23 PM
No, you don't, but you do need to be a woman or an effeminate (i.e., weak) man to use a two hands.

Funny, i guess Agassi was not strong? If you want to talk weakling Mcenroe was a weakling imo. His power and form from the baseline is laughable. Steriods could not even help him from his wooden racquet days.. 80's power blew mac away let alone what current pace would do to him.. Maybe it was to much cocaine?

Then why have the most dominant top players in tennis history, both men and women, have had a one-handed backhand? :confused:
Laver, P. Gonzales, Rosewall, Emerson, Vilas, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, etc.
Smith-Court, Goolagong, Navratilova, Graf, Henin, etc.

Again as far as Sampras and Fed and ESPECIALLY steffi graf who could only slice is their backhands are more of a weakness than most two handers.. Besides the stone age players none of them won a french open..Besides lendl, who was a true baseliner.

And how is the French Open the "ultimate proving ground"? :confused: The last time I checked, Wimbledon was, is, and always will be the most prestigious and important tournament in tennis. And guess what type of player has dominated Wimbledon throughout history? Oh, yeah, 1HBH players.

The french is a true baseliners proving ground like wimbledon used to be with serve and volley, but not no more, people are playing from the baseline. If you want to win wimbledon you need to be a true baseliner nowdays. Times change unfortunately..


But I guess Gaudio did prove how he could spank Coria with his 1HBH at the French. And not only Coria, Gaudio also beat Canas, Novak, Enqvist, Andreev, Hewitt, and Nalbandian, and then Coria in the final, ALL of whom have two-handed backhands, at that same French Open. So go tell Gaston Gaudio that a 1HBH player can't possibly compete with a 2HBH player at the French Open.

Now gaudio was lUCK.. But since he used a one hander i suppose you dont think so LOL...And Agassi- who had been there 3times in the final you say was luck? You really are too much, but funny. Where is gaudio now? He was a one slam wonder.

Yeah, and Federer with his one-hander has more Grand Slam titles than ALL of the two-handers currently on the tour combined!!!


Yep, he is the ONLY player with a one hander who can compete in todays game!

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 08:40 PM
Because Sampras has a much bigger serve than Federer, and he's a better serve and volleyer, is better at net, and attacks the net at every opportunity including off of the return of serve. Nadal would have no chance against Sampras in his prime. Nadal's topspin shots cross the net so high that it would be easy pickings for Sampras at the net.

Does this even deserve a response? FED beat sampras period in his prime and fed was not in his prime and comming up..At wimbledon of all places where pete was so "dominant" and in his prime.. Of course Nadal would give sampras all he could handle. No chance? I suppose you think Mcenroe would beat nadal. Heck i would bet on it LOL

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 09:23 PM
Funny, i guess Agassi was not strong?
Long, bleached dyed blond hair; Mr. Fashion; Earrings; Walks like he's wearing high-heeled shoes. You do the math.

If you want to talk weakling Mcenroe was a weakling imo.
McEnroe's more of a man than Agassi could ever hope to be. Tell me, if someone who's as pitifully weak as McEnroe is able to hit a 1HBH, why can't you?

Again as far as Sampras and Fed and ESPECIALLY steffi graf who could only slice is their backhands are more of a weakness than most two handers..
What, 22 Grand Slam titles are not enough? Who even needs a backhand at all if you can win that many without one?

The french is a true baseliners proving ground like wimbledon used to be with serve and volley, but not no more, people are playing from the baseline. If you want to win wimbledon you need to be a true baseliner nowdays. Times change unfortunately..
Then how did Nadal get to two Wimbledon finals by getting to the net (even more than Federer)?

Now gaudio was lUCK.. But since he used a one hander i suppose you dont think so LOL...And Agassi- who had been there 3times in the final you say was luck? You really are too much, but funny. Where is gaudio now? He was a one slam wonder.
Luck? He beat seven top clay court players with 2HBH's, including Canas, Novak, Enqvist, Andreev, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Coria, and you call that "luck"? :confused:

Yep, he is the ONLY player with a one hander who can compete in todays game!
If he can hit a 1HBH, why can't others?

Oh, and please go tell Gasquet, Gonzales, Haas, Blake, etc. that they're not good enough to be pros unless they switch to a 2HBH. :roll:

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 09:24 PM
Does this even deserve a response? FED beat sampras period in his prime and fed was not in his prime and comming up..At wimbledon of all places where pete was so "dominant" and in his prime.. Of course Nadal would give sampras all he could handle. No chance? I suppose you think Mcenroe would beat nadal. Heck i would bet on it LOL
Federer hardly comes to the net when he plays against Nadal. Sampras will, on everything. That's the big difference.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 10:37 PM
Long, bleached dyed blond hair; Mr. Fashion; Earrings; Walks like he's wearing high-heeled shoes. You do the math.

Lol.. Mac wears earings. He also has gone as far as wearing capri pants. Did'nt he wear agassi jean shorts too? He can only dream of being like those guys, what a poser :) Mac is a clown-look at this and his goofy strokes..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD69Xej3V0g


McEnroe's more of a man than Agassi could ever hope to be. Tell me, if someone who's as pitifully weak as McEnroe is able to hit a 1HBH, why can't you?

I prefer to win and return serves and not shank balls to the fence-bottom of net-and like to play and not chase balls all day :)

What, 22 Grand Slam titles are not enough? Who even needs a backhand at all if you can win that many without one?

Her slice would not work in todays game..

Then how did Nadal get to two Wimbledon finals by getting to the net (even more than Federer)

Dont that tell you something? When nadal comes to net more than fed you know serve and volley is dead in mens tennis.. Being a baseliner with a one hander is extremely difficult.

Luck? He beat seven top clay court players with 2HBH's, including Canas, Novak, Enqvist, Andreev, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Coria, and you call that "luck"? :confused:

Since he is a one slam wonder you could say so.

If he can hit a 1HBH, why can't others?

Oh, and please go tell Gasquet, Gonzales, Haas, Blake, etc. that they're not good enough to be pros unless they switch to a 2HBH. :roll:

Good enough to be pros yeah, to be contenders at grand slams is another story..

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 10:59 PM
I prefer to win and return serves and not shank balls to the fence-bottom of net-and like to play and not chase balls all day :)
So since you can't hit a 1HBH to save your life, are you admitting that you're even more of a "weakling" than McEnroe then? Because even that "weakling" McEnroe can do it.

Her slice would not work in todays game..
Um....Federer slices all the time. So it certainly DOES work in "today's game", as his dominance proves.

Being a baseliner with a one hander is extremely difficult.
Maybe difficult for you, but not difficult for a lot of other people, including me. And certainly not difficult for Federer and Henin, the two #1 players.

Good enough to be pros yeah, to be contenders at grand slams is another story..
I can count the number of contenders for Grand Slams, other than the French, on one finger. And he happens to have a one-handed backhand. :)

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-15-2008, 11:14 PM
So since you can't hit a 1HBH to save your life, are you admitting that you're even more of a "weakling" than McEnroe then? Because even that "weakling" McEnroe can do it.

Um....Federer slices all the time. So it certainly DOES work in "today's game", as his dominance proves.

Maybe difficult for you, but not difficult for a lot of other people, including me. And certainly not difficult for Federer and Henin, the two #1 players.

I can count the number of contenders for Grand Slams, other than the French, on one finger. And he happens to have a one-handed backhand. :)


Think what you will BP. My point is yeah fed-henin- and thats pretty much it can compete today with a one hander-a obsolete stroke really :).. Sampras could to because of his awesome serve. Maybe Gasquet, his backhand does rock, but i dont think on the level of two handers like nalbandian or nadal-djokovic-roddick.. Only a old wood racquet era playing one handed player who uses slice forehands would only say that a two hander is "girly" like you say.. I doubt you would say it to my face..

zagor
01-15-2008, 11:44 PM
Think what you will BP. My point is yeah fed-henin- and thats pretty much it can compete today with a one hander-a obsolete stroke really :).. Sampras could to because of his awesome serve. Maybe Gasquet, his backhand does rock, but i dont think on the level of two handers like nalbandian or nadal-djokovic-roddick.. Only a old wood racquet era playing one handed player who uses slice forehands would only say that a two hander is "girly" like you say.. I doubt you would say it to my face..

Gasquet has a much better backhand than Nadal,Djokovic and Roddick(using Roddick to win an argument that two-handers are better?!?),with Nalbandian I'd say it's a draw but don't forget that Nalbandian has a very bad record against another guy with a great one-hander Wawrinka.Additionaly the main GOAT contenders(Sampras,Federer and Laver) use one-handed backhand.

BreakPoint
01-15-2008, 11:48 PM
Only a old wood racquet era playing one handed player who uses slice forehands would only say that a two hander is "girly" like you say..
Anything that most girls do is what makes something "girly", whether that's shaving your legs or wearing cute tennis dresses or hitting a two-handed backhand. :lol: LOL

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 12:39 AM
Gasquet has a much better backhand than Nadal,Djokovic and Roddick(using Roddick to win an argument that two-handers are better?!?),with Nalbandian I'd say it's a draw but don't forget that Nalbandian has a very bad record against another guy with a great one-hander Wawrinka.Additionaly the main GOAT contenders(Sampras,Federer and Laver) use one-handed backhand.

Again, it's like i'm talking to brick walls here but Sampras's backhand was by far his weakest shot.. You think he won all those wimbledons because of his backhand? If his backhand was good dont you think he could win the french open with a good backhand and his awesome forehand-serves? Federer also has not won a french yet, he might, but his backhand is so criticised that people have gone as far to say federer needs to switch to a two hander to win the french..

I see your point on roddick, my point is he is more of a "contender" than gasquet is to win a gs.. He also has a couple under his belt.. And nalbandian-djokovic are better baseliners than gasquet imo..

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 12:41 AM
Anything that most girls do is what makes something "girly", whether that's shaving your legs or wearing cute tennis dresses or hitting a two-handed backhand. :lol: LOL

Does that include wearing Capri Pants, Earrings!! Agassi jean Shorts! And shootin sterioids because you are weak? :)

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 12:45 AM
Does that include wearing Capri Pants, Earrings!! Agassi jean Shorts! And shootin sterioids because you are weak? :)
McEnroe never wore Agassi jean shorts. And, yes, Nadal wears capri pants, grunts when he hits the ball, and hits a 2HBH so that makes him "girly".

BTW, if McEnroe can hit a 1HBH even though he's so darn weak, what does that make you? Even weaker, right?

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 12:49 AM
Again, it's like i'm talking to brick walls here but Sampras's backhand was by far his weakest shot.. You think he won all those wimbledons because of his backhand? If his backhand was good dont you think he could win the french open with a good backhand and his awesome forehand-serves? Federer also has not won a french yet, he might, but his backhand is so criticised that people have gone as far to say federer needs to switch to a two hander to win the french..

Only clueless idiots say that.

BTW, does it matter how good your backhand is if you can win 7 Wimbledons with it? I'd bet Nadal would even give up his 2HBH if he could win 7 Wimbledons without it.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 12:54 AM
I see your point on roddick, my point is he is more of a "contender" than gasquet is to win a gs.. He also has a couple under his belt.. And nalbandian-djokovic are better baseliners than gasquet imo..
First you say that Sampras only has 5 more GS titles than Agassi and now you say that Roddick has "a couple" of GS titles? Geez...now I know the level of knowledge I'm responding to.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 01:02 AM
Roddick one GS- and i was off on sampras . 14 instead of 13.. So do you feel better now and think your case about a old inferior one hander can compete, besides Fed-Henin-And superman serving Sampras?

BP- Have you missed a GS tournament in the last 20years on TV? LOL It's one thing to be a "expert" just watching the game, another if you have any credentials as a player yourself. Which i doubt you have any-or trophys. ;)

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 01:20 AM
Only clueless idiots say that.

BTW, does it matter how good your backhand is if you can win 7 Wimbledons with it? I'd bet Nadal would even give up his 2HBH if he could win 7 Wimbledons without it.

I agree. I'm not saying it's not possible to have a one hander and be the greatest ever with one. Just the odds are much better for a two hander, especially with todays power game-luxilon strings-powerfull racquets and mostly baseline game.. Facts are Facts and the two hander is just more steady and consistent for the majority of players. And a necessity literally to win the french nowdays.. Of Course it's stupid to consider fed switching to a two hander Lol..

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 01:23 AM
BP- Have you missed a GS tournament in the last 20years on TV? LOL It's one thing to be a "expert" just watching the game, another if you have any credentials as a player yourself. Which i doubt you have any-or trophys. ;)
Hmmm....I wouldn't know the 1HBH is better than the 2HBH if I couldn't hit a decent 1HBH myself, now would I?

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 01:35 AM
I agree. I'm not saying it's not possible to have a one hander and be the greatest ever with one. Just the odds are much better for a two hander, especially with todays power game-luxilon strings-powerfull racquets and mostly baseline game.. Facts are Facts and the two hander is just more steady and consistent for the majority of players. And a necessity literally to win the french nowdays.. Of Course it's stupid to consider fed switching to a two hander Lol..
But the best players are players with 1HBH's who cares what the "majority of players" do. BTW, well over 95% of the people I play with/against use 1HBH's. I almost never see any male player around me use a 2HBH in league play.

Oh, and please go tell Gustavo Kuerten, Albert Costa, and Gaston Gaudio that a 2HBH is a necessity to win the French these days. And, while you're at it, tell that to Federer too so that he doesn't waste his time playing the French anymore for the rest of his career.

Oh, and let's not forget that you should tell Justine Henin to give back her four French Open trophies because she should have never won them with her 1HBH since a 2HBH is a "necessity" to win the French nowadays.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 01:51 AM
But the best players are players with 1HBH's who cares what the "majority of players" do. BTW, well over 95% of the people I play with/against use 1HBH's. I almost never see any male player around me use a 2HBH in league play.

And yet once again your hero's with one handers their backhand is far worse.. Fed wins wimbledons with his serve, killer forehand, and awesome movement.. His backhand is great for a one hander but it cant compare to a nadal two hander..


Nobody uses a two hander in your leagues? LOL.. What is that the stone age 3.5 saturday night special leauge :)

35ft6
01-16-2008, 02:29 AM
Lendl could certainly match Nadal's speed about the court. He used superior speed, strenght and stamina to beat Agassi at the US Open in '88. Lendl was amazingly fast.

And so was Boris Becker. Becker wasn't known for speed. They were good athletes but Nadal is a different level. Lendl wasn't even the natural athlete Becker was, watching them play, it's rather easy to tell which is a natural and which got good through fanatical training. I don't think Nadal would "crush" Lendl. Please, watch your adjectives. Let's stop comparing generations here. It's amazing that you compare generations in your first sentence, and then request that I not compare generations two sentences later.

Yes, crush. The match I'd like to see is prime Guga versus Nadal, but Lendl versus Nadal, the outcome would never be in question.Current day Nadal vs Lendl with a 75 inch head frame, yes I'll give it to you Nadal would probably beat him more often then not. But give Nadal a smaller frame and the old school strings and it would be the reverse.Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins. Talking about racket and equipment is fun, and definitely worth discussing, but after a few years at TW, not sure if I'm ready to repeat myself for the sake of this particular discussion right just now.

Interesting thread, though.

swedechris
01-16-2008, 05:24 AM
not reference to the latter posts but overall these guys = becker and lendl could play .. 4 sure... same for patyy cash , wilander , edberg ..
they were jsut as good if not better than the current palyers.. i think they used their heads a lot lot more.. and it seems to me in society as a whole that also has become a trend = more force and less brian than clever smart thinking of the past . we let computers and new materials produced like hightech rackets in this casee do more and more of what the brain used to do very well and with an inspiring sideproduct called development as a result . hehe. :)

Zimbo
01-16-2008, 10:49 AM
Becker wasn't known for speed. They were good athletes but Nadal is a different level. Lendl wasn't even the natural athlete Becker was, watching them play, it's rather easy to tell which is a natural and which got good through fanatical training. It's amazing that you compare generations in your first sentence, and then request that I not compare generations two sentences later.

Yes, crush. The match I'd like to see is prime Guga versus Nadal, but Lendl versus Nadal, the outcome would never be in question.Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins. Talking about racket and equipment is fun, and definitely worth discussing, but after a few years at TW, not sure if I'm ready to repeat myself for the sake of this particular discussion right just now.

Interesting thread, though.

I know I know, I did compare also. That's the fun of it I guess. However, when I do compare generations I do take into account equipment etc.... I have read many of your post in the past and I do agree with you on a lot. Players today play at a different level. The evolution of the game is mind blowing. But, please don't think Nadal would play the same game if he used a 75 in frame. Thats a little absurd.

Moose Malloy
01-16-2008, 11:05 AM
Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins.

Considering old, crippled back Lendl beat both Bruguera & Muster on clay when they were close to their primes(1992), not so sure this is a foregone conclusion. I know, I know Nadal is much better than those guys, but stylistically he's not that dissimilar.

You shouldn't base your claycourt opinion of Lendl on his FO matches with Wilander that TTC replayed this year. He did adjust to different players/styles & eras pretty darn well, before his body gave out on him.

As far as racquets, Djokovic, Ginepri, Robredo(guys who actually played with wood earlier this year) probably wouldn't agree with you, they make a big difference when you are talking about a racquet the size of a toothpick, which is what Lendl's stick looks like compared to Nadal's. look at my sig, maybe the extreme racquet head speed & effectiveness that Nadal has today simply wouldn't be possible with Lendl's racquet, for many reasons.

stormholloway
01-16-2008, 11:21 AM
Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins.

Nadal would have to completely overhaul is technique if he played with Lendl's frame. His game would not be the same at well. Lendl would whip his *** if they played with those old Adidas frames, especially if they were strung without poly strings.

Nalbandian tried to play with wood not too long ago and he was pathetic. Nadal would be even worse because he is younger and an even greater child of modern racquet technology, plus his technique is very closely tied to the racquet and strings he uses. McEnroe always emphasizes this when he calls Nadal's matches.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-16-2008, 11:29 AM
[QUOTE=Gasquetrules;2003776] Nadal is just a sexier and slightly better version of Canas. There is nothing magical about him. QUOTE]


I do agree that on all the surfaces EXCEPT clay, this is true. However on clay his fitness, speed, footwork, and type of shots/game strategy make him an absolute NATURAL and very tough to beat. He is probably the greatest clay court player, ever. I'd love to see him play Vilas, but alas as this thread has repeatedly demonstrated, that is not going to happen!! :) CC

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 11:50 AM
Nobody uses a two hander in your leagues? LOL.. What is that the stone age 3.5 saturday night special leauge :)
No, it's because I play in the men's 4.5 leagues, not the women's 3.0 leagues.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 11:57 AM
Yes, crush. The match I'd like to see is prime Guga versus Nadal, but Lendl versus Nadal, the outcome would never be in question.Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins.
Ha ha ha, that's a laugh. Do you seriously think Nadal could hit two balls in a row without shanking with Lendl's 75 sq. in., 14.5 oz. racquet? Do you really think Nadal could use those huge windshield wiper topspin strokes of his using a 75 sq. in., very heavy racquet with gut strings and still hit the ball in the court? Keep dreaming.

35ft6
01-16-2008, 12:17 PM
Ha ha ha, that's a laugh. Do you seriously think Nadal could hit two balls in a row without shanking with Lendl's 75 sq. in., 14.5 oz. racquet? Do you really think Nadal could use those huge windshield wiper topspin strokes of his using a 75 sq. in., very heavy racquet with gut strings and still hit the ball in the court? Keep dreaming.You misread. I said with whatever racket they wish, which probably means Nadal with his Babolat. Why he would choose Lendl's racket is anybody's guess but your response probably couldn't exist without that strange assumption.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 12:27 PM
You misread. I said with whatever racket they wish, which probably means Nadal with his Babolat. Why he would choose Lendl's racket is anybody's guess but your response probably couldn't exist without that strange assumption.
But you quoted this comment from Zimbo in your post, which was talking about Nadal using Lendl's racquet:

Current day Nadal vs Lendl with a 75 inch head frame, yes I'll give it to you Nadal would probably beat him more often then not. But give Nadal a smaller frame and the old school strings and it would be the reverse.


Yes, crush. The match I'd like to see is prime Guga versus Nadal, but Lendl versus Nadal, the outcome would never be in question.Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins.

Besides, if Lendl had to use an old-school racquet, wouldn't it only be fair for Nadal to do so also when playing against Lendl so that we can elminate equipment as a variable in determining who's the better player? It wouldn't be fair for Nadal to be able to use all that modern technology in frames and strings.

35ft6
01-16-2008, 12:29 PM
But, please don't think Nadal would play the same game if he used a 75 in frame. Thats a little absurd. Show me where I said Nadal would beat Lendl with a 75 inch frame.Considering old, crippled back Lendl beat both Bruguera & Muster on clay when they were close to their primes(1992), not so sure this is a foregone conclusion. I know, I know Nadal is much better than those guys, but stylistically he's not that dissimilar. Cecil Mammit plays a similar style to Agassi.You shouldn't base your claycourt opinion of Lendl on his FO matches with Wilander that TTC replayed this year. He did adjust to different players/styles & eras pretty darn well, before his body gave out on him. I can choose any match. I have a match on VHS of Lendl playing Mecir and that one makes the Wilander match look like it's on fast forward.As far as racquets, Djokovic, Ginepri, Robredo(guys who actually played with wood earlier this year) probably wouldn't agree with you, they make a big difference when you are talking about a racquet the size of a toothpick, which is what Lendl's stick looks like compared to Nadal's. look at my sig, maybe the extreme racquet head speed & effectiveness that Nadal has today simply wouldn't be possible with Lendl's racquet, for many reasons.I'll use all caps for this:

I WASN'T SUGGESTING NADAL COULD BEAT LENDL WITH THAT ADIDAS SPATULA, I WAS SUGGESTING IF THEY PLAYED WITH THE RACKET OF THEIR CHOICE... I WASN'T SAYING LENDL GETS TO CHOOSE NADAL'S RACKET, OR THEY SWITCHED RACKETS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

35ft6
01-16-2008, 12:59 PM
Nadal would have to completely overhaul is technique if he played with Lendl's frame. His game would not be the same at well. Lendl would whip his *** if they played with those old Adidas frames, especially if they were strung without poly strings.

Nalbandian tried to play with wood not too long ago and he was pathetic. Nadal would be even worse because he is younger and an even greater child of modern racquet technology, plus his technique is very closely tied to the racquet and strings he uses. McEnroe always emphasizes this when he calls Nadal's matches.Okay, seriously, was what I wrote:

Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins.

Really that misleading? Serious question. I'm wondering if 4 or 5 people all independently misunderstood or if they're really responding to the first misunderstander's (< just made that up word) response.

Zimbo
01-16-2008, 01:13 PM
Show me where I said Nadal would beat Lendl with a 75 inch frame.

Sorry, I misread your post. Like I said before, with the equipment Nadal is playing with, I doubt Lendl would be able to beat him. But you have to take into consideration if Lendl played and grew up with the modern equipment his game could be even more awesome and he would be able to compete with Nadal. All in all, I think we are on the same page. I just think you rattle peoples cages because your posts are so absolute. "Nadal would crush Lendl." Come on now. That means Nadal would crush Agassi, Borg, Muster, Guga, etc... I don't think so. Those matches would be great to watch though. Just remember Borg couldn't even "crush" Lendl. Jesus, learn to give a little.

Moose Malloy
01-16-2008, 01:19 PM
Cecil Mammit plays a similar style to Agassi.

I can choose any match. I have a match on VHS of Lendl playing Mecir and that one makes the Wilander match look like it's on fast forward.

Right. Comparing Muster & Bruguera to Nadal is like comparing Cecil Mammit to Agassi.

I think Lendl beating Muster & Bruguera in '92 are pretty amazing results, & I'd bet anything Lendl didn't moonball in vs those 'modern' claycourt players. You seem to put a lot of stock into a match Lendl played with Mecir(one of the strangest players in history) 20 years ago.
As Zimbo said Lendl played differently vs different players on different surfaces.

If I recall correctly, in a different thread you thought a prime Bruguera could give Nadal a tough match on clay. So its funny that you would dismiss a very old Lendl's win over Bruguera in straight sets at the '92 FO(a year before he won it), & say Lendl would 'get crushed' by Nadal.

Your comments are also rather strange considering what you said earlier in this thread:

I've been watching this match, too, and I don't think they could be top 3 today let alone with the same racket. Top 10, probably.

You think Lendl would be probably top 10 today(on the basis of the '91 AO Final I assume), but don't think he could beat Nadal(not just that but, that he would get 'crushed') because he moonballed against Mecir in a match 20 years ago. Ok. Guess you don't think much of the current top 10 if moonballing Lendl can get there.
And that Becker match was only a few years after the Mecir match, guess Lendl finally learned how not to moon-ball in that time.

I wish I could program the old matches on TTC, I have a ton of Lendl matches on dvd that are pretty amazing, I imagine he probably looks a little better than he did in that Mecir match.

I WASN'T SUGGESTING NADAL COULD BEAT LENDL WITH THAT ADIDAS SPATULA, I WAS SUGGESTING IF THEY PLAYED WITH THE RACKET OF THEIR CHOICE... I WASN'T SAYING LENDL GETS TO CHOOSE NADAL'S RACKET, OR THEY SWITCHED RACKETS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

considering 4 different people took your comments to mean that you think Nadal would beat Lendl with his old Adidas stick, maybe your post was phrased poorly. Though the slightly over-the-top tone of some of your posts "Nadal would crush Lendl etc" makes it understandable why some would think that.

Zimbo
01-16-2008, 01:25 PM
Right. Comparing Muster & Bruguera to Nadal is like comparing Cecil Mammit to Agassi.

I think Lendl beating Muster & Bruguera in '92 are pretty amazing results, & I'd bet anything Lendl didn't moonball in vs those 'modern' claycourt players. You seem to put a lot of stock into a match Lendl played with Mecir(one of the strangest players in history) 20 years ago.
As Zimbo said Lendl played differently vs different players on different surfaces.

If I recall correctly, in a different thread you thought a prime Bruguera could give Nadal a tough match on clay. So its funny that you would dismiss a very old Lendl's win over Bruguera in straight sets at the '92 FO(a year before he won it), & say Lendl would 'get crushed' by Nadal.

Your comments are also rather strange considering what you said earlier in this thread:



You think Lendl would be probably top 10 today(on the basis of the '91 AO Final I assume), but don't think he could beat Nadal(not just that but, that he would get 'crushed') because he moonballed against Mecir in a match 20 years ago. Ok. Guess you don't think much of the current top 10 if moonballing Lendl can get there.
And that Becker match was only a few years after the Mecir match, guess Lendl finally learned how not to moon-ball in that time.



considering 4 different people took your comments to mean that you think Nadal would beat Lendl with his old Adidas stick, maybe your post was phrased poorly. Though the slightly over-the-top tone of some of your posts "Nadal would crush Lendl etc" makes it understandable why some would think that.

Good post Moose. 35ft6 is usually right on cue but I don't know why he's being so absolute and illogical. Good job using his logical to disprove his "crush" comment.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 01:42 PM
Okay, seriously, was what I wrote:

Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins.

Really that misleading? Serious question. I'm wondering if 4 or 5 people all independently misunderstood or if they're really responding to the first misunderstander's (< just made that up word) response.
If 5 separate people all read your comment the same way that I did, then don't you think perhaps the mistake was yours and not ours?

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 01:49 PM
Good post Moose. 35ft6 is usually right on cue but I don't know why he's being so absolute and illogical. Good job using his logical to disprove his "crush" comment.
He's young so was too young to have seen much of Lendl during his prime.

It's seems the only people that have been dismissing the chances of either Lendl or Becker against the current pros are the people that were too young to remember much of Lendl or Becker during their primes. If you weren't there to see Borg or Vilas or Lendl, then Nadal must seem like a God to you.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 04:13 PM
No, it's because I play in the men's 4.5 leagues, not the women's 3.0 leagues.


I dont know what fantasy 4.5 leauge this could be, but if everybody uses a one hander and you never see a two hander than i would say you are living on Fantasy Island somewhere. I would bet that the fact is that even in 4.0s the top players in EVERY state in usta use two handed backhands... D1 tennis at top universities i would also say the vast majority of players use a two hander. Any respectable 4.5+ leauge will have many two handers playing.. Except for the stone age fantasy leauge where everyone hits a one hander and slice forehands. :)

And yes Nadal would school lendl with his babolat-bottom line.

Gasquetrules
01-16-2008, 04:58 PM
[QUOTE=Gasquetrules;2003776] Nadal is just a sexier and slightly better version of Canas. There is nothing magical about him. QUOTE]


I do agree that on all the surfaces EXCEPT clay, this is true. However on clay his fitness, speed, footwork, and type of shots/game strategy make him an absolute NATURAL and very tough to beat. He is probably the greatest clay court player, ever. I'd love to see him play Vilas, but alas as this thread has repeatedly demonstrated, that is not going to happen!! :) CC

Nadal still has a ways to go before he equals Borg's clay court record... not to mention Borg's overall record.

I say Kuerten is the best clay court player of all time; Borg is second; Nadal is third.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 05:07 PM
I dont know what fantasy 4.5 leauge this could be, but if everybody uses a one hander and you never see a two hander than i would say you are living on Fantasy Island somewhere. I would bet that the fact is that even in 4.0s the top players in EVERY state in usta use two handed backhands... D1 tennis at top universities i would also say the vast majority of players use a two hander. Any respectable 4.5+ leauge will have many two handers playing.. Except for the stone age fantasy leauge where everyone hits a one hander and slice forehands. :)

And yes Nadal would school lendl with his babolat-bottom line.
Nope, most good players around me use one-handed backhands. I only see beginners and women using two-handed backhands. Perhaps some teenage boys also use two-handers but they don't play in the men's adult leagues. Oh, and I play in a place called California. Ever heard of it? I understand it's a pretty strong tennis state. ;-)

BTW, if a slice backhand approach shot works, why wouldn't a slice forehand approach shot? :confused: It's the same shot and the same result, just the down the opposite sideline. In fact, it works even better against another righty with a 2HBH because they hate low skidding balls that barely bounce up to their 2HBH's. :)

And, yes, Lendl would school Nadal if both were using a 75 sq. in., 14.5 oz. racquet with gut strings. That proves Nadal only wins because of all the help he gets from all the modern technology in racquets and strings, but is inferior as a complete tennis player.

Gasquetrules
01-16-2008, 05:12 PM
Intersting that there hasn't been any comment on the Fabrice Santoro posts I made earlier. Santoro played against Lendl and Becker and has played and beaten many of the best players on the tour today. He has played equally well against both generations of players, and actually said that Kafelnikov was the most difficult player he ever played.

So here is a guy who has beaten Federer twice, and still plays him close; who has recent wins over Roddick and Blake and other current power players; but was beaten easily by Lendl and went 1-1 vs. Becker. So how can anyone say that Lendl or Becker could not compete on the ATP against the present generation of players.

Santoro has played all these guys. His record proves that the players yesterday were as good as the players today.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 06:08 PM
Nope, most good players around me use one-handed backhands. I only see beginners and women using two-handed backhands. Perhaps some teenage boys also use two-handers but they don't play in the men's adult leagues. Oh, and I play in a place called California. Ever heard of it? I understand it's a pretty strong tennis state. ;-)

Yes i have heard of Kalifornia.. I believe the Terminator is Governor there. If you played in a real 4.5 league there, extremely doubtfull, even 4.0's, i bet many are two handers.

BTW, if a slice backhand approach shot works, why wouldn't a slice forehand approach shot? :confused:

Because that shot would be laughed at even at the 4.0 level. Thats why you will NEVER see anyone use a slice forehand in the pro's, besides maybe santoro, a extremely rare example, because their forehands are much to strong to use a slice forehand.

And, yes, Lendl would school Nadal if both were using a 75 sq. in., 14.5 oz. racquet with gut strings. That proves Nadal only wins because of all the help he gets from all the modern technology in racquets and strings, but is inferior as a complete tennis player.

So you admit modern technology is better than old technology ? A inferior uncomplete player can pick up a babolat and be a elite player? If lendl used a two handed backhand i bet you would not like him. How about wilander? I bet you dont like him either...Or any two hander to have ever played. Funny stuff but really shows how ignorant you are..

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 06:17 PM
Intersting that there hasn't been any comment on the Fabrice Santoro posts I made earlier. Santoro played against Lendl and Becker and has played and beaten many of the best players on the tour today. He has played equally well against both generations of players, and actually said that Kafelnikov was the most difficult player he ever played.

So here is a guy who has beaten Federer twice, and still plays him close; who has recent wins over Roddick and Blake and other current power players; but was beaten easily by Lendl and went 1-1 vs. Becker. So how can anyone say that Lendl or Becker could not compete on the ATP against the present generation of players.

Santoro has played all these guys. His record proves that the players yesterday were as good as the players today.

Santoro is a master pusher.. He actually loves power and pace..And smiles every time a big hitter makes a error.. Ask any true power baseliner what player is the worst to play, it's the backboard type players..Ask Safin ;) Santoro takes many players out their game... You cant really compare him to becker or lendl to say because santoro can win today all other greats must be able to.. It's more complicated than that.. As great as santoro is he still has not won a GS.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 06:32 PM
Yes i have heard of Kalifornia.. I believe the Terminator is Governor there. If you played in a real 4.5 league there, extremely doubtfull, even 4.0's, i bet many are two handers.
Well, you'd be wrong. I live here and play here and see lots and lots of players at all levels. So who should know better, you or me? I've been playing tennis for well over 30 years. You'd think I'd be pretty good by now. BTW, most 4.5 level players here would be rated 5.0's in most other parts of the country.

Because that shot would be laughed at even at the 4.0 level. Thats why you will NEVER see anyone use a slice forehand in the pro's, besides maybe santoro, a extremely rare example, because their forehands are much to strong to use a slice forehand.
Strong forehands have nothing to do with it. It's about mixing it up to confuse your opponent and also to screw up your opponent's two-handed backhands. I can kill my forehand approachs with topspin too, but I'll throw in a slice now and then to keep my opponent off balance. Oh, and it works PRECISELY because people don't see it very often so they don't expect it. Yes, it is laughed at but I'm the one that's laughing as I see my opponent have to scramble forward to try and dig out a low skididng ball that barely bounces. You really sound like you don't know much about tennis. Do you have ANY variety at all in your shots?

So you admit modern technology is better than old technology ? A inferior uncomplete player can pick up a babolat and be a elite player?
Didn't you read the above post about all the current pros that tried to play with wood racquets? They couldn't hit the ball to save their lives. So, yes, Nadal would never make it as a pro with a wood racquet (against the likes of Lendl), but he's an elite pro with a Babolat.

If lendl used a two handed backhand i bet you would not like him. How about wilander? I bet you dont like him either...Or any two hander to have ever played. Funny stuff but really shows how ignorant you are..
The only two-handers I've ever liked are Borg and Connors. It's been downhill ever since then for the two-handers (with the exception of Murray because he can also use one-hand and has a lot of variety). :cry:

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 07:11 PM
Well, you'd be wrong. I live here and play here and see lots and lots of players at all levels. So who should know better, you or me? I've been playing tennis for well over 30 years. You'd think I'd be pretty good by now

I dont care if you've been playing for 50 years. You should know in tennis many players dont even make it to 4.0 and will be there for life. Regardless how many years they played..
Chances are you grew up playing with wood and are self taught, never learning from a teaching pro, and have tons of bad habits and form that will stick for life.. Only you know for sure but i learned to play with a older player who played like you, slice forehands, one hander backhand.. Todays game even at 4.0 i never seen anyone use a slice forehand.

Strong forehands have nothing to do with it. It's about mixing it up to confuse your opponent and also to screw up your opponent's two-handed backhands. I can kill my forehand approachs with topspin too, but I'll throw in a slice now and then to keep my opponent off balance. Oh, and it works PRECISELY because people don't see it very often so they don't expect it. Yes, it is laughed at but I'm the one that's laughing as I see my opponent have to scramble forward to try and dig out a low skididng ball that barely bounces. You really sound like you don't know much about tennis. Do you have ANY variety at all in your shots?

Sure, federer dont use a slice forehand, does this mean he has no variety? I can serve and volley, strong overhead-slice one hander backhand along with the two hander. Can drop shot, hit lobs- and make people run there tails off :)



The only two-handers I've ever liked are Borg and Connors. It's been downhill ever since then for the two-handers (with the exception of Murray because he can also use one-hand and has a lot of variety). :cry:

Really you only like players from your era.. Thats fine, atleast you admit it..

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 07:27 PM
I dont care if you've been playing for 50 years. You should know in tennis many players dont even make it to 4.0 and will be there for life. Regardless how many years they played..
True, but I was MVP on my high school conference championship tennis team, so I was already about a 4.0 in high school and I'm much better now than I was then.

Chances are you grew up playing with wood and are self taught, never learning from a teaching pro, and have tons of bad habits and form that will stick for life..
Yes, I did grow up playing with wood which is the reason why I have long flowing strokes, you know, like how Federer hits the ball. ;-) Sorry, but no bad habits whatsoever. Only lots of compliments on my strokes whenever people see me play.

Only you know for sure but i learned to play with a older player who played like you, slice forehands, one hander backhand..
And I bet he kicked your butt regularly, too. :shock:

Todays game even at 4.0 i never seen anyone use a slice forehand.
Which is precisely why it works so well. If no one you've ever played ever hit a drop shot, don't you think the first guy you played who hit drop shots would mess you up? I saw a guy win a 5.0 tournament using 100% slice forehands because he NEVER missed and it drove his opponents nuts.

Sure, federer dont use a slice forehand, does this mean he has no variety?
I see Federer hit slice forehands all the time when he's pulled out wide. I've even seen him hit slice forehand drop shots and to mix up the pace.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-16-2008, 07:42 PM
True, but I was MVP on my high school conference championship tennis team, so I was already about a 4.0 in high school and I'm much better now than I was then.

Really, what was that junior varsity when you were a senior LOL

Yes, I did grow up playing with wood which is the reason why I have long flowing strokes, you know, like how Federer hits the ball. ;-) Sorry, but no bad habits whatsoever. Only lots of compliments on my strokes whenever people see me play.

Sure they do, thats in the fantasy leauge where everyone has a one handed backhnad :)

And I bet he kicked your butt regularly, too. :shock:

Actually he did lol... But i remember when i beat him for the first time, when i was getting good, the torch was passed :) We only played a couple more times after that.. He showed up at a match of mine and suprised me at a tournament, i really played well but lost to a great player..

Which is precisely why it works so well. If no one you've ever played ever hit a drop shot, don't you think the first guy you played who hit drop shots would mess you up? I saw a guy win a 5.0 tournament using 100% slice forehands because he NEVER missed and it drove his opponents nuts.

I played a drop shot exclusive player before, he made me run like hell but none of it worked..
Not many like the drop shot but i love it.

I see Federer hit slice forehands all the time when he's pulled out wide. I've even seen him hit slice forehand drop shots and to mix up the pace.

Yes but NEVER a actuall slice forehand approach. Never

stormholloway
01-16-2008, 07:55 PM
I say Kuerten is the best clay court player of all time; Borg is second; Nadal is third.

Why would Borg be second? He's far and away the greatest clay courter of all time.

BreakPoint
01-16-2008, 08:41 PM
Really, what was that junior varsity when you were a senior LOL
You sound jealous and bitter. Were you cut from the girls JV team in high school? :lol: LOL

Sure they do, thats in the fantasy leauge where everyone has a one handed backhnad :)
People in CA know how to play tennis, and people who can play tennis generally use 1HBH. That's just the way it is. Live it, love it, deal with it.

Actually he did lol... But i remember when i beat him for the first time, when i was getting good, the torch was passed :) We only played a couple more times after that.. He showed up at a match of mine and suprised me at a tournament, i really played well but lost to a great player..
I thought so. You talk a lot, but you still lose to players with one-handed backhands and slice forehands. Ha ha ha LOL

I played a drop shot exclusive player before, he made me run like hell but none of it worked..
Not many like the drop shot but i love it.
I'm not talking about exclusively hitting drop shots just like I'm not talking about exclusively hitting slice forehand approach shots. I'm talking about throwing one in now and then to keep your opponent guessing and off balance. The easiest way to lose is to allow your opponent to get into a groove and able to anticipate what's coming. When your opponent is not expecting a drop shot or a slice forehand approach or anything else for that matter, that's when it's most effective.

Yes but NEVER a actuall slice forehand approach. Never
Federer has the best forehand in the world. He doesn't need to mix it up. Do you also have the best forehand in the world?

But I do think he should mix it up more just to surprise his opponents and keep them from getting into a groove on his approach shots.

You still haven't answered my question: If a slice backhand approach shot is effective, why isn't a slice forehand approach shot? What's the difference?

Z-Man
01-17-2008, 03:03 AM
I will say that many (but not all) of the 4.5s around here have 1-handed backhands. But many of them are also over 40. A lot of the time the older guys who play doubles have 1-handers, and the younger guys who play singles have 2-handers.

35ft6
01-17-2008, 03:14 AM
Right. Comparing Muster & Bruguera to Nadal is like comparing Cecil Mammit to Agassi. My point was that style alone doesn't determine who wins, it's also about what level they execute.If I recall correctly, in a different thread you thought a prime Bruguera could give Nadal a tough match on clay. You're incorrect. Never even compared the two.You think Lendl would be probably top 10 today(on the basis of the '91 AO Final I assume), but don't think he could beat Nadal(not just that but, that he would get 'crushed') because he moonballed against Mecir in a match 20 years ago. Ok. Yes. And I also said that I think Lendl's best chance would be on grass.

By the way, what do YOU think? Nadal against Lendl, today, with any racket they want to play with? Who wins?Guess you don't think much of the current top 10 if moonballing Lendl can get there. This is a good point. I do think Lendl was more aggressive on grass than on clay, but that WAS a bit of a contradiction.considering 4 different people took your comments to mean that you think Nadal would beat Lendl with his old Adidas stick, maybe your post was phrased poorly.Nah, seriously, I think people just assumed the first responded had it right and didn't read my post correctly. That's cool. I skim over stuff too.Have them play each other in their primes with whatever racket they want, and Nadal wins. Talking about racket and equipment is fun, and definitely worth discussing, but after a few years at TW, not sure if I'm ready to repeat myself for the sake of this particular discussion right just now. I think it's reasonably clear.Though the slightly over-the-top tone of some of your posts "Nadal would crush Lendl etc" makes it understandable why some would think that.Yes, I do think Nadal would crush Lendl. Lendl was good for his time but Nadal is the most ferocious clay animal I've seen.If 5 separate people all read your comment the same way that I did, then don't you think perhaps the mistake was yours and not ours?Because what I wrote is still here for all to see, including me, and it doesn't seem that confusing. How people can interpret that as "Nadal with Lendl's Adidas racket" is something I'd really enjoy seeing somebody demonstrate.

BP, do you think prime Lendl could beat Nadal on clay? Because if you don't, not sure why you're getting worked up about this.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-17-2008, 05:00 AM
Why would Borg be second? He's far and away the greatest clay courter of all time.

Sorry, I totally see how my post seems to read that way, but it is the result of tech 'quirk' when someone else quoted me.

I simply said I think Nadal may have ascended The Throne as the greatest clay courter ever. I would certainly agree that Borg, Vilas, and others are reasonable candidates for this exhalted honor and may well be the best. ;)

Just tossin' out some thoughts.

Best,

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-17-2008, 05:03 AM
I will say that many (but not all) of the 4.5s around here have 1-handed backhands. But many of them are also over 40. A lot of the time the older guys who play doubles have 1-handers, and the younger guys who play singles have 2-handers.

All the best (4.5+) 40+ players around here have 1HBH's. Many of the 30+ crowd do as well.

On the local DI team it's probably 60/40 2HBH to 1HBH on the mens side and 70/30 on the women's.

Best,

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-17-2008, 05:06 AM
You still haven't answered my question: If a slice backhand approach shot is effective, why isn't a slice forehand approach shot? What's the difference?

I don't want to get in the middle of your fun, but I too like to toss in a slice FH approach here and there.....along w/ flat, looping, and mid-court volley approaches. S/V requires one to do more of this kind of thing nowadays so as to keep the opponent off balance and guessing. Fed does indeed do it quite often. ;) CC

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-17-2008, 05:41 AM
You still haven't answered my question: If a slice backhand approach shot is effective, why isn't a slice forehand approach shot? What's the difference?


For one my teacher would not let me get away with a slice forehand. Right or wrong..I think it's right becuase your forehand should be good enough not to use it..
The slice backhand approach is effective but only imo when your opponent is way off the court.. The shot itself is not powerfull, unless you really have a opening chances are your opponent will have a good shot at a passing shot. I dont think it's that effective otherwise. Atleast in singles and against someone with good passing shots.

thor's hammer
01-17-2008, 08:00 AM
For one my teacher would not let me get away with a slice forehand. Right or wrong..I think it's right becuase your forehand should be good enough not to use it.. .

It saddens me to read that. A slice backhand, when executed properly, can be a very effective shot, approach or not. (Federer is clearly a prime example of a player who employs it to good effect.) Why not a slice forehand at the right time?

If you hit a slice forehand that's short and/or sits up a good player will punish it. But if you hit a slice forehand low and deep, particularly if it has nasty sidespin to take it off the court once it hits, well, that can be very tough to handle, and make for a very effective approach shot. I've used it many times and watched guys shank the reply or even miss the ball completely because they misjudged the spin.