The real explanation for Fed's longevity is the failure of current tennis strategy as taught in academies

[terribleIVAN]

Today's players simply don't go to the net and volley anymore.

And faced against someone able to volley, the last thing they want is to let him reach the net.

So, when they scramble to get a short ball, rather than to attempt a drop shot, which is the right natural shot to execute, they instead attempt to hit a far end corner and immediately retreat to the back of the court.

Fed is having a field day against these people, Rafa and Novak especially, by slicing them to no tomorrow, attracting them to the net and passing them when they decide to volley. He has no fear of them taking the net, so he takes advantage and makes them visit all 4 corner of the court. He knows all he has to do is stay on his service line and the ball will be waiting there to be hit.

As soon as a player has a decent volleying game, the whole equation changes: they aren't afraid to chance a drop shot off Fed's slices ( Nalbandian, Henman) and can volley with him if needed.

Fed then is forced to scramble to the net and back, sapping his stamina and introducing new difficulty into his defense.

This is the Henman - Fed 2001 Wimbledon match, won by Henman in 4 sets, just after Fed had beaten Sampras. Tim knew how to play at the net and gave Fed all he could handle.

Stakhovski did the same 10 years later.

Today, nobody plays like them anymore, and Fed can take advantage of this situation as much as it pleases him, and have people marvel at his longevity.

 

[BeatlesFan]

The fact is, Fed scarcely went to the net at all in the Wimbledon final and that is why he lost it. He played almost exclusively from the baseline. Had he played like he played against Novak in Cincy 2015, he might have won the match in four sets.

 

[tennisaddict]

The fact is, Fed scarcely went to the net at all in the Wimbledon final and that is why he lost it. He played almost exclusively from the baseline. Had he played like he played against Novak in Cincy 2015, he might have won the match in four sets.

I don’t believe that is true . Fed was exemplary at the net that day and he went a lot

 

[BeatlesFan]

I don’t believe that is true . Fed was exemplary at the net that day and he went a lot

I believe it is true and stats back me up:

Fed's net approaches were 50/63 which is anemic considering it was basically a six-set match. Contrast that to his 65/98 net approaches against Sampras in 2001, a standard five-set affair. Fed hardly served and volleyed at all against Djoker in the final, it was pathetic.

 

[jm1980]

I believe it is true and stats back me up:

Fed's net approaches were 50/63 which is anemic considering it was basically a six-set match. Contrast that to his 65/98 net approaches against Sampras in 2001, a standard five-set affair. Fed hardly served and volleyed at all against Djoker in the final, it was pathetic.

Fed approached about as often he normally does this days... It's not 2001 anymore

And it worked against Nadal

 

[The Blond Blur]

If were talking about NextGen players I agree, but Novak is very competent at net and Nadal is great there

 

[King No1e]

If this logic were true, Raonic and Tsitsipas would be the top 2.

 

[Dartagnan64]

If this logic were true, Raonic and Tsitsipas would be the top 2.

Well except for the fact that Tsitsipas is probably the best of the current next gen and is young and Raonic has achieved top 10 status as a mug with limited athleticism. If anything, their cases support the OPs hypothesis.

Certainly something is missing in today’s youngsters. There has never been this big a gap between the old stars and new stars. In the past by the time the top guys were in their 30’s there were always young guns rising up to take their place.

If it’s not coaching, it’s parenting or peers. It may be the “everyone gets a ribbon” mentality has moved to Eastern Europe and stifled competitive desire across the world. Tough to be mentally tough when no one shows you how or seems to care if you can problem solve anymore.

 

[Gary Duane]

Watch this for awhile, then ask yourself if what you are seeing is not remarkably like a lot of the tennis we see now - but with old rackets.

Style has always been determined partially by surface and partially by skill set. One of these guys never won Wimbledon, but the other?

HC has changed a lot less than grass...

 

[travlerajm]

I believe it is true and stats back me up:

Fed's net approaches were 50/63 which is anemic considering it was basically a six-set match. Contrast that to his 65/98 net approaches against Sampras in 2001, a standard five-set affair. Fed hardly served and volleyed at all against Djoker in the final, it was pathetic.

And yet his strategy got his decrepit old body within one decent shot of the championship.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I believe it is true and stats back me up:

Fed's net approaches were 50/63 which is anemic considering it was basically a six-set match. Contrast that to his 65/98 net approaches against Sampras in 2001, a standard five-set affair. Fed hardly served and volleyed at all against Djoker in the final, it was pathetic.

Federer made more forehand errors than he won points at the net. And he also hit about as many more nothing forehands which immediately saw him on the back foot or lose the point on Djokovic's next shot.

Coming to the net was not Federer's problem. His forehand was. It was patchy all day and unreliable in neutral rally situations for 80% of the match. The fact he still managed to push the match that deep was a testament to how well he was serving, hitting his backhand and the game-plan he used which almost - almost - stuck. He will take a lot of heart from this match despite the disappointment. But for a couple of forehand errors or the ridiculously slow surface he would be the champion. He knows it and Djokovic knows it.

He will continue to be dangerous at majors for a while yet.

 

[jm1980]

Federer made more forehand errors than he won points at the net. And he also hit about as many more nothing forehands which immediately saw him on the back foot or lose the point on Djokovic's next shot.

Coming to the net was not Federer's problem. His forehand was. It was patchy all day and unreliable in neutral rally situations for 80% of the match. The fact he still managed to push the match that deep was a testament to how well he was serving, hitting his backhand and the game-plan he used which almost - almost - stuck. He will take a lot of heart from this match despite the disappointment. But for a couple of forehand errors or the ridiculously slow surface he would be the champion. He knows it and Djokovic knows it.

He will continue to be dangerous at majors for a while yet.

Fed's FH wasn't great, but when you add forced errors to the unforced errors, it makes it seem worse than it really was

 

[Dondon]

Nonsense
Mischq goes to the net all the time
So does karlovic
So does lopezz

 

[Robert F]

I was amazed that Fed almost took Wimbledon playing a mainly baseline heavy game against one of the best offensive/defesnive basliners out there.
I'm still trying to figure out why the big 3 dominate so well. Are these guys better than they were 5 years ago?

The imbalance of groundstroke strength vs. net skills certainly factors in there with the upcoming generation.

I also think Fed/Djoker/Nadal probably even Murray have accumulated so much experience that they can handle so many situations without it feeling like a major change to their game. They can identify patterns faster and figure out faster how to turn them in their favor. I think a lot of young guys still have a baseline bashing mentality and don't see/play the deeper part of the game. Or don't have the patience to give a pattern change a chance to work. "I hit to Fed's backhand three times and he hit it back, forget that strategy time to start hitting winners and go for broke."

I think Fed has shown in the last few years he plays to the level necessary to win. He can't rely on tons of FH winners but against many early round players he doesn't force him game to chose that. He has let many opponents beat themselves and then steps it up when playing the bigger players namely Nadal and Djokovic. I remember Fed playing Isner this year and the commentators notes how Fed is hitting a few feet within the lines since he doesn't need to go for the lines to beat him, why take that risk. Not sure they younger guns have fully developed this patience.

 

[Enga]

I do think you have a point. I think there's a reason he lost often to the legendary serve and volleyers from the generation before him. They can put the pressure on. Since Federer's domination began, he never truly faced a serve and volleyer, and that's no surprise. I don't really think it was because he was a "baby" that it took him until 21-22 to really begin his domination.

After the transition that changed the strings on the racket, and introduced more homogenized conditions across the tour, Federer's short slice and forehand combo has been his bread and butter. This is not really an option against a serve and volleyer. You can't just expect to return serve with a short slice to the inside of the ad side service box over and over and expect that to be a high percentage, non-error prone shot. It only works as a high percentage shot because he is using it against baseliners, which means there's no pressure to "thread the needle", if he floats it a bit long it's fine. And if I remember correctly, isn't the short slice one of the shots in Federer's arsenal that stood out the most for Andre Agassi? I feel like I remember him talking about that once. How it's a unique shot no one else hits as consistently as he does, and how it just completely throws a wrench into a baseliner's plans.

You take this shot out of his arsenal by pressuring him more, he can't dominate. Federer is error prone while on the move now, he even has slower reactions on occasion as well. If you just intend to outgrind him with safe shots, he will use the hand eye coordination to put you in trouble. You can take him out of position by giving him less time to react to shots, and you're right, no young player does that. All young players are trained to go for an ace, and if that fails, grind it out. There is no variety to the gameplan at all.

But to be fair, are you really gonna train all young players to counter one guy? Federer is just one man, 37 years old, nearing retirement. Logic dictates you train for what you will face the most, and the fact is their strategy got them to beating most people around the world. All they have to do is wait for Federer's retirement, and the way is paved for them.

 

[terribleIVAN]

If Fed can make the backhand slice-net play combo work to his advantage, so can anyone else.

There's of course the natural talent while doing it, and Fed would never achieve what he has done without a serious dose of it, but his longevity has a lot to do with other players not taking the risks of pushing him out of his comfort zone by forcing him to scramble either on drop shots (worked miracles for Nalbandian) or on well executed volleys (Henman, Tsistsipas).

When forced to play this kind of game, his stamina in the later rds would quickly come to a halt.

 

[tonylg]

Novak is very competent at net and Nadal is great there

By today's standards, maybe.

But neither can be compared to Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe nor indeed Federer. If you want to go back further, don't even consider calling Novak or Rafa anything but completely useless at the net compared to Newcombe, Roache, Rosewall, Laver, etc. They both have other strengths, but their net game is pretty pathetic.

 

[tonylg]

Watch this for awhile, then ask yourself if what you are seeing is not remarkably like a lot of the tennis we see now - but with old rackets.

Style has always been determined partially by surface and partially by skill set. One of these guys never won Wimbledon, but the other?

HC has changed a lot less than grass...

First point, neither Novak nor Rafa would have picked off that volley. They would not have even made that move. They would have propped, pounded a mid court groundy and then in Rafa's case made the volley. Novak would be 50:50 if the was forced to make a volley.

The other guy? He paid Tony Roache to teach him to volley so he could win Wimbledon. You can now win it with hands of complete wood.

 

[Gary Duane]

First point, neither Novak nor Rafa would have picked off that volley. They would not have even made that move. They would have propped, pounded a mid court groundy and then in Rafa's case made the volley. Novak would be 50:50 if the was forced to make a volley.

There are 13 minutes in the video, so you'd have to be more precise about "that volley". That said, Borg became a pretty damned good volleyer to win Wimbledon 5 times, so I'm not saying the man could not volley well.

My point was that we've always seen much more baseline tennis on slower courts, obvious from watching guys like Borg on clay back in the day...

The other guy? He paid Tony Roache to teach him to volley so he could win Wimbledon.

You can now win it with hands of complete wood.

Never was a fan of Lendl, never will be, but he was still a damned good player. In many ways he was beginning to play the kind of tennis that (unfortunately) has come to dominate the modern game.

 

[tonylg]

Sorry, when I said "First point" .. I meant the very first point of the video, not my first point. I can see that was not clear.

 

[ChrisRF]

I believe it is true and stats back me up:

Fed's net approaches were 50/63 which is anemic considering it was basically a six-set match. Contrast that to his 65/98 net approaches against Sampras in 2001, a standard five-set affair. Fed hardly served and volleyed at all against Djoker in the final, it was pathetic.

But he only has that good net statistics BECAUSE he only goes to the net when he has a good chance.

A classic example for what happens when he really just rushes to the net to finish a point as quick as possible was the 2nd match point.

Just "coming in" is a losing strategy now. And let’s face it, it was never much of a "strategy", but rather gambling. With better chances in the 90s because of the surfaces and racquets back then, and with less chances today. Going to the net in the RIGHT situation is what makes an all-courter like Federer.

 

[Gary Duane]

But he only has that good net statistics BECAUSE he only goes to the net when he has a good chance.

A classic example for what happens when he really just rushes to the net to finish a point as quick as possible was the 2nd match point.

Just "coming in" is a losing strategy now. And let’s face it, it was never much of a "strategy", but rather gambling. With better chances in the 90s because of the surfaces and racquets back then, and with less chances today. Going to the net in the RIGHT situation is what makes an all-courter like Federer.

But on old grass, when it got totally chewed up, standing back was gambling too because the ball could do anything.

 

[NatF]

Today's players simply don't go to the net and volley anymore.

And faced against someone able to volley, the last thing they want is to let him reach the net.

So, when they scramble to get a short ball, rather than to attempt a drop shot, which is the right natural shot to execute, they instead attempt to hit a far end corner and immediately retreat to the back of the court.

Fed is having a field day against these people, Rafa and Novak especially, by slicing them to no tomorrow, attracting them to the net and passing them when they decide to volley. He has no fear of them taking the net, so he takes advantage and makes them visit all 4 corner of the court. He knows all he has to do is stay on his service line and the ball will be waiting there to be hit.

As soon as a player has a decent volleying game, the whole equation changes: they aren't afraid to chance a drop shot off Fed's slices ( Nalbandian, Henman) and can volley with him if needed.

Fed then is forced to scramble to the net and back, sapping his stamina and introducing new difficulty into his defense.

This is the Henman - Fed 2001 Wimbledon match, won by Henman in 4 sets, just after Fed had beaten Sampras. Tim knew how to play at the net and gave Fed all he could handle.

Stakhovski did the same 10 years later.

Today, nobody plays like them anymore, and Fed can take advantage of this situation as much as it pleases him, and have people marvel at his longevity.

Federer had chances to win that match but wasn't ready mentally.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Fed's FH wasn't great, but when you add forced errors to the unforced errors, it makes it seem worse than it really was

And the non-error errors: the plethora of forehands he hit which just basically gifted the point to Djokovic.

There needs to be a category of errors (might not be the best name) for shots you hit which result in you losing the point right after - either you opponent hitting a winner or forcing you to hit an error on your next shot.

 

[Tommy Haas]

Kyrgios has Nadal at the net figured out. Nadal almost always puts the ball away into the corner of the side he's currently on. If Nadal is on the ad side at the net, he'll hit the ball to the left corner. If he's on the deuce side at the net, he'll hit the hit the ball to the right corner. I noticed this when he played Kyrgios at Wimbledon. Kyrgios would not move at all. At first I thought it was because he was lazy, but this occurred like a dozen times. Nick had Rafa figured out. Uncle Toni should remind Rafa to mix it up.

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer made more forehand errors than he won points at the net. And he also hit about as many more nothing forehands which immediately saw him on the back foot or lose the point on Djokovic's next shot.

Coming to the net was not Federer's problem. His forehand was. It was patchy all day and unreliable in neutral rally situations for 80% of the match. The fact he still managed to push the match that deep was a testament to how well he was serving, hitting his backhand and the game-plan he used which almost - almost - stuck. He will take a lot of heart from this match despite the disappointment. But for a couple of forehand errors or the ridiculously slow surface he would be the champion. He knows it and Djokovic knows it.

He will continue to be dangerous at majors for a while yet.

So on point

There are some experts who think FH hit his FH crisply that day and movement wasn’t an issue .. LOL

 

[tennisaddict]

And the non-error errors: the plethora of forehands he hit which just basically gifted the point to Djokovic.

There needs to be a category of errors (might not be the best name) for shots you hit which result in you losing the point right after - either you opponent hitting a winner or forcing you to hit an error on your next shot.

How else are we going to categorize the weak FH slice when stretched to the full for an easy put away by Novak ?

 

[Fintft]

From what I heard from a coach both USTA and Tennis Canada have a strategy to produce players with 1-2 weapons (say serve and FH) so yeah the Federers of the world would rule over them!

 

[Fintft]

I agree, except with the last 3 sentences:

Federer made more forehand errors than he won points at the net. And he also hit about as many more nothing forehands which immediately saw him on the back foot or lose the point on Djokovic's next shot.

Coming to the net was not Federer's problem. His forehand was. It was patchy all day and unreliable in neutral rally situations for 80% of the match. The fact he still managed to push the match that deep was a testament to how well he was serving, hitting his backhand and the game-plan he used which almost - almost - stuck. He will take a lot of heart from this match despite the disappointment. But for a couple of forehand errors or the ridiculously slow surface he would be the champion. He knows it and Djokovic knows it.

He will continue to be dangerous at majors for a while yet.

 

[The Blond Blur]

By today's standards, maybe.

But neither can be compared to Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe nor indeed Federer. If you want to go back further, don't even consider calling Novak or Rafa anything but completely useless at the net compared to Newcombe, Roache, Rosewall, Laver, etc. They both have other strengths, but their net game is pretty pathetic.

LOL ok, I'll consider Nadal a great volleyer for any era. Just because a player doesn't use a tactic or shot regularly doesn’t mean he is pathetic at it. The guys today hit waaaay better passing shots. So, players have to be a lot more selective when coming to the net. The guy has won MS1000's and Olympic gold in doubles as well.

 

[tonylg]

We'll just have to disagree on Rafa. He has improved, even more than Lendl did .. but hitting some volleys and actually having a net game are two different things.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[AceSalvo]

This is comedy.

ATP/ITF busy making all the courts slow. Next Gen after Next Gen fails because they have not reached their physical peak to grind it out. And the blame is on "talent".

 

[Dondon]

Djoker uses his 18x19
Blocks everything back
So Dats key

 

[California]

We'll just have to disagree on Rafa. He has improved, even more than Lendl did .. but hitting some volleys and actually having a net game are two different things.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I agree with you, Nadal puts away a couple easy, sitter vollies a match and people freak out and think he is Edberg! And don't quote John McEnroe as a source, which happens a lot. He is trying to sell the game and keep his revenue stream going... none of these current top players volley well. None. Fed could, but he doesn't come in enough to feel sharp and confident doing it. So he does it very little these days.

 

[tonylg]

And the reason Federer doesn't come in is because over the past two decades the strings, racquets, courts and balls have made that game near on impossible, which answers the question as to why academies don't teach it.

As for the original question of why Roger is still winning.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[TennisaGoGo]

They don’t teach it in academies because kids are short and don’t have overpowering serves. When they serve and volley, they get lobbed and lose literally every point.

Parents don’t like spending $20k a year to see their kid get knocked out of the first round of every tournament by a lobber. And kids (like most people) hate losing to players they know they can beat. Not saying that’s right, just how it is.

Maybe when they get some height and a powerful serve at 15/16 they can start; but then college recruiting starts which for a lot of these parents is the whole reason for spending the $20k/year since he was 5. You think they’re going to change now?

If the academies stress development and do away with these awful pressurized tournaments, then you’ll see some s & v.

 

[Zoolander]

No way is nadal a great volleyer. He only comes to the net when he knows for sure he will have only one volley into open court to win a point. So he LOOKS good. But if he came to the net regularly he and had to hit 2 or 3 volleys in a row he would get shown up. At least it means he is very good at picking his moment to come in, though.

The fact is, Fed scarcely went to the net at all in the Wimbledon final and that is why he lost it. He played almost exclusively from the baseline. Had he played like he played against Novak in Cincy 2015, he might have won the match in four sets.

Thats what i thought. The first four sets he barely came in at all, but seemed to do so more in the fifth. I thought both were playing a very safe, boring baseline game those first four sets.

 

[Julian Houston]

I do think you have a point. I think there's a reason he lost often to the legendary serve and volleyers from the generation before him. They can put the pressure on. Since Federer's domination began, he never truly faced a serve and volleyer, and that's no surprise. I don't really think it was because he was a "baby" that it took him until 21-22 to really begin his domination.

After the transition that changed the strings on the racket, and introduced more homogenized conditions across the tour, Federer's short slice and forehand combo has been his bread and butter. This is not really an option against a serve and volleyer. You can't just expect to return serve with a short slice to the inside of the ad side service box over and over and expect that to be a high percentage, non-error prone shot. It only works as a high percentage shot because he is using it against baseliners, which means there's no pressure to "thread the needle", if he floats it a bit long it's fine. And if I remember correctly, isn't the short slice one of the shots in Federer's arsenal that stood out the most for Andre Agassi? I feel like I remember him talking about that once. How it's a unique shot no one else hits as consistently as he does, and how it just completely throws a wrench into a baseliner's plans.

You take this shot out of his arsenal by pressuring him more, he can't dominate. Federer is error prone while on the move now, he even has slower reactions on occasion as well. If you just intend to outgrind him with safe shots, he will use the hand eye coordination to put you in trouble. You can take him out of position by giving him less time to react to shots, and you're right, no young player does that. All young players are trained to go for an ace, and if that fails, grind it out. There is no variety to the gameplan at all.

But to be fair, are you really gonna train all young players to counter one guy? Federer is just one man, 37 years old, nearing retirement. Logic dictates you train for what you will face the most, and the fact is their strategy got them to beating most people around the world. All they have to do is wait for Federer's retirement, and the way is paved for them.

It don't really work against Djokovic and Nadal. Worked in 00s.

Nadal will hit top spin. Djokovic will slam the ball hard to CC or to the open court.

 

[Julian Houston]

I believe it is true and stats back me up:

Fed's net approaches were 50/63 which is anemic considering it was basically a six-set match. Contrast that to his 65/98 net approaches against Sampras in 2001, a standard five-set affair. Fed hardly served and volleyed at all against Djoker in the final, it was pathetic.

True that he should have went more to the net. Djokovic not feeling as confident as before.

Fred either lost at not going to net or his backhand drive being atrocious. I don't think is the forehand.

 

[2ndServe]

Nonsense
Mischq goes to the net all the time
So does karlovic
So does lopezz

If they didn't have massive glaring holes in their game
Mischa looks like he has a rec level push forehand, also slices too much
Karlo can't return can't rally, slices too much
Lopez has no backhand and slices too much

I think one of the better ones is Dustin Brown but he lacks a lot tennis fortitude and lacks shot selection. I think he is one of the better volleyers on tour and he can rally but his serve doesn't have enough variety.

 

[Cashman]

This is the Henman - Fed 2001 Wimbledon match, won by Henman in 4 sets, just after Fed had beaten Sampras. Tim knew how to play at the net and gave Fed all he could handle.

That could have had something to do with, you know, Federer being nineteen.

I missed this mythical era when S&V players were destroying Federer. The fact that experienced pros like Henman and Rafter took him to the cleaners a few times early in his career isn't indicative of a whole lot. Someone like Stepanek had a better S&V game than anyone currently on tour, and Federer beat on him like a red-headed stepchild.

 

[Sudacafan]

Does this failure include Rafa Nadal Academy?

 

[ChrisRF]

If the academies stress development and do away with these awful pressurized tournaments, then you’ll see some s & v.

Even then, I don’t know how anyone with a sane mind could teach serve&volley.

As I said in other threads, it’s just gambling, nothing else. Also look at how good today’s world class players are in converting the first forehand after a good serve and a weak return anyway. It’s the same as converting the first volley back then if the serve is good.

But if the serve isn’t that good, with S&V you will get passed and lose the point. With staying back you will be in the rallye and still have time to construct the point or even come back from a defensive position after a good return.

Only on 90s bad grass when you try to avoid a bad bounce it makes any sense at all. And with 90s racquets as well, when the power serve was already possible, but the power/heavy-spin passing shot still impossible.

Today maybe the occasional upset in Dustin Brown style is possible with S&V, but never any big tournament win, no matter if even a Sampras/Becker/Edberg/McEnroe would try it. The racquets make the difference, the spin is impossible to handle over a whole match.

 

[dnguyen]

RF need to switch back to 90 sq in. He would be in more finals than using RF97.

 

[J B]

The fact is, Fed scarcely went to the net at all in the Wimbledon final and that is why he lost it. He played almost exclusively from the baseline. Had he played like he played against Novak in Cincy 2015, he might have won the match in four sets.

When he did Novak cut him to ribbons with passes, lobs, and counter volleys. So I’m not sure how the OP came to his conclusion about DJ. Maybe against Rafa but not against DJ

 

[Gary Duane]

That could have had something to do with, you know, Federer being nineteen.

I missed this mythical era when S&V players were destroying Federer. The fact that experienced pros like Henman and Rafter took him to the cleaners a few times early in his career isn't indicative of a whole lot. Someone like Stepanek had a better S&V game than anyone currently on tour, and Federer beat on him like a red-headed stepchild.

I'd show this to my red-headed step-grandson, but he went home this morning.

 

[J B]

Separate post to address the academies comment.

OP is right. The current academies are ruining the game. It’s bash brothers. Who can hit the hardest topspin. No one is precise or builds points. Then Patrick M finds a guy/girl who blows a few balls past and gets them to do more while he markets them and rides their short lived fame. At least “Ogre-pelka” and Isner admit it’s all their serve. The other guys can’t serve like those two and one is top ten, or was. Look at the most copied by rec players Jack Suck. He rips topspin wins for a bit then falls on his face.

IMHO there is no 4-10. There’s the big 3 then 10-1000. It has to have started somewhere and i think it’s academies. Sadly it’s a win for them. They run out guys that make a one year wonder run to the top 25, the academy and Patrick Ms of the world make bank and add a name to their resume of “pros that made the top 25 from my academy.” The only loser is the kid that will just keep trying to make it back to the top 25 while the next lackey is sent up for the school and it’s head marketer to make money

 

[Deleted member 629564]

[content deleted by user]

 

[terribleIVAN]

0:32
I'd pick the right shot the right time like e.g. at match point

LOL LOL LOL

This confirms what the medias have painfully ignored for decades, but has been hidden in plain sight for all fans, and that Ferdie is and has always been a gigantic narcissist.

Which is hardly surprising considering the amount of money thrown at his feet ever since he entered the pro ranks.

 

[bjsnider]

Watch this for awhile, then ask yourself if what you are seeing is not remarkably like a lot of the tennis we see now - but with old rackets.

Style has always been determined partially by surface and partially by skill set. One of these guys never won Wimbledon, but the other?

HC has changed a lot less than grass...

The stroke production is different today, because the oversized racket face and the snap-back effect of the string encourages and rewards overswinging, and the evolution of the two-handed backhand progressed considerably from Borg's time. So, there's a lot more spin and speed on the ball, but otherwise it's the same strategy today. Unfortunately for Lendl, he was facing a superhuman who never got tired.