Originally Posted by BeGreat
Tennis coaches, and tennis commentators, are no different from political commentators. They don't care about facts. They just want to senstationalize everything.
The major shifts in tennis technology occurred with the switch from the 70s and 80s rackets to the 90s rackets. that's it. since then, the changes have been almost entirely gimmicky and have centered on marketing.
there is absolutely no real evidence out there that one string type is so different from another as to render it a unique specimen. it's all bs.
mcenroe goes on and on about how today's strings make it possible to pull of impossible shots. what a load of crap. even at the professional level, where the tiniest of changes and improvements can make a big difference, the changes and improvements made in tennis technologies are negligible.
i've seen jim courier impart silly spin on the ball at the french, just like nadal. nadal may do it more, but not because of strings or rackets. but because of his technique.
coaches, player, and especially commentators need to shut the hell up about technology.
Both Andre Agassi and Todd Martin (among others) have said that Poly strings have been the greatest change in the game of tennis since the wood-->graphite transition.
It is not only that they impart more spin, it is that being less powerful strings ("dead" strings) allow you to hit in a different way. You can hit with an amazing head-speed swing and still (because poly strings are less powerful) you don't send the ball out of the stadium. (You could almost do the same thing with gut, but if strung at a very very high tension=less power).