Why do people say Federer needs a bigger racquet whenever he loses...........

[dr325i]

Originally Posted by jokinla

Please list these for us.

One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by tistrapukcipeht

Completely different eras, no one is able to serve and volley nowadays and get to semis of Master Series, let alone win a slam. If Agassi played in this era for the past 7 years, He would not win a single slam, any top 10 now is better than Agassi ever was, you may disagree.

The conditions were a lot faster as well, shorter points, there is almost no way Sampras would ever rally 10 shots with a 85sq in these conditions they play nowadays, it has been changed to have more rallies unfortunately.

As for the racquet, Sampras last used that racquet more than a decade ago, since his retirement he has not used it anymore, rather a 98 as some people have seen and proven.

If a 85sq is that good and has more advantages why nobody uses it? Why doesn't Federer go back to it?? No performance at the highest level, rather a disadvantage.

Yes.. but if Agassi was born in 1985 and took advantage of the technology and advanced training techniques now used by the top pros, Nadal probably wouldn't have won one. The power of what-ifs...

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

If shanking makes me the greatest player who ever lived and the #1 ranked player for 300 weeks, PLEASE let me shank EVERY SINGLE ball.

QFT...
10 chars

[KHSOLO]

The "shanker" finished the year with what 70-10 ratio?

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by dr325i

One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...

This is your list of the "many career achievements and milestones" of Lendl's that Fed is trying to catch up to?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by jokinla

This is your list of the "many career achievements and milestones" of Lendl's that Fed is trying to catch up to?

Yeah, I left replying to that post to you. It was a doozie of irrelevancy huh?

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by dr325i

One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...

How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments

[dr325i]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments

That is the base for everything else, btw. You will learn that once you grow up and have kids of your own...

IMO, you cannot compare the two -- totally different times, totally different competition, totally different strokes.
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

That is why the whole GOAT discussion is absolute waste of time

EX: 2012 BMW (F30) runs faster, smoother, corners better, sounds and looks better than 1989 BMW (E30), but every car enthusiast knows which one to enjoy better... Different generations and standrds...

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments

Of course, which is why neither him nor the other guy has listed the "many" achievements Fed is trying to catch, what a joke, but that pretty much sums up this place.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by dr325i

We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

Well, he'd likely have all of Lendl's US Opens, plus Becker's from 89, Sampras' first one, McEnroe's from 84, Connor's from 82 and 83 and for sure Wilander's from 88. Give or take the odd anomaly Federer would have 7 or 8 US Opens.

One thing for sure also is Federer would also have Wilander's 88 Aussie Open and probably his 83 and 84 wins on grass too. Kreik's two Aussie Opens would be Federer's too, as would Lendl's from 89 and 90. That's 7 Aussie Opens right there - for sure - perhaps more if he snuck another off Edberg at Kooyong.

Wimbledon... you think a 17 year old Becker would beat Federer? Dream on. Or Cash? One of Edberg's wasn't particularly legendary also... That's 4 Wimbledon's right there for sure without even going back to McEnroe or Connors' in the early 80s.

French Open? Well, for sure he's got Noah, Chang and Gomez's titles without even needing to change his shirt. They were lucky chump champions there without doubt.

All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering either of Edberg's 2 Wimbledon titles or any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles.

We know for sure, for sure, that Federer would smoke a stack of majors off the historic title holders in the 80s. It's pretty much a given.

So, you're correct. Federer would not have 17 slams in his pocket if he played in Lendl's generation. He'd have 20 or more.

[Borrelli]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering either of Edberg's 2 Wimbledon titles or any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles.
.

Borg eh? I think that might be pushing it a little, considering he can't beat Nadal on clay and many believe that Borg was equal or even better.

[Tennusdude]

It seems when Federer gets nervous he hits his forehand out by at least 2 feet at times. It would seem if he had a bigger frame he would be able to hit them out by at least 3 feet. Just a thought.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Borrelli

Borg eh? I think that might be pushing it a little, considering he can't beat Nadal on clay and many believe that Borg was equal or even better.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote again. It says: "All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering ... any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles."

I.e. not taking any of Borg's titles on clay.

[Wilander]

Its getting harder with every year. Never have so many players trained professionelly. For Lendl half of his early round matches have been like a walk in the park. Today the top-guys cant take the first rounds easy, as they would be in troubles soon. The difference from a player ranked 100 to a guy ranked 10, has become closer every year. To say it was harder during Lendl's time, is wrong.

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by dr325i

That is the base for everything else, btw. You will learn that once you grow up and have kids of your own...

IMO, you cannot compare the two -- totally different times, totally different competition, totally different strokes.
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

That is why the whole GOAT discussion is absolute waste of time

EX: 2012 BMW (F30) runs faster, smoother, corners better, sounds and looks better than 1989 BMW (E30), but every car enthusiast knows which one to enjoy better... Different generations and standrds...

Wow. Reading your post would be a shock to my eldest daughers who are in their 20s.
It is not my fault you can't come up with any facts to support your erroneous assertion that Lendl was a better player than Federer. Further, I have never heard any tennis expert make such a claim. Most experts don't even place Lendl in the same tier of greatness as Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg.
I don't disagree that there is a difficulty in comparing players accross generations which is one of the reasons I don't believe that Federer is the undisputed GOAT. However, Federer started his career with a PS85 with gut strings which is not very different from the racquets that Lendl played with in the late 80s. Never saw Lendl do the things that Roger can do with the ball.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by Wilander

Its getting harder with every year. Never have so many players trained professionelly. For Lendl half of his early round matches have been like a walk in the park. Today the top-guys cant take the first rounds easy, as they would be in troubles soon. The difference from a player ranked 100 to a guy ranked 10, has become closer every year. To say it was harder during Lendl's time, is wrong.

Which is exactly why I laugh when people try and compare Laver to Fed, he certainly wasn't facing the type of competition early on that Fed is, not to mention he won 3 of his 4 on grass, certainly something Fed could have done numerous times.

[PrimeChoice]

Fed did switch to a bigger racquet

[PrimeChoice]

used to play w/ 85 when a kid

[dimeaxe]

Nole suggests...this one

[PrimeChoice]

A:
b/c they are little babies who cannot understand the sport.
It's somthing to say
It fills the gaps in the silence