FedererForehand
Banned
Watching Agassi v. Medvedev. Anyone know what from (or PJ) Medvedev is playing with here. Looks like some kind of Head Ti series frame but I just can't tell...
Watching Agassi v. Medvedev. Anyone know what from (or PJ) Medvedev is playing with here. Looks like some kind of Head Ti series frame but I just can't tell...
He was a virtual clone of Kafelnikov in game, but imo better.
Is that why Kafelnikov won 2 slam titles and Medvedev won 0?
I was watching that match on the TTC the other day. I also saw the 1983 final between Wilander and Noah. I guess I had forgotten how much tennis used to suck. They were hitting top-spin moonballs like WTA players (I'm joking about the WTA players). But really, Federer and Nadal would destroy either of those players. The pace was so slow that Wilander didn't bother making any attempt to recover to the center of the court (or move at all) during some points. Thank goodness we're witnessing such a great era of tennis with modern strokes and modern racquets.
Thank goodness we're witnessing such a great era of tennis with modern strokes and modern racquets.
You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.
Are you serious????? *ok the womens game, yes. But the men's game? Come on!*
Neither Wilander or Noah was what you would consider to be a power player. Wilander was a steady baseliner and Noah was a net rusher. Given that fact and the old racquets they are using, makes for slower tennis especially on the clay. More power doesn't necessarily mean better playing.
You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.
Prime Federer and Nadal would crush either of those players--any racquets, any surface.
Overall, Medvedev ranks as quite possibly my second favorite player of all time to watch now looking back. Biggest waste of talent of his generation HANDS DOWN, and one of the biggest wastes of potential ever as well.
I suggest you watch Mauresmo vs Dementieva on youtube from Madrid:roll:You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.
Given that fact and the old racquets they are using, makes for slower tennis especially on the clay. More power doesn't necessarily mean better playing.
Medvedev played with the Fischer Pro Classic 98 in that match.I don't believe it's a paint job. It was the Fischer VT Pro Classic 90/Vacuum Pro 90/Vacuum Pro Classic 90 model that many pros used throughout the 90s. Wilander, Leconte used it for a spell, but the most well-known user by far was Michael Stich. The Vacuum Pro 90 was the Fischer pure player's racket offering the same way the POG Mid, Prestige Classic 600, and Pro Staff 6.0 85 were.
The name was changed slightly a few times (i.e. as listed above), as was the paint job. The same racket model was given different cosmetics/paint scheme like five times! That must be some kind of record. The Medvedev paint scheme was the last one before the racket was finally discontinued. To this day, MANY people pine for the re-release of this classic racket.
There is NO better feeling tennis racket imo, and I mean this sincerely. It is the ULTIMATE in racket feel. It's like French truffle of your hand. MANY people will agree with me that there no racket in the history of all mankind even comes close to the pure ball feel of the Vacuum Pro 90s.
WHY Fish...WHY!!!
clueless, ignorant post.
Oh, come on. A 19 year old Sampras beat Wilander at the U.S. Open when the guy was still 26. Not long after that Gilbert was beating him in the first round of majors. And when the guy was Federer's age Agassi was serving him double breadsticks in the first round of the French! Would Wilander have beat Nadal or Federer at the French (all players in their primes)? The answer to that is a resounding no.
You think these old generations compare to the top pros mechanics wise? Granted the racquets changed, but the depth and athleticism in tennis have only gone up. That's why it's such an absolute joke when people gush about Laver and the country club player generation.
the wilander of 1989 was only a shadow of the wilander of 1988. and i won't even mention 1994 b/c that's ridiculous to even bring up. the fact of the matter is that the top pros of any generation could have competed with the top pros of the current generation. the current generation might win and they might lose, but it would be a competitive match either way. nobody would get "crushed". there is no way that nadal could take the kind of swings he takes with the racket technology of the early '80s. he'd mishit every other ball.
there is no way that nadal could take the kind of swings he takes with the racket technology of the early '80s. he'd mishit every other ball.
There were already modern graphite rackets available at that time (POG, Wilson Pro Staff, Head Graphite Edge, Yonex R-10 & R-7) which are not substancially removed from players rackets of 2009 in terms of materials
rackets aside, the strings that were available in the early 1980s wouldn't have nearly the same effect on the ball that the strings of today do. you didn't see guys like you do today consistently hitting winners from 10 feet behind the baseline, or be able to dip the ball at the net rushers feet from any position on the court. nadal/federer etc wouldn't be able to do the same things with the ball in 1983 that they are able to now.
Oh, come on. A 19 year old Sampras beat Wilander at the U.S. Open when the guy was still 26. Not long after that Gilbert was beating him in the first round of majors. And when the guy was Federer's age Agassi was serving him double breadsticks in the first round of the French! Would Wilander have beat Nadal or Federer at the French (all players in their primes)? The answer to that is a resounding no.
You think these old generations compare to the top pros mechanics wise? Granted the racquets changed, but the depth and athleticism in tennis have only gone up. That's why it's such an absolute joke when people gush about Laver and the country club player generation.
Say what you want about Wilander, but Laver was the real deal in any generation on any surface.
Give prime Sampras or Federer a wooden racquet, put him up against prime Laver. Sampras or Federer crushes Laver. Every single time, baby.
http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/hall-of-fame/070717/IMG_3841sm.jpg
Laver's country club generation is vastly over-rated. Tennis was a joke compared with what it is today.
Laver even with a wood racquet hits every shot other than the forehand better than Federer can with a graphite. His backhand, return of serve, volleys, are all way better than Federer especialy, and that is playing in the 60s with wood while Federer is playing in the 2000s with graphite.
Completely absurd. They're different classes of players. Federer is much more athletic. Maybe Laver volleyed better than Federer. OK. But everything else is Federer by a mile. By your logic, Laver should be able to beat Federer with a wooden racquet while Federer is playing with a graphite? What? Federer would probably serve Laver a love set playing with a wooden racquet. What a joke.
Yes Laver with a wooden racquet would probably even beat Federer with a graphite racquet. That is how superior he is. You obviously have never seen Laver play. Federer is in truth one of the most overrated players of all time, male or female. He collected alot of titles vs an unusually weak field, and yet even with the benefit of such a weak field he still didnt break any major records, atleast not yet. Of course now that the field has some semblance of strength he is struggling to scrape together the odd wins to even get those records he is just shy of now.
Each to their own. I think Wilander would have gotten blown away against Federer or Nadal on the clay.
Wilander was a great player of his day though. He's not as over-rated as Laver (the most over-rated player in the history of tennis).
OK. We'll agree to disagree.
Fair enough. I have to ask you atleast though do you really think Federer's backhand is superior to Laver's? Laver had an incredible backhand, one of the best ever. Federer's backhand is nice vs many opponents but becomes a mess when confronted with either heavy topspin or extreme pace.