Article about how players who haven't adopted their game have failed in modern tennis

[chapufo1]

Hi everyone,
I was wondering if anyone had any good articles that talked about how players from the "early" days who haven't adopted their games to fit modern tennis have failed and must rethink their strategies if they are to be successful?

For example, are there any articles say on Roddick or Safin that suggests that they have invested too much time in their early days on one particular shot such as the forehand or the serve and is finding a hard time being as successful as they were in the past now that the game has changed? (as pace doesn't seem to be too big of an issue for players to deal with now as opposed to spin, fast serves don't mean as much if they aren't placed well, volleying isn't as featured as much etc)

Thanks in advance

 

[dh003i]

I don't think Safin would have any problems in today's game if he were the same player as he was in 2005. I'm not saying he'd be dominant like Federer in the slams, but the Safin of 2005 has a very good shot of winning any given slam he enters.

 

[GameSampras]

Safin would have been fine had in today's game had he played to his full potential.. When was on his A game such as AO 05 and USO 00, I dont think there is a player today that could beat him.

I dont think Roddick would have done much better in ANY ERA to be honest. 1 slam at the very most..

 

[DarkSephiroth]

I dont think Roddick would have done much better in ANY ERA to be honest. 1 slam at the very most..

This is a VERY debatable statement. Andy Roddick, when playing well, was quite an impressive force.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw9VTHEj5ao

Combine that with the far quicker surfaces of the past, and you may see a multiple slam winner. Also, you can take into account that maybe part of the reason Andy Roddick has changed his game is due to the slower court surfaces. If all the surfaces were fast and Roddick was constantly blowing people off the court, I doubt he'd have done much to change his game. People forget that Roddick is the biggest server in the history of the game, and his forehand used to be a devastating weapon as well. Guys like Ivanisevic, who is harrowed as an underachiever and could have definitely won more slams than he did, are not all that different from Roddick. In the past, I think a player of Roddick's caliber would have made more noise due to the circuit being built for faster surfaces in general.

 

[Aabye]

Both Andy and Marat's problems can be summed up in one word, IMHO: speed.

Andy was never the greatest mover, which is why he always struggled against other players. His first serve was a monster, but not unreturnable like Sampras, who had the pace of Roddick and the placement of Federer and perhaps the greatest 2nd serve ever to back it up.

And as for Safin, what one shot are you talking about? Of course, his backhand has always been phenomenal, but his serve has been great too. While his forehand isn't up to par with a Federer or Nadal, it is still a shot that even most other pros would probably love to be stuck with (although when he's pulled to the side on that wing, it can break down). He too wasn't the fleetest of foot, but for his size and girth he was fast enough, and the rest of his game was so solid and powerful that he could usually force the play. (this also explains why he had trouble with the Santoros, etc. who like those little funky drop-shots that a faster player of Safin's caliber can get to and put away with ease) Thus, if it weren't for those injuries to his knees he probably could have done a lot more with his incredible talent.

But all this goes for any pro. Look at Federer last year, everyone was talking about his forehand not being as potent, etc. It was only after the mono story broke that people started to realize that he seemed to be a step or two behind, and that more than anything is why he had "only" a great season instead of an unbelievable one. For the same reason, the press always feels the need to ask Nadal about the state of knees.

 

[HAPPYforTHEvictory]

Safin helped usher in the era of tall players being speedy around the court, he really is the pioneer of the modern player. As for his flat-hitting, Djokovic is a flat hitter, Djok is a poor man's Safin.

 

[Aabye]

Sorry, bur I've never been able to fathom why people insist on comparing Djokovic to Safin. Their games don't strike me as that similar:

Djokovic--a) uses his lanky frame to whip the ball across the court b) has great backhand and forehand, but I wouldn't necessarily say either are the best in the game, although certainly one of the best

Safin--a) uses his strength to pound the ball over the net b) serve and brilliant backhand have always been his bread-and-butter

Could someone explain their games' similarities to me?

 

[HAPPYforTHEvictory]

There aren't specific similarities between Djokovic and Safin, they just happen to be high ranked players that won from the backcourt without using a whole lot of spin, mostly flat hitters. There are differences of course, the biggest being that Safin has a more threatening serve. Like I said, Djokovic is a poor man's Safin. Safin reached a much higher level in my opinion and it mainly is because of his serve. Also because Safin's backhand down the line is one of the biggest weapons I've ever seen. Djokovic's weapon is crosscourt albeit not as threatening. The similarity is just that when we look at the top 5 of now and the top 5 of yesteryear Safin and Djokovic are the closest comparisons to eachother (even if the similarities are vague). And like Safin, I think Djokovic will end up with 2 slam victories.

 

[tennis-hero]

Djok is a poor man's Safin.

thats the best compliment Novak will ever recieve

 

[Dilettante]

You guys overrate Safin and underrate Roddick, just as usual.

 

[aphex]

roddick is MUCH better than ivanicevic...
if he lived in the 80s or 90s i'd say at least 4-5 slams