Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by keithchircop, Jul 29, 2007.
Great videos of all former players
Fascinating. I think Connors should have asked Wilander some questions beforehand, but then again, maybe Wilander did not have many answers to offer! Connors learned later on his own, and really attacked that second serve to good affect.
Pretty funny that Cash lost two successive matches to Lundgren, at Montreal then at the USO.
In general , yes, the older game was more creative and fun as a whole
However I would say today's guys are more athletic and no one is a fun to watch as roger
One thing people forget was how fast Lendl could run
Not sure if he was as fast as Murray but Lendl covered the court with ease
I remember wilander in total push mode the entire match and he won
If I remember
I am 74 and agree with you
He used the slice backhand almost exclusively, to keep from giving Lendl any pace to work with.
He approached the net 131 times, with something like a 58% success rate.
I lived in Scotland and was travelling to NYC on the Monday after the 88 final. I prayed for rain. Never happened. Went to Flushy and walked right on to the court, climbed the umpires chair and the paperwork for the final was still there. I should have kept it.
Saw that match (on TV) when it happened. We have gone from Pete Jim Andre Michael Todd all being top 10 at the same time to zero in top 10 . Take the Williams sisters out and American tennis stinks
I'm 52 and I don't agree.
Somebody can keep on rolling on and so on, but I don't see any improvement. Faster and stronger definitely not better.
[QUO"CyBorg, post: 11316133, member: 17553"]Pre-fat Lundgren![/QUOTE]
The transformation is huge
Different. Better athletes better training. More scientific approach finding the best ways to contact the ball.Howdo you define improvement ?
Very good athletes were in every period. Laver, Vilas, Borg, Lendl - were all outstanding athletes.
Better recovery methods now and diffetent equipment-shoes, apparel, also isotonics, gels, etc
Most of those athletes were very good athletes but small, todays players are for the most part bigger
You should not to be big to be a great tennis player.
Perhaps but if you look most are. Longer limbs produce more angular velocity thus more power, + better serving
Tennis is very complicated game, the question is not so simple by far as you imagine. As you can see even today, when most surfaces are close in a matter of speed, dominate the players with most consistent and all-court playing. Not only with big serve or even serve and hitting.
What are you smoking. When I played tournys were mainly grass and clay, the speed of the ball on groundies was 50s max. Now average speed is 70s and max is over 100. I understand that today equipment lose less returnable energy than wood which had a stiffness quotient in the 30s. That means you are losing a lot of power. Today`s rackets are 60s to low 70s means losing a lot less power. Take that and than add that strokes in the 50s were taught as linear transfer. Today they use the phsics designed originally for shot putters and discus throwers taking advantage of the bio kinetic chain. Now add to that your arms and your racket are both class 1 levers. So the longer the lever the more force you can develop. To that end the arm of a 6 10 man (Isner ) is going produce more force at impact than Conners who was 5 10. I really understand the physics behind the game
Do you really think that modern Wimby's grass is the same as before? Everyone know that it's slower. The speed increasing is because of racquets and strings mainly.
Even after all your facts, is it improving? I think it is not. The game is very boring, all the players are nearly the same style, playing more physic than smart tennis.
2 different question, is the game improving and are the players improving. Todays players are physically and mechanically better than players of my era. The second question is more poignant is the game improving. I~m not sure it is. You are correct there is little variation today in how the players play. There is less style differential because of the advanced bio mechanical research. But we could say that for all sports today. Seems to be the problem with progress
No doubt that the players keep on improving. With such a great opportunity they have now, many scientific institutes work for them, because of the politic and huge money involved in sport now. I don't think it's a good for sport and athletes.
In different sports the problem of so called modern "improving" can be solved, we can see the example, say in table tennis. It's mostly the question of modern equipment. Also TV corporation rule many sports federation because of big money invest. I'm really miss the tennis of the 80's, and S&V game was buried because of making courts slower (and having modern equipment the same time, manly strings).
The courts and the balls are slower, the real problem are the rackets and strings. The ball comes back to fast to volley, or so fast that it is a defensive volley and the next shot is the killer. Although Muller served and volleyed and did well
Here I agree with you at 100 %.
Didn`t know we were disagreeing. How do you disagree with facts and stats. You Trump? (LOL)
I can be disagree with opinions and conclusions. And it's nothing wrong with Trump to me.
Maybe we are approaching from different viewpoints, because I agree that the game is more interesting to watch when you have different styles and stroke production and that was true in the 50s thru 90s, and that too many of the players look dreadfully the same. 3 of the four players left are 6 5 and above thank god for Fed. As far as Trump, that would be a discussion on another site this is a tennis site
Ok, the overall man is higher now than 40-50 years ago. Even before were very tall players, check Milan Srejber, Helena Sukova and Pam, Fleming, but mostly did well in doubles, think because of difficulties with high mobility.
Ok with Trump, I just don't like this anti-him company from Hillary and others who were 100% sure about their winning. Don't like politics at all.
Agreed coaching and training are allowing bigger players to move better. ps I hate HRC
Yes, but not so many fitness maniacs like Lendl. Great about HRC.
It's interesting how modern tall players are inconstistence with smash. Especially if compare with former S&V era players.
That famous two-days match at The Championships that for so long was the longest Wimby match. Of course until that Isner-Mahut player's course.
1925 US National Championships - Tilden vs Johnston
An epic Wimbledon semi final.
Wow. You were there right after.
Wilander put in a lot of work to win that one. So much rivalry at that time. Nowadays players dont talk about their rivals the same way.
I agree on stronger (in a special, limited sense of the word), that is perhaps greater stamina. But consider how heavy were those wooden racquets in the day: 14-16 ounces. (Try to imagine Nadal and Djokovic hitting with those racquets for five hours and 53 minutes. I cannot.)
About faster, I am not so sure, e.g. Borg and Laver were extremely fast in covering the court.
Better. Only with advances in technology, in certain special cases, such as in greater rpms or speed of the ball. Not in terms of shot variety, all-court coverage.
Yes, I'm 100% on your side.
A ridiculous match here.
Coria was down 1-6 1-5, and still managed to win the whole match. 0 aces to 20 DFs.
Separate names with a comma.