Federer vs Lendl on US Open Hardcourt....

[hoodjem]

I think that the bigger, lighter and more rigid racquets today, with their larger sweet spots, allow players to swing harder and still consistently hit the ball in the sweet spot. The larger sweet spot also allows players to hit with a sharper upward swing imparting more topspin and still consistently hit the sweet spot. The heavier, more flexible wood racquets with the smaller sweet spot required most players to employ a more horizontal swing through the contact zone in order to consistently hit the sweet spot. Wood racquets generated power more from their mass rather than from racquet speed. On the other hand, they had better feel and touch than the lighter more rigid racquets.

Good summary. Don't forget the impact of poly strings, also.

 

[Trillus]

Yes. Chang had wild talent as an overall athlete (eg. quickness, balance, reflex etc) and, more "talent" mentally than Lendl, and even Connors. He is one of the very few (possibly only) who can claim his determination, and drive was greater than Connors.

Having said that, it is for exactly those reasons, that we know he maximized his potential....and it wasn't good enough to be a multiple grand slam champion like Lendl and Connors. It was good enough to be one of the very best players in the world, for many years, at a height of 5'8, during a very competitive era, so he should be proud of that though.

I am always reminded of someone asking Mcenroe what a "couple of more inches" would have meant to Chang's career, and Mcenroe saying "if he were a couple of inches taller, he would have been Jimmy Connors."

Poor Chang. Unlucky in many ways but most of all to be part of such a strong era in mens tennis. Today he would probably have won multiple slams. He would just need to avoid Federer and Nadal and he could beat anyone else today. He could even beat those two on an off day (and they both have their share).

 

[Dechizen]

Prime Federer would win 6-0,6-0,6-0

 

[President]

Poor Chang. Unlucky in many ways but most of all to be part of such a strong era in mens tennis. Today he would probably have won multiple slams. He would just need to avoid Federer and Nadal and he could beat anyone else today. He could even beat those two on an off day (and they both have their share).

That's absurd. You'd have a much better argument for moving Roddick to the 90's and saying he'd win multiple slams (and I don't think he'd win more than 2, but your assertion is crazy). Chang, with his lack of power and serve, wouldn't do nearly as well as you think he would in this era. Djokovic and Murray would probably eat him alive, moving nearly as well as he does and being superior in every other aspect.

BTW, I post on these forums pretty infrequently but its obvious to me that you are the recently banned poster davey25.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Prime Federer would win 6-0,6-0,6-0

LOL.

Over Lendl?

Lendl would give Fed all he can handle....

 

[Limpinhitter]

Good summary. Don't forget the impact of poly strings, also.

Well, I'm not sure what the impact of poly is, or if it offers any advantage over natural gut at all, other than durability, which isn't an issue for the pros. Speaking for myself, I much prefer natural gut or a top quality synthetic gut, like NXT Tour, to poly. It offers more power, touch, feel and control, the ball stays on the racquet longer, and it's a lot friendlier to my aging joints than Luxilon. JMHO of course. Perhaps the textured poly's have more bite to impart more spin, but, c'mon, haven't we reached the pinnacle of the practical use of spin already? Oh wait, spaghetti strings!

 

[BevelDevil]

but, c'mon, haven't we reached the pinnacle of the practical use of spin already? Oh wait, spaghetti strings!

Supposedly we reached that pinnacle with poly.

 

[timnz]

Lendl better running forehand

I don't see Lendl having very much success against Federer on hard court. 2 maybe 3 out of 10 matches, IMHO. The only advantage Lendl has is his backhand against Fed's backhand. And I don't see Fed having too much trouble running around to hit his forehand. Although Lendl had a great forehand, it wasn't as versatile as Fed's, and his movement wasn't as good.

Can't agree - Lendl had a better (probably the best of all time) running forehand. Federer is better on the inside out forehand. I have watched Federer hitting a running forehand, both cross court and down the line. Very good shots - but more of a placement shot rather than a power shot. Lendl completely demolished the ball on a running forehand. I watched the 1988 and 1989 semi's against Agassi. Agassi couldn't handle the weight of shot coming from Lendl.

I do agree that Federer would win most of the matches. His flair at his peak was amazing, whereas Lendl was more formulaic in his approach. If something didn't work - he would just keep doing it (and I am a Lendl fan).

 

[JediMindTrick]

This threads crack me up! Lendl's forehand as good as Federer's forehand! Ha, ha, ha!

 

[Datacipher]

Can't agree - Lendl had a better (probably the best of all time) running forehand. Federer is better on the inside out forehand. I have watched Federer hitting a running forehand, both cross court and down the line. Very good shots - but more of a placement shot rather than a power shot. Lendl completely demolished the ball on a running forehand. I watched the 1988 and 1989 semi's against Agassi. Agassi couldn't handle the weight of shot coming from Lendl.).

You are right, Lendl's running forehand was better, and even on the run, deep behind the baseline, Lendl could outright overpower Agassi and everyone else.

I don't know that Federer's inside out forehand is better either, Lendl was a master of that shot, though he probably didn't go for as much. Fed might have been better from the center of the court though....and both crushed short balls.

The real thing that give Fed an advantage over Lendl is his natural movement over Lendl's fast, but forced footwork.

 

[Limpinhitter]

You are right, Lendl's running forehand was better, and even on the run, deep behind the baseline, Lendl could outright overpower Agassi and everyone else.

I don't know that Federer's inside out forehand is better either, Lendl was a master of that shot, though he probably didn't go for as much. Fed might have been better from the center of the court though....and both crushed short balls.

The real thing that give Fed an advantage over Lendl is his natural movement over Lendl's fast, but forced footwork.

Well, I've seen the both play live, in their primes. Without getting into too much mind numbing analysis, I'll just observe that, IMHO, the difference between these two forehands is that Lendl had one of the greatest forehands of all time, but Federer's forehand was the greatest shot, of any kind, of all time, better than Sampras' serve, better than Laver's backhand, better than Roche's backhand volley. It was the most versatile and lethal shot I've ever seen. It is the reason he's won 16 majors and why he's been ranked #1 for 5 1/2 years.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Well, I've seen the both play live, in their primes. Without getting into too much mind numbing analysis, I'll just observe that, IMHO, the difference between these two forehands is that Lendl had one of the greatest forehands of all time, but Federer's forehand was the greatest shot, of any kind, of all time

Also without getting into holistic shot-by-shot analysis of Lendl vs Federer I agree with you on this - when he was in his prime there was simply nothing better than that. Lendl's forehand was great, but Federer's was way better.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Great post. fact is, todays players swing faster. Period. has nothing to do with technology.

I agreed. I made this point roughly in a since deleted post that modern players forehand follow-through ends up wrapped right around their body - compared with Lendl who usually caught his forehand follow-through with his left hand.

The difference in racquet-head acceleration around impact cannot even be compared and that is probably the most critical factor in how much energy gets imparted on the ball. Of course it's not always sheer pace of shot though - as Nadal shows - just as often it's a much higher amount of spin being imparted.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I agreed. I made this point roughly in a since deleted post that modern players forehand follow-through ends up wrapped right around their body - compared with Lendl who usually caught his forehand follow-through with his left hand.

The difference in racquet-head acceleration around impact cannot even be compared and that is probably the most critical factor in how much energy gets imparted on the ball. Of course it's not always sheer pace of shot though - as Nadal shows - just as often it's a much higher amount of spin being imparted.

Actually, today's racquet speed has everything to do with technology. As I explained previously in this thread, the larger, lighter, more rigid, modern racquets have a much bigger sweet spot than a smaller, heavier, more flexible, wood racquet, allowing modern players to swing harder at the ball, with a more severe upward swing-path imparting more topspin, AND STILL BE ABLE TO CONSISTENTLY HIT THE BALL IN THE SWEET SPOT.

Wood racquets, by comparison, had a sweet spot about the size of a tennis ball requiring most players to swing more horizontally though the hitting zone in order to consistently hit the sweet spot. The heavier weight of wood racquets prevented as much racquet speed as modern racquets. However, much of the power that is gained in the racquet speed of a lighter racquet, is lost in less mass (less plow through), than what is available with a woody. And the more flexible wood racquets had much better touch and feel that the more rigid modern racquets.

The bottom line is that modern racquets are not so much more powerful than wood racquets as they are more forgiving of off "dead-center" contact, allowing modern players to take a bigger swing at the ball that would be too risky to do on a regular basis with a wood racquet.