I think today's final was a prime example of where men's tennis is going.

Walenty

Professional
I think everyone watching today realizes the advantages of a more spin heavy game in modern tennis. There's zero reason to approach net other than a put away. Djokovic was landing slices long because anything remotely short against a full poly user will immediately get put away. Hit a hard, high risk flat shot cross court, pulling the opponent off the sideline? Doesn't matter, if you're Nadal, just get a racket on it, you're string setup and racquet speed will trampoline it to your advantage easily. Risks and shotmaking is dulled against this modern game.

disclaimer: Don't get me wrong, although I don't care for Nadal, this isn't a hate post. I could care less what an athlete is other than how they do their job. More power to him.

Lets face it, half the ATP could be mistaken for a random joe rather than an athlete. While great ball strikers, almost none of them have the physical presence to beat top players 3 out of 5. The way things are going, we will have many more Nadalovic finals to fill out the next few years, where grinding until the other person gasses out will continue.

We better start buying babolats and rpm blast now, because that's pretty much all you're going to see as the new generation replaces the old one.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
The paradigm has well and truly shifted.

Players will find solutions though.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
The grinder era is dying. None of the new guys are grinders.

They are guys who have learned to use their Pure Drive and poly for offence.
 

monfed

Banned
Partly true but Nadal's lasso FH generates unbelievable kick from clay esp when it's hot n sunny. It's bouncier on Chatrier because they use heavy balls. Have you noticed the "thud" like noise of groundstrokes at RG , it just sounds diff from other clay tournaments.

Nadal's FH on a hot sunny day at RG specifically is the most destructive force in tennis since Pete's serve on the fast lawns of Wimbledon probably. Only Nole 2.0(2011 version), Nalbandian, Agassi, Kuerten and possibly Coria can withstand the onslaught.

Unfortunately what you saw today is a subpar,unwell Nole. He was almost shockingly bad esp for a guy who won the first set. Nole has never disappeared like that after winning the first set since he started dominating in 2011. I don't care about pre-2011/Djokovic 1.0.
 
Last edited:

Brett UK

Semi-Pro
I think everyone watching today realizes the advantages of a more spin heavy game in modern tennis. There's zero reason to approach net other than a put away. Djokovic was landing slices long because anything remotely short against a full poly user will immediately get put away. Hit a hard, high risk flat shot cross court, pulling the opponent off the sideline? Doesn't matter, if you're Nadal, just get a racket on it, you're string setup and racquet speed will trampoline it to your advantage easily. Risks and shotmaking is dulled against this modern game.

disclaimer: Don't get me wrong, although I don't care for Nadal, this isn't a hate post. I could care less what an athlete is other than how they do their job. More power to him.

Lets face it, half the ATP could be mistaken for a random joe rather than an athlete. While great ball strikers, almost none of them have the physical presence to beat top players 3 out of 5. The way things are going, we will have many more Nadalovic finals to fill out the next few years, where grinding until the other person gasses out will continue.

We better start buying babolats and rpm blast now, because that's pretty much all you're going to see as the new generation replaces the old one.
Agree with the point. Fairly made although some Nadal fans will be screaming blue murder. I think Nadal was just way too awesome in years gone by so the spin factor did not matter. The last 2 years I have noticed that it has been all about the spin for Nadal.
 

ACE of Hearts

Bionic Poster
Nadal is a beast on clay.End of story.He was hitting his inside forehand with authority.I think today's match should end all speculation that novak can beat nadal on clay.I think nadal played his B game today.Some unforced errors but he was smacking the forehand
 

WalterWhite

Rookie
I think everyone watching today realizes the advantages of a more spin heavy game in modern tennis. There's zero reason to approach net other than a put away. Djokovic was landing slices long because anything remotely short against a full poly user will immediately get put away. Hit a hard, high risk flat shot cross court, pulling the opponent off the sideline? Doesn't matter, if you're Nadal, just get a racket on it, you're string setup and racquet speed will trampoline it to your advantage easily. Risks and shotmaking is dulled against this modern game.

disclaimer: Don't get me wrong, although I don't care for Nadal, this isn't a hate post. I could care less what an athlete is other than how they do their job. More power to him.

Lets face it, half the ATP could be mistaken for a random joe rather than an athlete. While great ball strikers, almost none of them have the physical presence to beat top players 3 out of 5. The way things are going, we will have many more Nadalovic finals to fill out the next few years, where grinding until the other person gasses out will continue.

We better start buying babolats and rpm blast now, because that's pretty much all you're going to see as the new generation replaces the old one.
we've already seen that for years. Any given day you go to courts from young to old most people have Babolats. Me included, I've been a victim of the popularity, although I've been exclusively playing with my Volkl lately, haven't played with the Aero in a while now that I think about it.
 

burn1986

Banned
I don't know about all that. Basically the barbarian won today. He and Djokovic will always have aback-and-forth tussle. It's just hard to beat Nadal at the French Open. And if more Babalots sell then good they deserve it. Their rackets are 100 times better than head racquets any day.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I don't know about all that. Basically the barbarian won today. He and Djokovic will always have aback-and-forth tussle. It's just hard to beat Nadal at the French Open. And if more Babalots sell them good they deserve it. Their rackets are 100 times better than head racquets any day.
I think the word starts with I and ends with E.
 

Kobble

Hall of Fame
I was going to post something similar. Namely how Federer and a lazy American generation made for crappy tennis and stupid records...17 slams gtfo of here. Like you said, though, the game has changed. I want to know if the new tactics would have worked with mid 90's era gut. If it would have, then, I would feel better about the game. I have a hunch the new strokes would hit too long. Tennis is an "is what it is" game. It all depends on the rules and equipment allowed.

Where do we take the game, now? The new grinding play is near or already at mandating doping. Speed up the surfaces and it will be back to watching serve matches. Polarize the surfaces to new dimensions and records become unbreakable. Sucks all around.

Sampras was annoying.
Federer set records against lazies.
Nadal milked Roland Garros dry.

They ****ed up the record books.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Soderling, come back.
Nadal will win RG in 2015.

But in 2016, Soderling will accept a WC into the draw. He will show up juiced out of his mind on every drug there is. And he will test positive, but it won't matter. Because he will have defeated Nadal at RG. Again.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
The 7"0 players with 160 mph serves and 120 mph groundies? ;)
Whiskey touched on what was going through my mind but didn't elaborate on.

I think the current paradigm figured out the defensive potential of the current conditions and tech. The newer consistent attacking weaponry possibilities are lagging behind, but will catch up to the more defensive oriented aspects.

We can see some signs of this with wins like Wawrinka over Djokovic at the AO or guys like Soderling or in this RG, Gulbis, producing some big man tennis that when it's hot is exceptionally difficult to answer.

If there are truly going to be great talents in the next gen, they'll find an adequate synthesis of these two archetypes and solve the current riddles.

On the other hand as Whiskey alludes to, it might not have to be a direct response to the riddle but rather the grinder paradigm is a phase that came with a generation, ergo, not trendsetting, and that as such the next generations will naturally have their own unique paradigms.

In a sense though it's the leading players who largely dictate such circumstances.
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
Just like all sports and business its a copycat league. So if someone is successful playing this way then most others will follow.

We could always go wooden again. People didnt like it then. Fast points and aces are boring. Grinders are too long. Tennis just cant win.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Whiskey touched on what was going through my mind but didn't elaborate on.

I think the current paradigm figured out the defensive potential of the current conditions and tech. The newer consistent attacking weaponry possibilities are lagging behind, but will catch up to the more defensive oriented aspects.

We can see some signs of this with wins like Wawrinka over Djokovic at the AO or guys like Soderling or in this RG, Gulbis, producing some big man tennis that when it's hot is exceptionally difficult to answer.

If there are truly going to be great talents in the next gen, they'll find an adequate synthesis of these two archetypes and solve the current riddles.

On the other hand as Whiskey alludes to, it might not have to be a direct response to the riddle but rather the grinder paradigm is a phase that came with a generation, ergo, not trendsetting, and that as such the next generations will naturally have their own unique paradigms.

In a sense though it's the leading players who largely dictate such circumstances.
The quintessence of it is that grinders are here to stay and although shotmakers might occasionally cause an upset, the numbers are stacked in the grinders' favour.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
The quintessence of it is that grinders are here to stay and although shotmakers might occasionally cause an upset, the numbers are stacked in the grinders' favour.
Perhaps but a grinding player won't win against those with the athleticism and patience to grind who have the fire power of a true big hitter. I believe such players will inevitably be produced.

You're right though. This breed won't be extinct any time soon, though they may have less success going forward as solutions come forth.

I use the term grinder relatively speaking of course as it goes without saying that the Slam winners of this era can do most things in the game, just that they tend to show bias toward a more defensive style.
 
The quintessence of it is that grinders are here to stay and although shotmakers might occasionally cause an upset, the numbers are stacked in the grinders' favour.
i still don't understand what you mean by shot-making. is del potro more of a shot maker than nadal?
 

Graf=GOAT

Professional
Nadal is not good for tennis. He's a legend without a doubt, but the brutal forehands, endless stamina and weird on court antics have not brought new fans to the sport. We need a new champion. A new Federer to propel this sport towards a new era.
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
Unless tennis starts suffering in a big way this may persist. NFL and NBA both changed subtle rules that significantly changed the game and the pipeline of talent and scouting. Going to a more finesse and speed league and less physical. So once mens tennis starts tredning downward which it maybe starting to a little this may continue.

Only rule changes on the horizon are the lets on serves maybe in 3-5 yrs and a shot clock that maybe 10 years away, coaching may also be here in 5-10 yrs as they have already started in select WTA events.

Not sure if these rules will help grinders or not. But a rule change maybe what it takes
 
Last edited:

monfed

Banned
Nadal is not good for tennis. He's a legend without a doubt, but the brutal forehands, endless stamina and weird on court antics have not brought new fans to the sport. We need a new champion. A new Federer to propel this sport towards a new era.
I think an even more fundamental problem of Nadal being the figurehead of tennis is that he wins from his opponent's errors essentially. I mean he outpushed Simon on clay FFS.
 

Walenty

Professional
Nadal is a beast on clay.End of story.He was hitting his inside forehand with authority.I think today's match should end all speculation that novak can beat nadal on clay.I think nadal played his B game today.Some unforced errors but he was smacking the forehand
Completely agree, he definitely deserved the win. Just commenting on the trend I'm seeing.
 
Going? It been like this for ages! A sport like this is not sustainable in the slightest, tennis shouldn't have deteriorated into this! There are no young talents coming up because their is no such thing as a young talent, most young players are taught to play a robot generic spin game.
 

monfed

Banned
Going? It been like this for ages! A sport like this is not sustainable in the slightest, tennis shouldn't have deteriorated into this! There are no young talents coming up because their is no such thing as a young talent, most young players are taught to play a robot generic spin game.
Now you realise why Nadal's ruined tennis. ;)
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Going? It been like this for ages! A sport like this is not sustainable in the slightest, tennis shouldn't have deteriorated into this! There are no young talents coming up because their is no such thing as a young talent, most young players are taught to play a robot generic spin game.
Young athletes have stopped choosing to play tennis.

Federer had to choose between tennis and soccer. 99.999% of kids these days would not make the same decision. Because they know that, unless they make the top 10, they may as well just be an accountant or something.

Likewise, young people have stopped watching tennis. Not looking good for the sport.
 
Young athletes have stopped choosing to play tennis.

Federer had to choose between tennis and soccer. 99.999% of kids these days would not make the same decision. Because they know that, unless they make the top 10, they may as well just be an accountant or something.

Likewise, young people have stopped watching tennis. Not looking good for the sport.
Tennis can be a good sport even with a small talent pool, just like it was in days past. The problem is that if you make tennis all about physicality/attrition/athleticism, it'll need a pretty big talent pool. If we put restrictions on technology and let all different types of talents/games flourish like in the past then the sport can be good.

But the current game isn't sustainable in the long term.
 

Graf=GOAT

Professional
Nadal has nothing to do with this. And trying to pin any blame on him just makes these arguments seem silly.
Nadal did ruin tennis. He brought the brutal, inelegant style of play to the sport and won 14 slams in process. His style will be imitated by future tennis stars, making this sport more dull and unexciting in process. Nadal brought the "win at all costs" mentality towards the game. The sport will never be the same again. What was once a beautiful sport has been reduced to brutal baseline ball bashing and tests of stamina.
 
Nadal did ruin tennis. He brought the brutal, inelegant style of play to the sport and won 14 slams in process. His style will be imitated by future tennis stars, making this sport more dull and unexciting in process. Nadal brought the "win at all costs" mentality towards the game. The sport will never be the same again. What was once a beautiful sport has been reduced to brutal baseline ball bashing and tests of stamina.
Nadal's game is actually fairly unique by today's standards. Djokovic and Murray are more generic baseliners. That's where the sport is heading, not Nadal. But anyways none of them deserve blame for anything, they were simply taught to play that way in tennis' current environment. :neutral:
 
Nadal did ruin tennis. He brought the brutal, inelegant style of play to the sport and won 14 slams in process. His style will be imitated by future tennis stars, making this sport more dull and unexciting in process. Nadal brought the "win at all costs" mentality towards the game. The sport will never be the same again. What was once a beautiful sport has been reduced to brutal baseline ball bashing and tests of stamina.
If I subscribe to your logic, I think Federer ruined tennis. He was the first to rely on the forehand to such a degree. He was the one who won 17 GS from the baseline. Nadal, Djokovic, etc. are all followers of him.
 

Graf=GOAT

Professional
Nadal's game is actually fairly unique by today's standards. Djokovic and Murray are more generic baseliners. That's where the sport is heading, not Nadal. But anyways none of them deserve blame for anything, they were simply taught to play that way in tennis' current environment. :neutral:
Nadal is actually a superior version of Murray and Djokovic. All dull baseliners, but Nadal actually possesses a completely destructive weapon (forehand) to win slams.
 

Graf=GOAT

Professional
If I subscribe to your logic, I think Federer ruined tennis. He was the first to rely on the forehand to such a degree. He was the one who won 17 GS from the baseline. Nadal, Djokovic, etc. are all followers of him.
Federer does not belong in the same sentence as Nadal or Djokovic. Federer is a true all court player, master of all surfaces and most talented player of all time. Nadal is a brutal baseliner, who relies on topspin forehand and stamina to win matches. Even if he wins 20 slams, Federer will still be greater.
 
Nadal is actually a superior version of Murray and Djokovic. All dull baseliners, but Nadal actually possesses a completely destructive weapon (forehand) to win slams.
Whatever you say. But it isn't Nadal's fault the ATP lacked the foresight in the 90s to impose racquet/string restrictions. He is a great player and will always deserve respect, even if the ATP goes on to ban certain things in the future in an effort to preserve the sport.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Whatever you say. But it isn't Nadal's fault the ATP lacked the foresight in the 90s to impose racquet/string restrictions. He is a great player and will always deserve respect, even if the ATP goes on to ban certain things in the future in an effort to preserve the sport.
Racquet and string restrictions wouldn't be beneficial. It would turn people off of the sport knowing that players were using different equipment than them.

What they need are rule changes. I know it might sound extreme, but a winner should be worth more than an unforced error. Make it worth 2 points like a 3 pointer in basketball. Risk taking would suddenly be worth it.
 

monfed

Banned
Young athletes have stopped choosing to play tennis.

Federer had to choose between tennis and soccer. 99.999% of kids these days would not make the same decision. Because they know that, unless they make the top 10, they may as well just be an accountant or something.

Likewise, young people have stopped watching tennis. Not looking good for the sport.
When wrestling fans are filling up stadiums, you know the sport is in decline.
 
After I read your answer I did a Research and found this very interesting Article about the Revolution in String Technology. Didn't know the Term 'cheatalon'
The Article is from October 2007.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/ten...ory?id=3064206


Revolution in string technology changing sport's dynamic

Pete Sampras' mantra was simple: Grip it and rip it. That style of tennis -- pure attacking power -- has gone by the wayside. The technological advancement in strings has drastically changed the game for the world's top players.


Updated: October 24, 2007, 3:38 PM ET

By Joel Drucker | Special to ESPN.com
Insider

In the world of pro tennis, the early 21st century has been marked by a revolution in equipment. What's happened in the past seven years represents a bigger technological shift than anything that occurred in the previous 25. You'd have to go back to the onset of oversized racket heads to find something that made as big an impact as what's currently taking place.

This revolution is taking place in the world of racket strings.
Time was when pros played with gut, highly resilient strings that added both buoyancy and control to fairly dead racket frames. Spin certainly was deployed, but in large part, the name of the game was to drive through the ball and create penetrating shots that paved the way for attacking. Scott McCain, long-standing coach for Paul Goldstein and a number of other pros, referred to this as "a linear stroke."
Even as a young pro, this was the model Roger Federer followed. "Seeing Roger play when he started on the tour around the year 2000, it seemed he was obviously modeling his game after Pete [Sampras]," McCain said. "He was one-handed, could block the ball, had a good forehand and seemed like he was looking to attack."
And then came the string called Luxilon. Unlike the lively strings of days past, Luxilon -- a company that makes fibers and strings for industrial applications -- is a dead string. According to Nate Ferguson, head of Priority 1, the company that strings for such pros as Federer, Lleyton Hewitt, Fernando Gonzalez and Novak Djokovic: "It's a total shift. Because the string is so dead, the player can swing loose and hard. The result is much more dip, whip and power."
"The rotation you get is drastically different than with gut," Goldstein said. "The ball jumps and moves unbelievably. A ball that looks like it's going way out and then drops like a stone -- that's what everyone calls 'a Luxilon shot.' "

"It's now parabolic," McCain said. He likened contemporary tennis to pingpong, adding that the size of racket grips also has been reduced considerably.
"It used to be, you didn't want the racket to twist in your hands, so the goal was to use as big a grip as possible," Ferguson said.

Such legends as Roy Emerson and Tony Trabert often used grips that exceeded five inches in circumference. These days, a man as physically imposing as Rafael Nadal employs a 4¼-inch grip, all the better to whip his racket back and forth like a windshield wiper. A veteran coach jokingly refers to the Spaniard as "The Butcher" since he so voraciously slaughters each ball that comes his way. (Nadal does not use Luxilon but does string his rackets with a similar synthetic string.)

McCain and many others have noted how Federer does not play as aggressively now as he did at the beginning of his career. Federer's current game is a special, highly-effective mix of patience, wise defense and powerful offense.

"I realized things were slowing down," Federer said following the final at the U.S. Open. "The new string generation came along where returning and passing shots was made easier. It was harder to attack in some ways."

One factor that created the opportunity for a string such as Luxilon has been the increasing slowdown of court surfaces. Responding to criticisms in the '90s that big serves and even more powerful service returns were shortening fan engagement, tournament directors all over the world began to drastically slow down their courts. Indoors, slick carpets gave way to much slower courts. Cement courts at outdoor events also lost their one-time slick quality. And even Wimbledon got in the act, its grass courts of the past five years bearing little resemblance to the lively grass that was heaven for net-rushers and hell for ground-strokers vexed by erratic bounces.
"Now you can play the baseline at Wimbledon," Goldstein said.

Fast-bouncing courts provide pace, ball speed aided by the very quickness of the court and the ball moving through it. John McEnroe was superb at this brand of fine motor billiards. But for every McEnroe, there were dozens who merely slashed and burned their way through one match after another. Moreover, the ascent of Europe as a tennis power in the past 20 years -- both in the economics of the sport and on the court -- has created a natural affinity for that continent's most popular surface: slow clay. And clay is a surface on which it takes more effort to generate pace. Enter Luxilon.
For the current pros, the use of Luxilon is a pragmatic necessity. According to McCain, so staggered was Pete Sampras by the string's ability to turn defensive baseliners into forceful counter-punchers that he dubbed it "Cheatalon." But of late, even an exemplary net-rusher like Sampras has gotten in on the act by using a mix of Luxilon and gut -- a combination that Federer and many other pros use, too.
Over the long term, though, it's uncertain what kind of impact Luxilon will have on the duration of players' careers. "It's physically laborious to take these big cuts all the time," said the 31-year-old Goldstein. "It's much tougher on the body." Nadal, for example, is only 21, but over the past three years, he has suffered a few injuries that could well have been caused by his exceptional physical vigor. Then again, injuries are bound to happen, no matter what equipment a player is using.
On a more grassroots basis, McCain and others worry that youngsters seeking to emulate many pros will use Luxilon without truly possessing the skills necessary for harnessing the blend of a dead string, a lively racket and a big swing. It could well be a race to see which breaks down sooner -- the body or the strokes.
"Even now," McCain said, "even at the level of Roger and Rafa, the name of the game is to get the ball in the court."
 

Walenty

Professional
i still don't understand what you mean by shot-making. is del potro more of a shot maker than nadal?
Hard to define that really. But what I would say, is for offense, Del Potros shots are harder to pull off. They're flatter, hitting with a smaller frame. You expect, for tennis, that to be aggressive and hit winners, you shouldn't be hitting a percentage shot. You would sacrifice spin to hit a more piercing shot, which is still more often than not the best way to get all-out power.

But modern tech is making that trade off less and less meaningful. You can now get both power and spin from the right setup and enough racquet head speed, a la Nadal. The difference isn't huge, but it's enough that shots that would have been defensive years ago are now a correct percentage play, and rare shots from years ago are now commonplace, like Nadal and Djokovic flicking winners from the stands just by getting a racquet on the ball and planting a leg.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Nadal is a phenomenon. His case is very unique in tennis. I really don't see that you can derive a general trend from someone who is THAT exceptional.
 

namelessone

Legend
It's outstanding how much BS comes out after a Nadal win.

Nadal isn't the first guy to win with poly strings.

His unique forehand isn't even that unique if you know a bit of tennis history. It's helped by better racket tech and the fact that the user's body can withstand such a shot.

I think I asked this question back in 2009 as well when I joined:

WHERE ARE THESE MINI NADAL-CLONES?

The next generation don't appear to be grind happy.

Raonic is mainly a servebot.
Dimitrov is basically a Federer impersonator without much substance.
Nishikori is a sort of japanese davydenko.
Thiem is anything but a grinder.
Harrison is a hotheaded american who likes the bash the ball hard.
Kokkinakis is no grinder from what little I've seen from him.
Tomic is a bit of a junkballer but he's a got a funky style anyway with poor stamina.

In fact I think that what Nadal-Murray-Djoko have been doing to their bodies have put coaches(and parents) off to the grinding style of tennis. Nadal has had numerous problems with injuries in his career. Djokovic has had his issues as well and if he wasn't so flexible he would have many more. Andy just had back surgery a couple of months ago. Meanwhile Federer has had very few physical problems due to his style of play.
 

agreed

Banned
Nadal had a sloppy escape and these experts are using some bullcrap terms like grinding and paradigm. Novak was flat footed and thick legged after gaining weight, and when some virus struck him, he couldn't care less anymore during the 2nd set. This went by really fast, so don't give me this bs about Novak being dominated in slams.
He had no mobility and you need that to play 3 winning sets.
Surely, he was no loser in dispatching nadal 80% of the time, but he needs a real practice partner to deal with slams.

His so-called "coaches" and untalented brother don't do that much. They made him gain weight to lose to Stan and Murray too.
What a coincidence. This is not about winning many rallies if you can't feel like going on court to cause nadal to make forced errors & unforced errors. Novak fears what is required for him to perform at his best.
He destroyed the other players again, so don't pretend he's this weak era wonder with slow pokes as opponents such as fed.
Novak needs an attitude adjustment and lose the weight to gain flexibility back. He doesn't look old, unlike fedal, who struggled on their fave surfaces.
 
Racquet and string restrictions wouldn't be beneficial. It would turn people off of the sport knowing that players were using different equipment than them.

What they need are rule changes. I know it might sound extreme, but a winner should be worth more than an unforced error. Make it worth 2 points like a 3 pointer in basketball. Risk taking would suddenly be worth it.
That makes no sense. People can understand that Pros need restrictions in their tech because if they don't they can do ridiculous things with them. See Golf and Baseball.
 

monfed

Banned
It's outstanding how much defensive reaction comes out from Namelessone when he's overcompensating by saying that Nadal's the first/the only guy to use polystrings.

As if clay isn't bouncy enough, Ralph needs hot sunny conditions to neutralise Nole's game , which indicates how much he's dependent on high bounce.

So many returns from Nadal were lob height mishits landing on the service line jumping above Nole's head. That's how much bounce he needs to nullify Nole's game.

Nadal would've lost today had it been overcast. Infact Nadal started struggling in the 4th set when the clouds slowly started appearing, just that Nole was too unwell and just utterly shabby to take advantage of it.

Heck, even in 2012 RG, when it rained, Nole reeled off 8 straight games. Without high bounce, Nadal's weapons are neutralised.
 
Last edited:
It's outstanding how much BS comes out after a Nadal win.

Nadal isn't the first guy to win with poly strings.

His unique forehand isn't even that unique if you know a bit of tennis history. It's helped by better racket tech and the fact that the user's body can withstand such a shot.

I think I asked this question back in 2009 as well when I joined:

WHERE ARE THESE MINI NADAL-CLONES?

The next generation don't appear to be grind happy.

Raonic is mainly a servebot.
Dimitrov is basically a Federer impersonator without much substance.
Nishikori is a sort of japanese davydenko.
Thiem is anything but a grinder.
Harrison is a hotheaded american who likes the bash the ball hard.
Kokkinakis is no grinder from what little I've seen from him.
Tomic is a bit of a junkballer but he's a got a funky style anyway with poor stamina.

In fact I think that what Nadal-Murray-Djoko have been doing to their bodies have put coaches(and parents) off to the grinding style of tennis. Nadal has had numerous problems with injuries in his career. Djokovic has had his issues as well and if he wasn't so flexible he would have many more. Andy just had back surgery a couple of months ago. Meanwhile Federer has had very few physical problems due to his style of play.
Please don't pay attention to the Nadal haters. Nadal is a wonderful player, no doubt. I hope he wins more slams. My problem is not with him, it's with the future of the sport.

The younger players you mentioned all aren't very good, for multiple reasons other then "they just suck haha"l. Oh and re: Dimitrov, he's definitely playing a very defensive game now. He's been pressured into the trend it seems
 
Last edited:
Nadal is a phenomenon. His case is very unique in tennis. I really don't see that you can derive a general trend from someone who is THAT exceptional.
Phenomenal player.

Anyways as for grinding being the general trend, just look at Djokovic and Murray. Even Ferrer.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
That makes no sense. People can understand that Pros need restrictions in their tech because if they don't they can do ridiculous things with them. See Golf and Baseball.
I don't think that modern equipment is hurting the game.

What is hurting it are the rules. Poly strings allow you to exploit the fact that an unforced error is worth just as much as a winner. It turned the sport into a struggle for the best defence.

Basketball players don't take jump shots from half court. Likewise, it doesn't make sense for players to go for the lines if you'll lose the point more than half of the time. Unless there is some additional incentive.
 
I don't think that modern equipment is hurting the game.

What is hurting it are the rules. Poly strings allow you to exploit the fact that an unforced error is worth just as much as a winner. It turned the sport into a struggle for the best defence.

Basketball players don't take jump shots from half court. Likewise, it doesn't make sense for players to go for the lines if you'll lose it more than half of the time. Unless there is some additional incentive.
The only incentive you need is to win a point. Your rule would penalize those with defensive styles too much and that's not what I want. I want a wide variety of playing styles being played. Losing poly strings and having restrictions on racket size will do that.
 
Top