Her shots are faster than theirs and you expect they'll return shots coming in at speeds they had never seen? What's your rationale for this? I think with like equipment she would lose handily, but I can't justify her losing when her equipment would clearly make her shots superior to theirs
They are faster than her and they will anticipate her shots. They're not going to fly past them, it's pretty simple. It's not like her shots are faster than sound. Look, those guys have played against servers like Newcombe and Tanner. Borg and Mac are elite servers themselves. Again, do you think that she could beat Ivan Lendl that had a graphite racket? Because McEnroe and Borg did with wood. She would not stand a chance. Oh, and she's going to play against guys wha can actually volley. Serena lost to loads of players who didn't hit as hard as her. You think Borg would lose to Azarenka too?
The post it's specifically about Borg/ McEnroe / Laver using wooden racquets. When you play tennis you understand it's all about timing. The speed of her shots, which would be significantly faster than theirs, would drastically decrease the time they would have to set up and return with accuracy and power. It's not about what I think or feel, it's about time and speed due to equipment. Her serve is faster and her groundstrokes would be faster. I'm sure you'll have some reply but the only one I care to read is the average speed of their groundstrokes and serves compared to hers
For a person claiming to know something about tennis it's pretty strange that you think it's only about speed. And it's not as if you cant hit with speed using wood, it's just harder than with modern equipment. It's pretty simple: These guys have seen balls hit harder than Serenas shots (especially serve) – and returned them. Please explain to me how Azarenka beat her without being able to hit as hard as her.
TENNIS; Speed Kills as Lendl And Edberg Are Upset https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/16/sports/tennis-speed-kills-as-lendl-and-edberg-are-upset.html
serena's average groundstrokes were in the low to mid 70s. sure she could tee off and hit it harder. but generally speaking her rally ball is nothing those players couldn't deal with. and her average 1st serve is around 106 mph.
1. Ask Lendl what? I can't read that because of the resolution (you do know that Lendl and Edberg beat everone, right?)TENNIS; Speed Kills as Lendl And Edberg Are Upset https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/16/...erg-are-upset.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Don't ask me, ask Lendl
There's some stats for ya, Alcadude.
It's a NYT article written by Harvey Araton in 1991. Look it up. A day after Lendl questioned how big of an advantage new racquet tech really meant he and Edberg (contrary to what you just said) were beat by players using modern tech that left them bewildered and outgunned.
Please read my post, I asked for verified groundstroke speed averages from the Borg, Mac, and laver with wooden racquets. You still haven't provided them....
I fixed the link if you'd like to read what Lend said about racquet tech changing
Borg isn't playing against Nadal here.
Neither of us have those numbers.
We're talking about modern tech vs old tech. Modern racquets and poly strings will provide much more spin than wooden players were used to which can cause problems for players used to flat shots with one handed backhands
That's been my point the whole time, even if you did they would undoubtedly be slower than 70-80 mph (ground strokes) on average due to technology.
Edberg still managed to be world #1 in 1992 with his PS85, so I don't know how bewildered and outgunned he was. At that time Edberg, Becker, Courier and Sampras played with their old sticks and did just fine. Sampras played with that very same racket until he quit the game in 2003. Edberg adapted until his back killed his game.
Besides the point. You can win without superior speed. Do you not watch tennis? Ever heard of Adrian Mannarino?
so your point is the player that hits the harder groundstrokes wins the match? then why aren't camila giorgi and madison keys the #1 and #2 players in the world? why didn't fernando gonzalez win the grand slam? how did santoro beat safin?
The post is about wood racquets and evolution of racquet tech. Edberg switched to the PS85 from in order to keep up because the gap in tech from wood to aluminum was huge and the gap between aluminum and graphite was huge. Wood to graphite is the Grand Canyon. Sampras has said before that he wishes he would have experimented with new tech because he could have played longer and his gear was outdated.
Nope, my argument is that when a player has a consistent speed advantage in every type of stroke and no discernable drop-off in shot consistency then they'll be likely to win.
The guy that loses in the first 1-3 rounds of every major? Yes, I've seen him lose
weren't you the one who mentioned mannarino? how does he win matches? and again, how did santoro beat safin? and every other player on tour that hit markedly harder than him?
No, I never mentioned mannarino, and I've continually brought the discussion back to the thread topic which is whether Serena could beat Borg, Laver, and Mac if they're using wood racquets and she is playing with modern racquet and string tech at her peak, read more carefully.
You also mentioned speed as the only criteria for winning. You totally ignore footspeed, precision, stamina, upper body strength etc. The reason I mention players like Mannarino and Santoro is that they can beat players with skill, not power.
Thanks.
You still fail to explain how Lendl could often loose to players with wood rackets. I'm in no way implying that equipment isn't important here. I'm merely stating that skill is just as important and that no way Serena wins against Borg or McEnroe. Her average shot speed isn't that exceptional, neither is her serve compared to two of the best players ever to play with a wooden racket. Again, you're not taking anything into account except speed. That doesn't win you matches. Skill does.
Lendl disagrees with you, read the article I posted for you (link updated). Also, the period of time you're talking about is not the modern tech Serena used. You don't know their (Borg, Mac, laver) average shot speed and admitted as much, but I would wager that Serena's is faster and speed with consistency does matter. I think we're going to continue to disagree because I think the technology gulf is huge and you think it is far smaller.
You still need to answer one question: Would Serena beat Lendl 1983?
I think she beats pre -PS85 Lendl and loses to Lendl when he upgraded to the PS85
Lendl never played with the PS85. He played with the same racket from 1980 to 1990 – the Kneissl White Star/Adidax GTX (same racket).
Oops, I was thinking Edberg but you were asking about Lendl. I think Serena beats pre-PS85 Edberg but not post PS85 Edberg.
Lendl used a 73" head until 1991. So will you answer my question? Does Serena beat Lendl (and that would basically be saying Becker/Wilander/Edberg)?
Ok, so how did McEnroe and Borg beat Lendl when they were using wood rackets? And how then, would Serena beat them? Answer my question, sir.
McEnroe switched to graphite, why?
You still can't tell me how fast these guys hit, if anyone isn't equipped for a discussion of this nature I would venture to say it's the one who can't talk about ball speed comparisons because they don't have them, not an insult, just advice.
What kind of stupid argument is that? I never said that graphite wasn't better than wood. McEnroe beat others pros with better equipment. How? THAT's the question that should be answered. The answer is skill, and his and Borgs skill would be more than enough to beat Serena.
I don't know and neither do you. But I think that any person with some kind of understanding af tennis would know that speed isn't everything. Why can't you understand that. Is it completely incomprehensible for you to understand and accept that players with less power can easily lose to players with more powerful shots. And players with less footspeed and accuracy will loose almost every single time. Anyway, Serena would not be able to break neither Borg or McEnroe.
Again, personal attack after personal attack. I hope whatever is happening in your real life that makes you want to insult people on internet forums gets better, I truly do.
S/V did fine until about 2000 when poly strings killed it.
Actually, I do. I gave you Serena's speeds to back up my claim. You made a claim and didn't back it up with ball speeds.
It's literally been my thing the entirety of this thread, like the entire time...
Because Edberg switched to a PS85 to hang with modern equipment, since again, the gap is really big and he needed a more modern (but not anywhere close to what we have today) racquet.
Answered this, read above
McEnroe with wood loses to Serena, McEnroe with graphite beats Serena. Same with Borg as long as Serena has her blades, poly strings, and a 2010 fitness & nutrition plan while those guys are stuck in 1980s. All things equal? If they have modern racquets, modern strings, modern nutrition and fitness plans? I think Serena loses handily but that brings about another question. Can an old-school serve and volley player adapt to the modern game? I don't think it works in reverse. Nadal couldn't play in the 1980s with his play style, could Mac/Borg/Laver play a baseline heavy spin and speed game?
I never directly called you sexist, but I did say that clinging to certain viewpoints that would be sexist might be sexist.
You know that Borg was a baseliner with heavy topspin and extreme fitness, right?
