Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Attila the tennis Bum, Sep 23, 2007.
hence the term "bring back"
let's see some video on this.
I cannot believe we are talking about spaghetti strings in today's world of tennis. Do people really think a string will thus create a S&V player out of a baseliner?
Makes no sense....
yeah it seems to me that such a racquet would help out the players who play from the backcourt more. People here say it produces unpredictable spins but a serve and volleyer player doesn't rely on unpredictable spins to win matches. He just serves big and comes in to put away the volley, whereas it's the guy who plays from the backcourt that wins matches by hitting the ball with a lot of spins (e.g. Borg, Nadal...) and this racquet could make such a player even more lethal.
Was the Nastasse Vilas match taped. I'd like to actually see the match just before with the guy who actually knew how to really use the string against Vlias.
I don't know what kind of game the strings will help more. But it does add variety.
Did anyone really accurate predict who would be helped the most with oversized, light, carbon rackets.
Martina actually took advantage of the racket technolgy to help her S/V game. While Chris Evert basically played an old school wood game even when she upgraded to pro staff.
20 years ago lots of people were talking about how the game was going to turn into just a serve. Weird how that fear has totally been erased.
I would really LOVE to see that match as well. Or of any pro or for that matter anyone who used it.
Tell that to Johnny Mac.
His lefty slice spin serve to the deuce court is what set up his volley.
Mac had very little power...his touch is what made him famous. The things he could do with a ball while at the net is legendary. He did not "merely" put the ball away as you say. He exhibted touch and angles that would mezmorize.
"It is so easy to play with the new rackets; all you need is a flick of the wrist. Don't misunderstand me. I've got one too, but its just like ping pong. Something is wrong when you hit the ball as hard as you can for ten shots in a row and everyone goes in. And everybody plays the same style."
Budge Patty winner of the FO and wimbledon in 1950, unimpressed with the modern game.
"The materials are so ridiculous now, it's too easy. I would rather see them go back to smaller rackets and take away the sweet spots. Something needs to be done. "Martina Navratilova.
"All the skill is going out of the game. Players like Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg could do wonderful things with a wood racket. Now its boom, boom, boom."
Ilie "Nasty" Nastase
How do these quotes relate at all to spaghetti strings?
Most people agree that the game needs to be changed. The beauty and finesse is gone. Powerful racquets, huge sweet spots, slower courts and heavier balls have ruined the finesse game and serve and volley.
In fact tennis officals have coped with the new racquets and strings just by trying to slow the game down. It has not worked and in fact has hurt the game even more.
Spaghetti strings may just be the solution .
Spaghetti strings will not bring back finesse because they never brought finesse in the first place. The player returning the ball didn't know how the ball would bounce, nor did the player who hit the ball--where's the finesse in that? S&Vers did not use them because volleying with them was very difficult. You have such a misconception about how tennis was played with spaghetti strings. You read something on the net, you have never seen a match with a spaghetti racquet, you have never hit with a spaghetti racquet--you just have this romanticized version you've conjured in your mind. Matches with spaghetti racquets were crap. No rhythm, short points, boring--spaghetti strings would have killed the sport which is why they were rightfully banned.
As to your earlier quotes from retired players--every retired pro in every sport loves to go on and on about how it was so much tougher when they played, how it took more skill, and how easy the current pros have it. BS. And besides none of those quotes were referring in any way what-so-ever to spaghetti strings. You are really grasping at straws with that one.
Spaghetti strings will never come back and rightfully so. You are getting killed in your poll. Get over it.
What you describe unknowingly is finesse. The spaghetti strings did not provide power....they provided spin and touch. Which is another word for finesse.
As far as serve and volley ...have you ever seen Mcenroe play? He had amazing touch. He had drop shots that would amaze and angles that would astonish. Part of the reason Mcenroe was able to do that was because of an unbelievably loose stringbed. The spaghetti strings had a looser stringbed than any racquet on the face of the planet. It also made no sound! The drops and angles one could make were awesome.
Actually I own a Spaghetti racquet and I have played with it quite a few times. I bought it on the Bay known as E and its strung inside of a n old Lendl adidas racquet. It should be pointed out that although this is a small head sized racquet it is graphite. My serve and volley game greatly improves with the use of this racquet. I can hit droppers and angles that you would not believe.
Not only retired players have acknowledged that the game must be changed because it is being ruined...but so have the tennis officials. Thats why there is a mad attempt to make the game slower. The balls have gotten heavier and the courts have also been slowed down. Ask yourself why? The reason is quite obvious....tennis officials have acknowledged that something must be done about the current state of tennis. The sport has been ruined and does not represent what it was intended to be.
As far as only retired players making comments that the game must be changed your wrong. Its acknowledged by players while they werw on the tour.
"I am where I am becaquse I grew up with wood. Its the only way to master the strokes." Pete Sampras 2000 while still on the tour
"High powered racquets are destroying tennis and making it really boring. When you saw Mcenroe and Connors play at Wimbledonthat was real tennis.
--Michael Stich in 1991....who upset Becker in the 1991 Wimbledon final
Something needs to be done. The power has destroyed the essence of the sport.
--John Barret technical expert at slazenger and current BBC commentator
As far as my losing in the poll...so what? Tennis is the most conservative sport in the world and any change is met with resistance. Columbus said the world was and everyone said he was wrong as well.
So why don't you show us a picture of your so-called spaghetti racquet that turned you into a world class S&Ver?
A slower moving ball does not mean it was hit with finesse. Nor does a ball with more spin mean it was hit with touch and finesse--is Nadal's forehand a finesse shot? Vilas and Wilander moonballed each other for hours in a dreadfully boring French Open final. Watching that match was like bleeding to death. No one wants to see that kind of tennis again. Less power does not always equal finesse.
Your theory is flawed because you assert McEnroe was a good S&Ver simply because of his loose strings. Not true. He was the exception not the rule. If loose strings were indeed the secret of his success then why didn't all the S&Vers of his day do the same? Why have none done it since? According to you all someone need do is string their racquets loose and they'll be able to hit drop volleys and angles at will. Absurd. McEnroe's preference for looser strings was just that, a personal preference--it was not the reason for his success just as Borg's preference for super tight strings was not the reason for his success. Neither Borg or McEnroe won simply because of the strings in their racquets. But 40 year old has been Barry Phillips-Moore did win simply because of his spaghetti racquet. And it was not because it gave him more control, more finesse or more touch, but it gave him more junk--it took the skill out of the game.
The ideas that graphite racquets have ruined the sport fall flat when you see things like this year's US Open being played before record crowds, for record prize money and high TV ratings. When S&V was the rule the average tennis rally was 2.5 shots. Rallys today are longer--by far. Tennis pros are now big celebrities. Professional tennis is played in more countries by more players and for more prize money by far than in the wood racquet days. In many European, Asian and South American countries tennis is the 2nd most popular sport behind soccer. Had spaghetti strings not been banned tennis would certainly not be as big as it is now--it would have died.
Well I never said it made me into a world class serve and volley player. Dont be a jerk.
Secondly I took a picture of it and emailed it to myself. But I cannot figure out how to put it on the bulletein board. If you tell me how to do it or give me your email I will gladly send it to you.
Spin gives you control. With spin you can hit acurate angles and amazing drop shots. Also for serve and volley you need a good slice as an approach shot. The spaghetti string has incredible slice and when you volley with it its awesome. I should know ...I have one.
I strongly disagree with you. Borg was not boring. In fact the Borg Mcenroe Wimbledon final may be the most exciting final in the history of tennis. The reason it was so exciting was because the contrast in styles, which you do not get anymore. Today everyone plays the same boring baseline game. The tennis community has ackowledged this by slowing the surfaces and making balls heavier...but it has not worked.
I never said that Mcnroe was a good volleyer "simply because he had loose strings". Therefore your argument is completely flawed and there is no reason to go on.
Actually the fact is that tennis is becoming less and less popular. Tennis has been consistently losing viewers.Tennis has not reached the popularity of the "goldn age" of tennis during Borg Mcenroe and Connors.
The ITF already needs to deal with the ever-increasing power game brought on by new racket materials and designs. Somehow the power game must be curbed without eliminating the technology that has brought the women’s game to prime time and allowed seniors to play for many more years.
Returning to wooden rackets is hardly feasible, but curbing the power-serving, backcourt-slamming men’s game may be necessary for retaining fans’ interest. Limiting the amount of power a racket can yield, rather than regulating its design, might protect tennis—and forestall the next big technological tennis upset.
Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte. Nowhere did I say Borg was boring. Reread my post.
Tennis is not becoming less and less popular. I already mentioned how the US Open was played before record crowds and how in many countries tennis is the second most popular sport next to soccer. Also industry data shows that the number of people playing tennis and buying equipment has been increasing in recent years. The Tennis Industry Association (TIA) reported: 'Research shows that all sectors of the sport of tennis have grown, from sales of equipment to increases in the number of recreational players and fans. This growth comes at a time when other traditional sports are struggling.' How does a sport that is becoming less and less popular increase it's number of players and fans...hmmmm? Besides if tennis is becoming less and less popular why are players like Federer and Sharapova continuing to get endorsement deals that make them among the highest paid athletes in the world? I know you have no valid answers to these questions because it is clear from your posts that you are not one the let the facts get in the way of your arguments.
At this point this thread has gotten stupid. It is a moot point as spaghetti strings will never be seen in competition again--and rightfully so.
My good friend Ross figured out how to post my pic of my spaghetti racquet. I hope this will shut you up....I doubt it.
Yeah but who the hell are you? The fact is that tennis is on the decline from the "golden age". In fact this is the first time that a network station has not carried the French Open. You could only see it on the Tennis channel or ESPN (not including the finals...etc):
"A recent study by the USTA and the Tennis Industry Association showed that the sport is not quite where it was at its height in the 1970s, when it had as many as 32 million players."
"WHAT'S NEW IN THE TENNIS BUSINESS; Winning More Points On By DAMON WRIGHT
Published: August 28, 1988
LEAD: Tennis has been declining in popularity on broadcast television, it is becoming a star attraction on cable. "
off topic: you must be a pretty good player to still use an 80 sq inch headsize racquet today (Lendl GTX Pro)
Its not the size of your stick its what you do with it.
I think they should be made legal. In fact I don't really see an argument against it. Whats the downside?
I had the chance to spaghetti my racquet once. The deal WASN'T the enhanced spin, the problem with the stringjob was that the spin (while extreme) was unpredictable.
I tested it on hardcourts and on clay. The ball bounced ANYWHERE. You would hit a normal topspin drive, and the ball would kick to the right like if it had sidespin, or stay as low as a backspin dropshot, or kick 60 feet in the air. You just couldn't control how the ball was going to bounce.
It was an incredible experience. Then, I played AGAINST the racquet for a set. I think the rallies lasted 3 or 4 shots MAX. It was unplayable.
There was no pattern. The bounce was RANDOM.
^^ 60 foot kick! I'd like to see that.
Hahahaha, I was exaggerating to make a point, but 10 feet kickers are normal if you try some heavy topspin (and of course, if the ball doesn't stay low as bouncing on grass, or bouncing to your left or right )
Then why is it illegal? If its so uncontrollable I don't see what the huge advantage is?
thanks for sharing this experience... interesting, i'd like to try !
so you could at least "place" the ball as you wanted... and the surprise was for the bounce of the ball ?
by the way, andres, do you have a picture of your own spaghettied racquet ?
(or even a tortellini-racquet, i would be curious to see it !)
The bounce is uncontrollable. You can direct the ball without problems. You can place it to a corner, and you have no idea what kind of spin you applied. It travels rather flat through the air, despite the swing. A normal topspin drive can have sidespin + backspin. It's a NIGHTMARE for the returner.
So do you think it gives an unfair advantage? Besides, if everyone used them then it would be the same conditions for everyone.
Personally I think that graphite and oversized racquet have changed the game far more than spaghetti strings.
Yes they should be legal again. They're very fun, and just a raquet with rubber bands. Some pros use a rubber band as a dampener. Why not more for spin?
I don't think spaghetti strings would bring back the serve and volley game, but it should be made legal again since it wouldn't make a huge difference to the game nowadays.
Clearly in a world with spaghetti strings Fabrice Santoro would be the GOAT...
Spaghetti strings are illegal.
They should remain illegal. Period.
Are there videos of the match that player use the spaghetti string? I will love to see how crazy the ball spins.
I think they were made illegal for reasons stated earlier (they erupted on the pro scene rather than slowly) and because it created an unpredictable bounce, reducing the level of skill needed to be effective.
I find this analogous to the knuckleball in baseball. What if it were illegal? It wouldn't change much because most pitchers don't use it, but isn't great to see the occasional knuckleballer?
I'd say the problem with modern tennis is monotony. I can fall asleep in the middle of a Slam final now because it's 5 hours long and every rally seems like its 20+ shots. Chip charge is impossible and serve volley is a joke.
If someone could compete against these guys with spaghetti strings I'd frickin love to see it. Tim Wakefield vs Roger Clemens. Nice contrast. Possibly amazing, non-monotonous entertainment guaranteed to keep me awake at least. Maybe a one slam wonder could happen. Sounds fun actually. Cinderella story?
If all the other innovations, larger heads, advanced materials in both racquets and strings are allowed, then why discriminate against spaghetti strings?
Then again, baseball does not allow files or spitballs or vaseline either. Maybe spaghetti strings are too extreme but they should definitely be looked into again as things are a little one-dimensional now.
I have absolutely no faith that S & V would come back as a result of spaghetti strings. The only way it's coming back is by going back to wood or small headed racquets. Or vastly improved serving... but Fed has been a pretty great server and even he didn't do it, so it's probably gone without the equipment change. & good luck with that...
I tried stringing up a "faux spagetti string" pattern and the shots were wildly unpredictable, much different from full poly or a Steam 99s. I tried it on two of my friends near the end of our hitting sessions without telling them at first: one guy tweaked his arm trying to adjust to the unpredictable bounces & timing, and needed to stop playing, the other usually gets everything back but his % dropped to like 5-10% & he wanted to give up and go home early. Its was tough to control using a "modern stroke" too, worked better with an old school driving shot. It wasn't all that fun for them and the ball was just coming off my racket in a weird way, it didn't really feel like "tennis" anymore.
No way it would bring back S&V either. Lol.
How is the drill pattern different?
Separate names with a comma.