Toni Nadal in favor of smaller rackets

Bumbaliceps

Professional

He doesn't like the serve, and says that it is part of the reason why he didn't work on it enough with Rafa but he has regrets about this.

His proposition to reduce the speed of the game and especially the serve is to reduce the size of the rackets, who according to him make the game too easy for professionals. And he adds that it would in the same time benefit amateur players because smaller rackets would make the game easier.

This was not a very interesting interview, he mostly talks about stuff that are already well known, and he is very talkative but he explains simple points with a lot of words. Also obviously he is making the effort to speak in French so it makes it worse, so the 42 minutes actually don't make for a consistent interview.

But this part was hilarious. I think I'm gonna trust his honesty more in the future.
 

tonylg

Legend
Smaller, as in shorter?

I actually agree that pros should not be allowed to use extended length racquets, but the problem in the game today is not serve speed, it's slow high bouncing courts and excessive spin.

How many slams have Opelka, Karlovic and Isner won over the past few years?
 

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Smaller, as in shorter?

I actually agree that pros should not be allowed to use extended length racquets, but the problem in the game today is not serve speed, it's slow high bouncing courts and excessive spin.

How many slams have Opelka, Karlovic and Isner won over the past few years?
He wants the handle to be shorter.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru

He doesn't like the serve, and says that it is part of the reason why he didn't work on it enough with Rafa but he has regrets about this.

His proposition to reduce the speed of the game and especially the serve is to reduce the size of the rackets, who according to him make the game too easy for professionals. And he adds that it would in the same time benefit amateur players because smaller rackets would make the game easier.

This was not a very interesting interview, he mostly talks about stuff that are already well known, and he is very talkative but he explains simple points with a lot of words. Also obviously he is making the effort to speak in French so it makes it worse, so the 42 minutes actually don't make for a consistent interview.

But this part was hilarious. I think I'm gonna trust his honesty more in the future.
Big mistake, Toni!
(n)
 

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
Larger rackets make the game easier but small rackets also make the game easier?
Probably easier meaning, like, if beginners played with wood rackets they wouldn’t be able to effortlessly catapult the ball thinking they’re awesome but not landing it in the court consistently.
 
If he is talking about wooden racket size similar to the modern technology, I'm up for it, it makes for interesting game with lots of variety. Wooden racket was smaller than the current size.
 

tonylg

Legend
If he is talking about wooden racket size similar to the modern technology, I'm up for it, it makes for interesting game with lots of variety. Wooden racket was smaller than the current size.

There's NO WAY any person named Nadal would be suggesting pros use 65 square inch racquets.
 

esm

Legend
Again, I support restricting racquet length to 27" .. but tennis is currently dominated by baseline bots .. not big servers.
Also I think each player can only bring max of 8 racquets per match and no restring during the match - this may make it more challenging and more enjoyable to watch
 

tonylg

Legend
Also I think each player can only bring max of 8 racquets per match and no restring during the match - this may make it more challenging and more enjoyable to watch

How would it make tennis more enjoyable to watch? Serious question. Although there are very few matches where you need more than 8, there's nothing enjoyable about watching someone finish a 5 set match with broken strings.

Testing strings to ensure they don't exceed a maximum stiffness? I'd be all for that.
 

esm

Legend
How would it make tennis more enjoyable to watch? Serious question. Although there are very few matches where you need more than 8, there's nothing enjoyable about watching someone finish a 5 set match with broken strings.

Testing strings to ensure they don't exceed a maximum stiffness? I'd be all for that.
Well... I came up with 8 with say a total of 60 games per match in a GS, based on changing racquet with new balls.
I think with a restriction for number of racquets they can bring per match, it makes them to work abit harder and be more flexible/creative in shot selection/game plan. To reserve the tool they need to use to protect their livelihood.
Same with getting racquet restrung during a match because they didn’t do their homework properly and choose incorrect tension for the environment/weather etc.
it is like an open book exam and then ask someone to bring you a different book cos you brought a wrong one to start with.
just a thought....
 

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Larger rackets make the game easier but small rackets also make the game easier?
According to Toni, the modern rackets make it too easy for the pros to hit very strong shots. Whereas the amateurs would play better with a diminution of the pace of the game. He thinks tennis is not very enjoyable when your are not a good player because you make too many errors.
 

Clay lover

Legend
According to Toni, the modern rackets make it too easy for the pros to hit very strong shots. Whereas the amateurs would play better with a diminution of the pace of the game. He thinks tennis is not very enjoyable when your are not a good player because you make too many errors.
This is to some extent true. Modern racquets in general are too powerful, especially tweeners and OSes, and beginners just launch them all over the place without proper control. Their partner is also hitting harder so the ball is also coming at them much quicker, making it harder for them to time the shot. I remember my beginner days and also teaching another beginner to play and it could be a nightmare.
 

BillKid

Hall of Fame
According to Toni, the modern rackets make it too easy for the pros to hit very strong shots. Whereas the amateurs would play better with a diminution of the pace of the game. He thinks tennis is not very enjoyable when your are not a good player because you make too many errors.
I enjoy tennis a lot so I must be a good player. Good to hear!
One should keep in mind that about 20 years ago, many people were fed up with big servers like Ivanisevic, Philipoussis, Krajicek... not saying they were not great players but it was boring to see them especially on fast courts. In the last 15-20 years we had a lot of fantastic tennis IMO. Why not experimenting something new but you will never please everyone.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Larger rackets make the game easier but small rackets also make the game easier?

Large/longer racquets give the game more power, but harder to control. Shorter racquets give you more control and less power - amateurs would get longer rallies as they would more easily swing their racwuets and spray less balls. Pro's would have less reach, less power. Not sure if it would have a meaningful impact on the game as a whole. Strings is the biggest thing.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
With larger racquets, a certain style of ballstriking becomes easier, but playing tennis doesn't become easier. Opponents use the same racquets.
 

tonylg

Legend
Smaller racquet heads might bring back serve and volley no?

In combination with some sensible string rules, that would reign in some of the free spin players have had for the past 20 years.

Which in turn would lead to more attacking tennis, possibly including serve and volley.

In general, better tennis.
 

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
In combination with some sensible string rules, that would reign in some of the free spin players have had for the past 20 years.

Which in turn would lead to more attacking tennis, possibly including serve and volley.

In general, better tennis.
,,,
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's not going to happen, and serve and volley was designed for the goat-track era of grass with its variable bounce issues.

If you want attacking tennis, then you just have to tweak the speed of the court. Tournaments are not rushing to choose this option.

In combination with some sensible string rules, that would reign in some of the free spin players have had for the past 20 years.

Which in turn would lead to more attacking tennis, possibly including serve and volley.

In general, better tennis.
 

movies99

Rookie
Smaller, as in shorter?

I actually agree that pros should not be allowed to use extended length racquets, but the problem in the game today is not serve speed, it's slow high bouncing courts and excessive spin.

How many slams have Opelka, Karlovic and Isner won over the past few years?
Even I don't like serve, w.r.t. your point, servebots or people with big serve are good enough to win most matches based on serve and take out good emerging players who are far superior in other aspects and its quite deflating sometimes. Serve bots earn decent money, where as others will take lot of time to get to decent ranking and with tennis being so costly, it will help if serve is neutralized.
 

movies99

Rookie
I didn't say they should, but Nadal is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

At the last Wimbledon, the quarters were full of baselining mugs with very little attacking game.

Again, I support restricting racquet length to 27" .. but tennis is currently dominated by baseline bots .. not big servers.
That is how the game is designed now, to get higher rallies, baseline game can be improved over time with players stronger and fitter but serve not much
 

tonylg

Legend
Even I don't like serve, w.r.t. your point, servebots or people with big serve are good enough to win most matches based on serve and take out good emerging players who are far superior in other aspects and its quite deflating sometimes. Serve bots earn decent money, where as others will take lot of time to get to decent ranking and with tennis being so costly, it will help if serve is neutralized.
That is how the game is designed now, to get higher rallies, baseline game can be improved over time with players stronger and fitter but serve not much

I put those through Google translate and not even it knows what you're trying to say.

It just came back with "I can't serve".
 
Either, speed up the court or bring the smaller racket size. If Wimbledon choose to turn back the clock with 90's type of grass, there will be variable bounces all over, forcing players to get to the net asap. By the time they improve volleying skill, the overall game will be better for other surface in term of finishing the play with confidence due to serve and volley practice over the short grass court season. If the players with strong volley skill shall be rewarded on grass with variable bounces forcing htem to be on the net and lower chance of pulling off successful passing shots. Volleying is a lost art.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Even I don't like serve, w.r.t. your point, servebots or people with big serve are good enough to win most matches based on serve and take out good emerging players who are far superior in other aspects and its quite deflating sometimes. Serve bots earn decent money, where as others will take lot of time to get to decent ranking and with tennis being so costly, it will help if serve is neutralized.

dude, are you still living in the 90s? watching Edberg vs Becker or Becker vs Sampras?
looks like you missed some 20 years of tennis.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
I didn't say they should, but Nadal is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

At the last Wimbledon, the quarters were full of baselining mugs with very little attacking game.

Again, I support restricting racquet length to 27" .. but tennis is currently dominated by baseline bots .. not big servers.
But the percentage of service games won is generally higher than in the 90s. The players still have offensive games, they are just not gambling with S&V anymore.

Back then it was service winner, passing shot winner or winner/error at the net. Now the points are better constructed, which shouldn’t be confused with "not offensive".
 

tonylg

Legend
Back then it was service winner, passing shot winner or winner/error at the net.

And now it's bot along the baseline using only a subset of strokes this beautiful game used to have and hope for an unforced error. When they do get short balls, they run back to the baseline because passing shots are just too easy. Amazing point construction there.
 
Top