Why I hate Baseline-Bashing

[hoodjem]

Maybe this is the wrong place, and maybe neither of these players are former, but I wanted to post this where I could get a decent, receptive, and thoughtful analysis.

Mindless slugfest: all one has to do is run laterally and keep the ball in play, even on what is obviously an overhead at 0:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiX1dWxUDgM

Why don't we watch remote-controlled robotic vacuum cleaners hit tennis balls.

 

[pc1]

You have a point. I do like variety in styles when I watch tennis. That's why I do miss the serve and volleyers, touch players etc. It's nice to see Lendl against Edberg, Mecir against anyone, Connors against McEnroe, Sampras and Agassi.

I would enjoy Orantes on one of his great days torment his opponents with his drop shots, lobs and overall touch. He almost make it seen too easy.

Jimmy Connors was considered mainly a baseliner in his day but nowadays he would be considered reckless considering how often he approached the net.

Nadal and Federer do have different styles of baseline play and I do enjoy their rallies.

One player I am disappointed in is Maria Sharapova. When she first came into prominence I thought she would add a lot of variety to her power baseline game but the only way she seems to be able to play is to grunt and hit with great power.

It's a different game now and I'm sure we're get a lot of players in the future who are just baseline bashers.

 

[BTURNER]

Honestly, how much different is this? Watch the whole tape before commenting, or as much as you can. There is some variety if you are willing to wait for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iTDR0sbVkI

 

[Carolina Racquet]

And everyone wonders why there are so many injuries in pro tennis. So much more now than 15+ years ago.

I'm sure the demands of backcourt play with all the lateral movement has a lot to do with it.

Watch the "Legends" and they get their arse to the net ASAP so they can give their old bones a break.

 

[LeeD]

Man, that's some GREAT stuff, both you guys.
I wonder, everyone saying how much stronger the modern player is, how much harder they hit, but it seems to have equalized, the added power and the player coverage.
Great stuff, and THANKS, to both of you.

 

[robow7]

Bturner:"Honestly, how much different is this?"


It's a lot different because I don't have to turn off the volume on this one.

 

[yemenmocha]

Agree, modern baseliner tennis is a bore. At ATP events I hit the doubles courts unless it is Llodra, Stepanek, or similar.

 

[SusanDK]

I do like variety in styles when I watch tennis. That's why I do miss the serve and volleyers, touch players etc. It's nice to see Lendl against Edberg, Mecir against anyone, Connors against McEnroe, Sampras and Agassi.

Jimmy Connors was considered mainly a baseliner in his day but nowadays he would be considered reckless considering how often he approached the net.

Exactly. And while Connors was considered a baseliner, it was never boring to see him against another baseliner, eg. Lendl. Similarly, 2 S&V'ers could produce real excitement (Becker vs. Edberg).

I also enjoy watching some of the current players, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, etc., but lose interest must quicker and cannot watch for endless hours like I could the previous generations' players.

 

[urban]

Now, Borg-Vilas or Lendl-Wilander matches on clay were not exactly spectacles. I remember, that Cochet during one of those RG finals, went away for half an hour to take some coffee and cake. He said later, that this endless topspin rallies were not his kind of tennis. But the most boring match i saw, was the Soderling-Berdych semi at RG this year. Only ball bashing by two nervous, slow-footed guys with big, but erratic serves and forehands, with no imagination or point construction or change of pace or anything in that direction.

 

[Datacipher]

As most of you know, I'm not exaggerating in claiming to be a tennis fanatic, like many of you. However...I actually find myself watching less, and less, and less. Honestly...I've seen it before....a million times.

The depth of baseline to baseline bashing has never been so great in quality....every other style is at an all-time low. In addition, the strokes themselves are so homogenized....

I am amazed to think that a decade+ ago, people were claiming power and serving were going to kill the game. In my opinion, this is far worse. Just LONGER points aren't the answer!

I'd take the 90's over this anyday. I thought it was great looking at a Wimbledon draw and seeing potential matchups like Agassi, Stich, Courier, Krajicek, Sampras, Becker, Chang, Ivanisevic, etc.

You posted a woman's tennis clip...but THAT was the knock against women in the 90's...that all they were doing is baseline bashing...now the men do it to!

At least that clip features a lot of down the line attempts...both players trying to initiate...and an attempt to come into net....it's a LOT worse sometimes!

 

[Datacipher]

Now, Borg-Vilas or Lendl-Wilander matches on clay were not exactly spectacles. I remember, that Cochet during one of those RG finals, went away for half an hour to take some coffee and cake. He said later, that this endless topspin rallies were not his kind of tennis. But the most boring match i saw, was the Soderling-Berdych semi at RG this year. Only ball bashing by two nervous, slow-footed guys with big, but erratic serves and forehands, with no imagination or point construction or change of pace or anything in that direction.

Heh, that is true. There were always clay-court borefests between two grinders.

 

[Valdez737]

Ya old guys cant so ya hate on baseline tennis s&v is dead cuz it sucks

 

[SusanDK]

Now, Borg-Vilas or Lendl-Wilander matches on clay were not exactly spectacles.

Can't argue with that. :lol:

At least the snoozefests in those days were fewer and farther between.

 

[Cuculain]

Ya old guys cant so ya hate on baseline tennis s&v is dead cuz it sucks

A well put clearly thought out arguement! Excellent use of english by the way!!

Todays tennis bar Federer and Nadal match ups are borefests! give me the contrast in styles of teh 70s , 80s, 90s anyday.
Even when two players Connors and Borg both baseliners played it was a contrast, Connors aggressive attacking play to Borg's defensive abilities!!

 

[joe sch]

Maybe this is the wrong place, and maybe neither of these players are former, but I wanted to post this where I could get a decent, receptive, and thoughtful analysis.

Mindless slugfest: all one has to do is run laterally and keep the ball in play, even on what is obviously an overhead at 0:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiX1dWxUDgM

Why don't we watch remote-controlled robotic vacuum cleaners hit tennis balls.

hoodjem, very good point with the video which really demonstrates the 1-dimensional modern game of tennis.

It use to be that baseline players were just waiting for short hits that hit around the service line to make attacking approach shots. Not anymore, players are afraid to approach the net and have mastered the backpedal

I still believe that great SV allcourt players could be developed but that style is not taught nor encouraged by most all of the current teachers.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Yeah, Basically tennis is a bunch of clones, and the best clone will go on to dominate on all surfaces and win a career slam, look at Federer and Nadal. (theyre not clones though) but simply the best, most fit player in general will win on every surface with the same game, not necessarily the best surface players, which is what we've been seein the last 7 years or so.

 

[jrepac]

Honestly, how much different is this? Watch the whole tape before commenting, or as much as you can. There is some variety if you are willing to wait for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iTDR0sbVkI

at least there is more variety in the shots...but true, it's all baseline. I used to dread when Chrissie played Manuela Maleeva. I'd want to slit my wrists watching that stuff. Her matches against Tracy, at least had a bit more variety of shots in them, I think. But, the best was always vs. Martina, the classic baseliner v. S&V showdown.

 

[jrepac]

hoodjem, very good point with the video which really demonstrates the 1-dimensional modern game of tennis.

It use to be that baseline players were just waiting for short hits that hit around the service line to make attacking approach shots. Not anymore, players are afraid to approach the net and have mastered the backpedal

I still believe that great SV allcourt players could be developed but that style is not taught nor encouraged by most all of the current teachers.

So, are any of the up and coming players able to hit a volley? It's pretty scarce out there nowadays....I really don't understand why the current generation is not more adept at approaching the net; the ground strokes are strong, but it seems like no one has a short court game, at all.

 

[hoodjem]

Exactly. And while Connors was considered a baseliner, it was never boring to see him against another baseliner, eg. Lendl. Similarly, 2 S&V'ers could produce real excitement (Becker vs. Edberg).

I also enjoy watching some of the current players, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, etc., but lose interest must quicker and cannot watch for endless hours like I could the previous generations' players.

True that Connors was considered a baseliner, but he knew when and how to mix it up. And he took the net to finish the point when it made sense.

Connors never feared or avoided the net.

Now, Borg-Vilas or Lendl-Wilander matches on clay were not exactly spectacles. I remember, that Cochet during one of those RG finals, went away for half an hour to take some coffee and cake. He said later, that this endless topspin rallies were not his kind of tennis.

Yes, absolutely! Borg-Vilas at RG could be like watching paint dry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk&feature=related

 

[PimpMyGame]

Is the current state of womens tennis and baseline bashing a cause of lower ability? Or is it a symptom of too many wannabees chasing the dollar, doing what's necessary to earn a living with little regard for fan entertainment?

Either way, I'd give my right testicle to be able to hit the ball like that. I can be so lame sometimes.

 

[PimpMyGame]

Yes, absolutely! Borg-Vilas at RG could be like watching paint dry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk&feature=related

Interesting that there were IMO several chances to put away the point or at least up the ante for both players in that rally, but neither chose to do so - a bit like the OP's overhead on the YT clip. But I'm sure these boys laughed about that rally later on in the hotel, over some beers and a couple of sportsman's lines.

 

[robow7]

So, are any of the up and coming players able to hit a volley? It's pretty scarce out there nowadays....I really don't understand why the current generation is not more adept at approaching the net; the ground strokes are strong, but it seems like no one has a short court game, at all.

They don't really have to own a net game anymore because if they get a short ball anywhere near the "T", they simply rip it off the court. Before you generally had to use the short ball to make an approach shot and then try to end the point at the net with the volley. Now, the "approach" shot is a winner in itself.

 

[li0scc0]

Exactly. And while Connors was considered a baseliner, it was never boring to see him against another baseliner, eg. Lendl. Similarly, 2 S&V'ers could produce real excitement (Becker vs. Edberg).

I also enjoy watching some of the current players, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, etc., but lose interest must quicker and cannot watch for endless hours like I could the previous generations' players.

I don't think Connors was anything like a baseliner compared to players today. Connors was always coming into the net, even on clay.

 

[li0scc0]

Yes, absolutely! Borg-Vilas at RG could be like watching paint dry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk&feature=related

I grew up with Borg as my favorite, but in watching him now, his matches are....dare I say it....painfully boring. Lendl may have stayed back, but Lendl flat out crushed the ball.
This point was painful. Borg pushed..and pushed ...and pushed. Both players had NUMEROUS opportunities to come in on short balls, yet they came up to the service line, hit a weak ball, then retreated.
Anybody who says Andy Murray is a boring pusher needs to watch this point.

 

[SusanDK]

True that Connors was considered a baseliner, but he knew when and how to mix it up. And he took the net to finish the point when it made sense.

Connors never feared or avoided the net.

I don't think Connors was anything like a baseliner compared to players today. Connors was always coming into the net, even on clay.

Agree with you both - which was why I said Connors was "considered" a baseliner.

I've posted elsewhere that he was an excellent all-court player, constructed points very well, and was always looking for his opportunity to come to the net. He was most definitely one of the more aggressive and offensive players of all time.

 

[li0scc0]

Agree with you both - which was why I said Connors was "considered" a baseliner.

I've posted elsewhere that he was an excellent all-court player, constructed points very well, and was always looking for his opportunity to come to the net. He was most definitely one of the more aggressive and offensive players of all time.

And exciting to watch! And I knew what you meant, absolutely.

 

[joe sch]

Radek Stepanek is a little more evidence that being an allcourt player with SV skills can make a difference ... Radek is now 32 and still competing at the top of the game and giving the best current modern players problems with his "old school" style.

He had won and made the finals the last 2 years in the AO warmup at sydney. This year he lost to the hot playing baseline basher named Robin Soderling, who is one of the best and has been very close to winning some slams, maybe this year.

In any event, I think this quote from Robin is very revealing:

“He is a player I don’t really like to play against because he mixes up his game a lot,” Soderling told reporters.

I still do not understand why more players dont play aggressive allcourt SV tennis. I am still convinced that a young player with the skills of a Edberg, Becker, Rafter, or McEnroe could still be winning slams today.

 

[hoodjem]

They don't really have to own a net game anymore because if they get a short ball anywhere near the "T", they simply rip it off the court. Before you generally had to use the short ball to make an approach shot and then try to end the point at the net with the volley. Now, the "approach" shot is a winner in itself.

Do you think this "new" approach-winner is predicated on the new technology of larger head-sizes and poly strings?

 

[hoodjem]

I still do not understand why more players dont play aggressive allcourt SV tennis. I am still convinced that a young player with the skills of a Edberg, Becker, Rafter, or McEnroe could still be winning slams today.

I contend that a true all-court game will include both excellent serve-and-volley skills and very consistent baseline skills.

So a true all-courter is at home in either or any era.

 

[Carolina Racquet]

Do you think this "new" approach-winner is predicated on the new technology of larger head-sizes and poly strings?

This link was posted in another category...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

There's no doubt the combination of poly strings and larger frames have changed the angles of the court... thus making the court larger for a net player to defend.

 

[hoodjem]

This link was posted in another category...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

There's no doubt the combination of poly strings and larger frames have changed the angles of the court... thus making the court larger for a net player to defend.

Thanks much for that link.

A very interesting article:
"Copoly strings help generate so much spin that today’s players—dubbed the “new-string generation” by Federer— can hit once-inconceivable drives, angled winners, and passing shots. But despite the widespread belief of players that copoly strings have changed the game, scientists until recently could find no evidence that a string’s material, thickness, tension, or texture made a real difference in spin generation."

"Copoly strings—slippery and stiff—generate more spin not because of more friction, but because of less. “The old argument was that the better the grip between the strings and the ball, the more spin you would get. But that’s not true,” said Rod Cross, an Australian physicist and co-author of Technical Tennis. "

 

[TMF]

Maybe this is the wrong place, and maybe neither of these players are former, but I wanted to post this where I could get a decent, receptive, and thoughtful analysis.

Mindless slugfest: all one has to do is run laterally and keep the ball in play, even on what is obviously an overhead at 0:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiX1dWxUDgM

Why don't we watch remote-controlled robotic vacuum cleaners hit tennis balls.

Honestly, how much different is this? Watch the whole tape before commenting, or as much as you can. There is some variety if you are willing to wait for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iTDR0sbVkI

It's pretty clear that the baseliners today play much more intense. It required more althletism and power. Notice during neutral rally, Austin had so much time waiting the ball to get back, and even straighten out her hair. While Wozniacki and Zvonareva had to run much more, and wishes they had more time b/c the ball are coming back so quick.

 

[BTURNER]

It's pretty clear that the baseliners today play much more intense. It required more althletism and power. Notice during neutral rally, Austin had so much time waiting the ball to get back, and even straighten out her hair. While Wozniacki and Zvonareva had to run much more, and wishes they had more time b/c the ball are coming back so quick.

It isn't that modern tennis is more intense, you had to plan your pattern and point two or three strokes ahead vs great defenders in order to ensure you opponent stayed out of position long enough, or shorten their reaction time by being at net if you wanted a winner. If you hoped to induce errors as part of your plan that required intensity as well. Hitting winners from the baseline in the first few strokes was not a strategy, it was the fastest way to becoming a loser. And suggesting either Evert or Austin lacked intensity, is about the fastest way to be laughed off this forum I can think of. Patience demands intensity.

 

[World Beater]

i much prefer baseline bashing that indoor target practice between two snipers rusedski and ivanisevic.

watching rafter, edberg, henman was great for sure -masters of volleying.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Hoodjem..agree with you largely but that was a bad vid to post, actually had some good croscourt forehands there where they at least try to take their opponent wide..also..there was an attempt at the net...which resulted in a good lob.

I can think of piles of videos far better to post....try finding a copy of sharapova vs arn at auckland this week..just painful.

 

[hoodjem]

Hoodjem..agree with you largely but that was a bad vid to post, actually had some good croscourt forehands there where they at least try to take their opponent wide..also..there was an attempt at the net...which resulted in a good lob.

I can think of piles of videos far better to post....try finding a copy of sharapova vs arn at auckland this week..just painful.

Sorry, I did not do a search. I just happened upon this, and it triggered the thought.

 

[hoodjem]

It's pretty clear that the baseliners today play much more intense. It required more althletism and power.

Agreed on the power. Not on the athleticism. I guess that is in the eyes of the beholder.

I was not comparing contemporary women's baselining to 1970s women's baselining. I was comparing (implicitly) today's baseline-bashing to prior eras all-court games with its strategic use of lobs and volleys integrated with base-line counter-punching. (I also grant that mere S&V play by both players is also fairly mindless.)

For me it's not about the power--I cede that to today's game. It's more about the strategy, skills, and intellect required to play one versus the other.

(Personally, I would rather watch Wozniacki-Zvonareva than Austin-Evert.)

 

[max]

Ya old guys cant so ya hate on baseline tennis s&v is dead cuz it sucks

This is just a piece of humorous naivete.

 

[max]

BTurner: good points. In looking this over, I'd hazard the suggestion that if you put Big Gun racquets into the hands of guys from the 70s, you'd get some similar Big Gun results.

Interesting idea about the factor of player reaction time affecting the game.

 

[kensan]

To the OP, I wouldn't call it mindless. (Agree with slugfest though, which is nice to watch!)

These are 2 girls with similar court coverage and power looking for a short ball to outright finish or set up for a finishing shot. (Volley, short pop-up, whatever)

The problem when finishing at the net, women players (in general!) are not fast enough north and south to close the net angles adequately. On top of that, (in general!) they don't get to overheads quickly enough nor hit overheads hard enough.

Notice in the men's game how tight the players get to the net. They cover the angles, because a lob 70% of the time is a winner or a prelude to.

It could also be the topspin men can impart on their shots. On an approach shot, this sets them up better for the net finish, volley, overhead, swinging forehand, etc.

 

[borg number one]

On Borg-Vilas, on red clay, I think that the most interesting/exciting tennis comes about with varied styles of play. I'm a Borg fan, so I was still very intrigued by their matches on clay, but yes, watching Borg-Vilas or say Vilas-Wilander does require a lot of patience, shall we say. Here are two clips that I find interesting though. See this get by Borg during the '78 FO final (not boring to say the least, given Borg's jaw dropping abilities) and then watch a Vilas-Wilander rally (even longer than some of the Vilas-Borg rallies at the FO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ ('78 FO, see Borg's get)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TDGbbLXUQ ('82 FO, 84 stroke rally) (Thanks to Krosero)

Without contrast in terms of playing styles, you tend to have less exciting and varied play. In my opinion, watching some of the matches on the fast courts at Wimbledon during the 90's was also less than "scintillating" tennis. I think that's why Borg/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi produced great fireworks. When Nadal/Federer face off, you have very exciting tennis as well in my opinion, but I think that's more a function of the fact that you do have two all time great players continuing to face off and extending their rivalry. Plus, Nadal and Federer basically have more variety and more skill in their respective games than all of the other players around today. Nadal has improved his serve, volleys, and transition game. Federer has exhibited relatively impressive variety as well.

 

[urban]

Indeed, contrasts in style, personality and even looks make spectacular matchups. Mac-Borg was such a classic rivalry: on one side the defender, the established Ice-Borg, (fundamentally) errorless baseliner, righthander, clean role-model, unflappable functioning like a Swiss clock. On the other side: the US-Irish challenger with a hot temperament, excentric in style and character, lefthander, spontaneous netplayer par excellence.

 

[kensan]

And here I thought sod - nadal fo2010 was slow and boring. ;-)

Thanks for the vids. Don't get me wrong I like vintage-y tennis in small doses, but it makes me appreciate the modern game on clay.

 

[BTURNER]

On Borg-Vilas, on red clay, I think that that the most interesting/exciting tennis comes about with varied styles of play. I'm a Borg fan, so I was still very intrigued by their matches on clay, but yes, watching Borg-Vilas or say Vilas-Wilander does require a lot of patience, shall we say. Here are two clips that I find interesting though. See this get by Borg during the '78 FO final (not boring to say the least, given Borg's jaw dropping abilities) and then watch a Vilas-Wilander rally (even longer than some of the Vilas-Borg rallies at the FO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ ('78 FO, see Borg's get)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TDGbbLXUQ ('82 FO, 84 stroke rally) (Thanks to Krosero)

Without contrast in terms of playing styles, you tend to have less exciting and varied play. In my opinion, watching some of the matches on the fast courts at Wimbledon during the 90's was also less than "scintillating" tennis. I think that's why Borg/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi produced great fireworks. When Nadal/Federer face off, you have very exciting tennis as well in my opinion, but I think that's more a function of the fact that you do have two all time great players continuing to face off and extending their rivalry. Plus, Nadal and Federer basically have more variety and more skill in their respective games than all of the other players around today. Nadal has improved his serve, volleys, and transition game. Federer has exhibited relatively impressive variety as well.

I find something oddly hypnotic in some of these siege duals, but I at least want to see a one hander vs a two hander or a topspinner vs a slice/dice/pusher. Watching Lendl play a Borg or Wilander or Borg play a Vilas or Evert play a young Sabatini or even Jaeger. I find myself counting the strokes in a zen daze that is mildly therapeutic

 

[borg number one]

I find something oddly hypnotic in some of these siege duals, but I at least want to see a one hander vs a two hander or a topspinner vs a slice/dice/pusher. Watching Lendl play a Borg or Wilander or Borg play a Vilas or Evert play a young Sabatini or even Jaeger. I find myself counting the strokes in a zen daze that is mildly therapeutic

Lol, BTURNER. Me too. Yet, I still would rather see say Borg-Connors or Borg-McEnroe on clay for example. The Borg-Vilas and Wilander-Lendl matches don't bother me too much, but I can see how those matches could be termed somewhat "boring". How about say Ferrer vs. Davydenko? As far as watchability, is it the lack of all the grunting/shrieking? That's a part of it for me. I think it's also due to the fact that it's red clay tennis, which is a very different animal (you have sliding and it's more of a chess match). Guys like Borg, Vilas, Nadal, and Lendl are clay court experts, and not just physical specimens. They are utilizing a style of play that will give them the best chance to win the match. Nothing more, nothing less really. They could care less about "exciting" the Paris crowd for example. I think the main concern for those guys during matches at the FO for example was to register the win in whatever way was necessary. They were not playing to the crowd so to speak. For them, the results and the win were "beautiful", so you had those wars of attrition. Of course, with the old frames, it was also much more difficult to go from defense to offense, whereas today you have different dynamics.

 

[hoodjem]

On Borg-Vilas, on red clay, I think that the most interesting/exciting tennis comes about with varied styles of play. I'm a Borg fan, so I was still very intrigued by their matches on clay, but yes, watching Borg-Vilas or say Vilas-Wilander does require a lot of patience, shall we say. Here are two clips that I find interesting though. See this get by Borg during the '78 FO final (not boring to say the least, given Borg's jaw dropping abilities) and then watch a Vilas-Wilander rally (even longer than some of the Vilas-Borg rallies at the FO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ ('78 FO, see Borg's get)

Gee, I bet his heart-rate got up to 45 bpm.

 

[CEvertFan]

Maybe this is the wrong place, and maybe neither of these players are former, but I wanted to post this where I could get a decent, receptive, and thoughtful analysis.

Mindless slugfest: all one has to do is run laterally and keep the ball in play, even on what is obviously an overhead at 0:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiX1dWxUDgM

Why don't we watch remote-controlled robotic vacuum cleaners hit tennis balls.

All the baseline bashing leaves no room for point construction anymore. The game has become very one dimensional and it just seems like most all the current pros (especially the current women) just hit the ball as hard as possible and hope it goes in, no thought put into it, no strategy, no intelligent use of the court, no variety - they should consider limiting the tech for pros, so that the pros will need to be able to construct a point again in order to win.

Don't get me wrong, power can be fun to watch but intelligent use of power mixed with a game plan, not this. I hardly ever watch women's tennis anymore because of this and I've always been a huge fan of women's tennis.

 

[robow7]

Do you think this "new" approach-winner is predicated on the new technology of larger head-sizes and poly strings?

Exactly, not only can you hit with more pace but the strings enable you to get it up and down so quickly for such acute angles. I recently read an interview with Lendl, who has made a "mini-come back" and he himself was saying it's not just the newer racquets that people dwell on but it's the strings that have changed the game.

 

[max]

Thanks much for that link.

A very interesting article:
"Copoly strings help generate so much spin that today’s players—dubbed the “new-string generation” by Federer— can hit once-inconceivable drives, angled winners, and passing shots. But despite the widespread belief of players that copoly strings have changed the game, scientists until recently could find no evidence that a string’s material, thickness, tension, or texture made a real difference in spin generation."

"Copoly strings—slippery and stiff—generate more spin not because of more friction, but because of less. “The old argument was that the better the grip between the strings and the ball, the more spin you would get. But that’s not true,” said Rod Cross, an Australian physicist and co-author of Technical Tennis. "

Where can I find the rest of the Cross interview?

 

[pc1]

Exactly, not only can you hit with more pace but the strings enable you to get it up and down so quickly for such acute angles. I recently read an interview with Lendl, who has made a "mini-come back" and he himself was saying it's not just the newer racquets that people dwell on but it's the strings that have changed the game.

I'm definitely not nearly as good as I was years ago but I find now that I can make shots I couldn't make years ago and that's probably because of the racquets and strings.