Would Stosur be nearly as good without all the technology?

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
You seem to ignore the facts regarding the racquets actually being used in the game today in favor of a few examples that support your prejudice. Try looking through a list of the specs for the pro's racquets. They are not, for the most part, off the shelf racquets. They weigh substantially more that consumer racquets & are mostly mid or mid + headsize. As far as why old racquets are not my choice, it's because they are not available!!! They are not being made & many old samples are trashed. It's obvious to me that you aren't arguing your point with any logic & with a large dose of resentment. I don't see the point in continuing with this thread, 'cause you are obviously stubbornly set in your opinion & choose to believe your own cherry picked examples. So you keep waving your fist at the TV & *****ing about the state of the game & I, with many others, will continue playing & enjoying the matches.

Cheers,
kev
Um...how many pros today use 90 sq. in. or smaller and 13.5 oz. and heavier racquets like almost all pros used to use? I never said anything about off-the-shelf racquets. That was YOUR assumption. The pros in the past didn't use off-the-shelf racquets. Even Connors added lead tape to his already extremely heavy steel T-2000. Borg's wood racquets were also heavier than stock retail frames. Don Budge used a 16 oz., 65 sq, in wood racquet with a bare wood handle (no grip at all) that was a size 5 1/4. Try hitting Nadal-like forehands with that thing for 4 hours and you'll really appreciate your big, light Babolat. Heck, even name just 10 other pros besides Federer that use a K90 or other 90 sq. in. racquet. I can easily name 10 pros that use 98-100 sq. in. Babolats.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
They don't let tennis players to Nuke tennis stadiums, do they, even though they have "access to the technology"?
Who's going to stop them? :shock:

You can shoot an ICBM or a submarine launched missile at Roland Garros and nobody will be able to stop you. :eek:
 

himynameisNIKE

Professional
Um...how many pros today use 90 sq. in. or smaller and 13.5 oz. and heavier racquets like almost all pros used to use? I never said anything about off-the-shelf racquets. That was YOUR assumption. The pros in the past didn't use off-the-shelf racquets. Even Connors added lead tape to his already extremely heavy steel T-2000. Borg's wood racquets were also heavier than stock retail frames. Don Budge used a 16 oz., 65 sq, in wood racquet with a bare wood handle (no grip at all) that was a size 5 1/4. Try hitting Nadal-like forehands with that thing for 4 hours and you'll really appreciate your big, light Babolat. Heck, even name just 10 other pros besides Federer that use a K90 or other 90 sq. in. racquet. I can easily name 10 pros that use 98-100 sq. in. Babolats.

looking back at this thread reminded me how much of an idiot you are. You obviously have very small understanding of tennis. your post count would also be significantly smaller if you learned to use the edit button instead of posting 3 or four times in a row :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
looking back at this thread reminded me how much of an idiot you are. You obviously have very small understanding of tennis. your post count would also be significantly smaller if you learned to use the edit button instead of posting 3 or four times in a row :)
Yet, I still know more about tennis in my little pinky than you do in your entire body. Hmmm...... :oops:
 

bugeyed

Semi-Pro
Yet, I still know more about tennis in my little pinky than you do in your entire body. Hmmm...... :oops:

Well, you haven't shown it in this thread!
I am not really sure what you point is. Are you saying that tennis players from the 70s & 80s were better athletes because they played well with heavy racquets? That modern players rely on topspin to compensate for their lack of athleticism? Ever seen Borg or Laver hit a ball. Or Rosewall's slice backhand? Spin has been a part of the game for quite a while.
As far as how much you know about tennis, well, maybe you do know a lot, but knowledge is not the same as wisdom. You apparently once loved the game, maybe it's time for you to find another hobby that you can enjoy.

Cheers,
kev
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Well, you haven't shown it in this thread!
I am not really sure what you point is. Are you saying that tennis players from the 70s & 80s were better athletes because they played well with heavy racquets? That modern players rely on topspin to compensate for their lack of athleticism? Ever seen Borg or Laver hit a ball. Or Rosewall's slice backhand? Spin has been a part of the game for quite a while.
As far as how much you know about tennis, well, maybe you do know a lot, but knowledge is not the same as wisdom. You apparently once loved the game, maybe it's time for you to find another hobby that you can enjoy.

Cheers,
kev
My point is simple. It's a lot harder to play tennis well with an ultra-heavy, tiny-headed, ultra-low-powered wood racquet strung with old strings than it is to play tennis well with a lighter, much bigger-headed, high-powered graphite racquet strung with modern strings.

That's really indisputable, don't you think? :)
 

bugeyed

Semi-Pro
My point is simple. It's a lot harder to play tennis well with an ultra-heavy, tiny-headed, ultra-low-powered wood racquet strung with old strings than it is to play tennis well with a lighter, much bigger-headed, high-powered graphite racquet strung with modern strings.

That's really indisputable, don't you think? :)

That's not what I read in what you have been saying. Your statements have implied that current pros could not play well with yesterdays racquets & that's not true. They would not play the style they do, but they could play. You also don't seem to include Fededer in that group of untalented modern players even though he plays with a graphite racquet that is much improved over the old flexible wood racquets you like. Again, I recommend that you find something that you can enjoy instead of beating your head against the hardcourt. The damage this is causing is quite obvious. :)
Life is too short to be unhappy.

Cheers,
kev
 

Clay lover

Legend
That's not what I read in what you have been saying. Your statements have implied that current pros could not play well with yesterdays racquets & that's not true. They would not play the style they do, but they could play. You also don't seem to include Fededer in that group of untalented modern players even though he plays with a graphite racquet that is much improved over the old flexible wood racquets you like. Again, I recommend that you find something that you can enjoy instead of beating your head against the hardcourt. The damage this is causing is quite obvious. :)
Life is too short to be unhappy.

Cheers,
kev

You should quit arguing with this guy, His whole mission on TW is to glorify the S&V, 1hbh game of the past and to bring down heavy top spinners like Nadal today. Every ounce of logic he claims he has serves no other purpose than to belittle the effectiveness of the 2hbh and the achievements of players who use "modern" racquets. The only person who is lucky enough to escape his irrational hate is Federer whom he believes has a similar game to the past greats, when we all know that their games aren't remotely close.

It's a pity cus he makes pretty good racquet reviews...
 

rallyguy

New User
Stosur

My guess would be that her game would be different than it is now but her hard work, technique, desire, etc. would translate into her winning in a different way than she does today. Talent finds a way to win based on the tools available in that era. The game for almost all players today would be different as well. That said I'd love to bring back wooden racquets for maybe a tourney a year, would be great fun. I'm the proud owner of over forty of the classics from the 60's, 70's and 80's.
 

Greg

Rookie
I think lots of the analogues presented in this thread are pretty flawed. Brass knuckles to a boxing match, bringing an assault rifle to a fencing match, whatever. These examples are not pertinent to tennis in any way, nor do they make sense on their own, but there's no need to get into this really.

What I will say is that I was also quick to blame the rackets for changing the game, but I don't think that's the case. I think it's funny that BreakPoint brought up Ivan Lendl, because, in my eyes, it's guys like Ivan Lendl who completely changed the game.

Ultimately it's the players that cause the game to change, and I feel that it's much more the players than it is the technology. I'd blame Chris Evert for the rise of the two-handed backhand. I'd blame Borg for modernizing the game, as he was probably the first prominent professional to have that whipping forehand that finished across his body, and lots of his game was really just ahead of his time. I'd blame Lendl for bringing the power baseline game into professional tennis, and for teaching players the incredible value of fitness. I'd blame guys like Sampras and Becker for showing that power can simply overwhelm strength and finesse. I'd blame Agassi for further solidifying the power baseline game, and for changing the way that people look at the return of serve. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Take this video for instance-

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

I get what BreakPoint is saying, that most people couldn't hit these wildly modern shots with the wooden rackets of yesterday. But you look at this video, and there's Ryan Cheung, and I'm just about positive that he hits his groundies the way that he does because of Rafael Nadal. The simple truth is that rackets allow players to take these ridiculous cuts at the ball, but modern rackets aren't to blame for where the game is at today. The blame lies with the tennis heroes of yesterday, as they've caused the game to evolve, and the rackets have simply had to follow suit.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Players change and adapt their games to the new technology, not the other way around. Back in the 70's, nobody knew what they could do with graphite racquets or the big Prince oversize racquet until they hit the market because nobody had used them before. You can't change your playing style based on technology or equipment that is not yet available. So it was the equipment that changed first, not the players.

And why did the equipment change? Simple. SALES. The manufactures knew that the easier they could make the game of tennis to play, the more equipment they could sell. The more that customers think new technology will make them play better tennis, the more they will buy of the new equipment and the more the manufactures will sell. All of the change in the way tennis is played has been driven by business and profits. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But it wasn't driven by people playing the sport. People played tennis for centuries with wood racquets and people were totally fine playing with them. Nobody had to change their games to adapt to the wood racquets because that's what everybody used. But once graphite racquets showed up, people had to adapt to them. It became a game of one-upping your competitors' equipment or basically an "arm's race", or be left behind. And just like with nuclear weapons, once you start an arms race, you can't stop it unless everyone agrees to stop it and throw away their weapons.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
I get the feeling that BreakPoint shakes his fist at teenagers who drive through his neighborhood too fast.
badgerworks-Geezer-crossing.jpg
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
It became a game of one-upping your competitors' equipment or basically an "arm's race", or be left behind. And just like with nuclear weapons, once you start an arms race, you can't stop it unless everyone agrees to stop it and throw away their weapons.
In that sense tennis is unique

In other sports a tech change will result in almost everybody adopting it at the same time (after a short period whereby once one or two athletes become successful with it) two good examples of recent (90s) innovations are swimsuits and the "clap" speed-skating shoes that were invented just to generate extra "tenth of seconds"

ricky-berens.jpg


080306klapschaats.jpg
 
I think lots of the analogues presented in this thread are pretty flawed. Brass knuckles to a boxing match, bringing an assault rifle to a fencing match, whatever. These examples are not pertinent to tennis in any way, nor do they make sense on their own, but there's no need to get into this really.

What I will say is that I was also quick to blame the rackets for changing the game, but I don't think that's the case. I think it's funny that BreakPoint brought up Ivan Lendl, because, in my eyes, it's guys like Ivan Lendl who completely changed the game.

Ultimately it's the players that cause the game to change, and I feel that it's much more the players than it is the technology. I'd blame Chris Evert for the rise of the two-handed backhand. I'd blame Borg for modernizing the game, as he was probably the first prominent professional to have that whipping forehand that finished across his body, and lots of his game was really just ahead of his time. I'd blame Lendl for bringing the power baseline game into professional tennis, and for teaching players the incredible value of fitness. I'd blame guys like Sampras and Becker for showing that power can simply overwhelm strength and finesse. I'd blame Agassi for further solidifying the power baseline game, and for changing the way that people look at the return of serve. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Take this video for instance-

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

I get what BreakPoint is saying, that most people couldn't hit these wildly modern shots with the wooden rackets of yesterday. But you look at this video, and there's Ryan Cheung, and I'm just about positive that he hits his groundies the way that he does because of Rafael Nadal. The simple truth is that rackets allow players to take these ridiculous cuts at the ball, but modern rackets aren't to blame for where the game is at today. The blame lies with the tennis heroes of yesterday, as they've caused the game to evolve, and the rackets have simply had to follow suit.

Total.rubbish

BP.hits.the.nail.on.the.head.and.its.throw.toys.out.of.the.cot.time.

everything.in.above.post.is.in.reverse...players.adapt.to.the.technology,
allthe.examples.you.gave.are.brilliant.examples.of.it/.
 
BreakPoint's arguments make no sense.

Stosur is a bit like a modern day Courier. Takes the ball early, hits with a lot of spin and has a great kicker. I'm sure she could play equally well with Courier's setup (PS85 with some sort of nylon).
The argument that the big-framed players are unable to play well with a woodie is also ridiculous and I'm speaking from personal experience here (16, plays with heavy spin from the baseline using a 98'' strung with poly and is still able to outhit people with the same spin using a heavy Maxply strung with ancient gut and considers the ancient Carbonex 8 to be the best racquet of all time)

People adapt, whether it's to something new or something old. The top 10 would look roughly the same should they all switch, there might be more finesse but remember that there were power hitters even in the old days, with Tilden being a prime example, and Rosewall with his sliced backhands which he could hit above 80 mph! (or so I've heard......) Personally I think BreakPoint should vent his opinions at people skateboarding on the sidewalk (not that they know anything about racquet technology)
 
Well I think some of his arguments are valid. new material did change the sport. of course anyone has access to the new material so no one has an edge, but new material can help certain player types and hurt others (serve and volley for example).

so there can be a slight shift in the required skillset although you still need to be able to play tennis of course:D.

to say new material has no influence on the game is ridiculous. howeve whether that's good or bad is another question.

very evident how material changes influence the skillset is the sport of ski jumping. there were several material rule changes and there was a slight shift in skill requirement every time. sometimes smaller jumpers would be the edge, sometimes taller, sometimes very light ones and sometimes very powerful ones.

just saying the best will prevail no matter what material is too simple.

of course most of the time this is right, but at the top the differences are very small and everyone can play good tennis.

so even small changes can have influences.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
Well I think some of his arguments are valid. new material did change the sport. of course anyone has access to the new material so no one has an edge, but new material can help certain player types and hurt others (serve and volley for example).

so there can be a slight shift in the required skillset although you still need to be able to play tennis of course:D.

to say new material has no influence on the game is ridiculous. howeve whether that's good or bad is another question.

very evident how material changes influence the skillset is the sport of ski jumping. there were several material rule changes and there was a slight shift in skill requirement every time. sometimes smaller jumpers would be the edge, sometimes taller, sometimes very light ones and sometimes very powerful ones.

just saying the best will prevail no matter what material is too simple.

of course most of the time this is right, but at the top the differences are very small and everyone can play good tennis.

so even small changes can have influences.

So Eddie the Eagle Edwards is now ready for the Olympics?
 

egn

Hall of Fame
To be subjective, the set up Stosur has does give her a slight advantage, but at the same time other players have her set up. Her set up would not be good for every player either. Serena Williams, Justine Henin etc. would probably not want a set up similar to hers as it would not suit their game styles, sure the two use spin, but not nearly as much as Stosur does, although the kick serve would be nice. Same goes on the men side, could you imagine Davydenko or Blake trying to use the same set up as Nadal. Their set up does seem to give them an advantage on clay as there is a reason 3 of the 4 finalist in Rolland Garros had that set up, but thats really the only place and again they do have their style of play which best suit the set up. I am sure Stosur would do fine with other technology, but the reason she uses the current is it fits her game the best. So yes it gives her an advantage, but only because she can fully utilize it. If it was that much of an advantage I am sure everyone would be using it right about now, however what is an advantage for some is going to be a disadvantage for others.
 
many of these arguments are drivel.

i play with a sw topspun forehand (like vitually everyone else I know) and I took a woodie out for a hit last night.

Guess what? I could play just fine with it. I got tired pretty fast, for sure, and it was a bit of a club at the net, but the only real effect on my groundstrokes was less power and penetration. They still spun, and they still went where I aimed them...

I'm not a great player, although admittedly I did learn to play with a woodie (on grass!), and the ease with which I hit the ball make assertions that 'modern groundstrokes would be impossible with a wooden racquet' and the like appear to be complete rubbish.

Would I switch back? Hell no. I LOVE my racquets, and the woodie was a bit like a vintage car, a bit of fun, but a reminder of how far we have come....
 
Last edited:

accidental

Hall of Fame
Doesnt Stosur actually use a fairly old racket? A pure control model from around 2001 or so? Im too lazy to read through all the pages of this thread so sorry if thats already been discussed
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
many of these arguments are drivel.

i play with a sw topspun forehand (like vitually everyone else I know) and I took a woodie out for a hit last night.

Guess what? I could play just fine with it. I got tired pretty fast, for sure, and it was a bit of a club at the net, but the only real effect on my groundstrokes was less power and penetration. They still spun, and they still went where I aimed them...

I'm not a great player, although admittedly I did learn to play with a woodie (on grass!), and the ease with which I hit the ball make assertions that 'modern groundstrokes would be impossible with a wooden racquet' and the like appear to be complete rubbish.

Would I switch back? Hell no. I LOVE my racquets, and the woodie was a bit like a vintage car, a bit of fun, but a reminder of how far we have come....


Haha I use a full western grip forehand and I did the same thing recently. I actually hit a fairly flat ball with my full western grip though most of the time.

I had an old Pro Kennex Golden Ace, one of the last wooden rackets, which had a largish head (85 maybe) and an open throat. I didnt really need to change my playing style at all, I usually use a PS6.0 95, but of course the wood frame was noticably less powerful. I didnt really get tired either since the frame was roughly the same weight as my prostaff and was much easier on the arm
 
oh, this thing was my dad's Slazenger Challenge and weighed a ton!

yeah, I guess my forehand was a bit flatter, but not massively so and I certainly had no trouble hitting the ball!
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Sneakers are not going to improve your footwork or movement by very much, if at all. However, no one disputes that a Babolat AeroPureDrive strung with full Luxilon allows a player to generate more spin than a wooden Wilson Jack Kramer Autograph strung with gut does.

So the type of shoes doesn't matter? I dare you to play tennis in fancy-dancy-shmancy shoes or lead sneakers and play at optimum performance.

There is a reason there are tennis sneakers and sneakers made for clay, grass, and HC
 

li0scc0

Hall of Fame
So the type of shoes doesn't matter? I dare you to play tennis in fancy-dancy-shmancy shoes or lead sneakers and play at optimum performance.

There is a reason there are tennis sneakers and sneakers made for clay, grass, and HC

Old-time shoes were much lighter than today's shoes. Less support, of course, but lighter.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
Old-time shoes were much lighter than today's shoes. Less support, of course, but lighter.

Wore out in 2-3 weeks with no warranty. Thank goodness Wilson used Goodyear rubber in their Pro Staffs and changed shoe wear for life.
 
actually, I just had a thought. Racquet head size is a bit like depth of water.

yer what?, I hear you ask?

Well, doesn't matter how deep the water is when you're swimming 'cos you're only using the top of it, ok?

So, the size of the racquet doesn't matter, particularly to the pros, as they are only using the sweet spot in the middle, anyway...

(this is about those people who insist that modern players couldn't play with old style racquets and other idiotic ideas of a similar ilk)

BreakPoint, no offense, but are the other 29 960 posts you have made this ridiculous?
 

John_Doe

Rookie
My point is simple. It's a lot harder to play tennis well with an ultra-heavy, tiny-headed, ultra-low-powered wood racquet strung with old strings than it is to play tennis well with a lighter, much bigger-headed, high-powered graphite racquet strung with modern strings.

That's really indisputable, don't you think? :)

And tennis would also never be allowed on any television channel, nobody would watch that. You would sacrifice the popularity of the sport for your own personal belief (which is obviously not shared by the vast majority of posters on this forum)?

And I highly doubt for a millisecond that any of the professional tennis players lack what you call "tennis talent." They train, work hard, get coaching, etc... That is a hard argument and bold statement for you to make.
 

tennisbyrd

New User
i think BP has lost sight of the original point of the post with all the analogies and arguments. all the pros have talent to be where they're at; they have the talent to play tennis at a high level.

BP, what is your point here?
 

morten

Hall of Fame
i think BP has lost sight of the original point of the post with all the analogies and arguments. all the pros have talent to be where they're at; they have the talent to play tennis at a high level.

BP, what is your point here?

All pros have talent, but i still think BP is right... The game is much "easier" to play now, but variety is gone and a lot of strokes has actually almost dissapeared IMO.. very sad..
 
actually, I just had a thought. Racquet head size is a bit like depth of water.

yer what?, I hear you ask?

Well, doesn't matter how deep the water is when you're swimming 'cos you're only using the top of it, ok?

So, the size of the racquet doesn't matter, particularly to the pros, as they are only using the sweet spot in the middle, anyway...

(this is about those people who insist that modern players couldn't play with old style racquets and other idiotic ideas of a similar ilk)

BreakPoint, no offense, but are the other 29 960 posts you have made this ridiculous?

Actually, your swimming analogy is not correct, viz: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/08/deeper-beijing-pool-responsible-for.html,
but I agree with your sentiments otherwise :)
 
in my defense, that was created with the aid of a quite nice bottle of Meadowbank Pinot Noir, and is therefore not necessarily a fit subject for rigorous examination.

However, your input is duly noted..
 

TennisMD

Professional
So you've seen Stosur play with a wood racquet and gut strings? Was she able to get the same amount of spin and kick on her serves and forehands?

Who cares, everybody has the same capabilities of using the same technology, so in the modern game, time wise that is where we are, if you use what is modern to a better skill set how can that be a flaw against you?
 

TennisMD

Professional
All pros have talent, but i still think BP is right... The game is much "easier" to play now, but variety is gone and a lot of strokes has actually almost dissapeared IMO.. very sad..

Actually easier is beneficial at the ameteur level and this is what drives the sport. You have to make the sport somewhat user friendly otherwise people loose interest quickly. On the pro level, now some new strokes are hin heavy spin, I have heard MacEnroe say to volley one of Nadal"s ground strokes is exceedingly difficult. He has also stated that Nadal has become one of the best volleyrs on tour( recently stated during Nadals last match) so so much for the Bab APD is a poor volleying stick, irregardless that Nadals layup may be different than stock it is not an 85 sq inch rkt.
So I am in the over 50 club as is MacEnroe and an appreciation for the modern game I possess.
 

TennisMD

Professional
That's the problem. Pro baseball forces everyone to use wood (and probably soon little league, high school, and college baseball, too), so why not tennis?

Tennis is supposed to be mano-a-mano, not equipment vs. equipment.

Part of this is a safety issue, extreme power that fielders especially at little league and highschool level cannot handle.
 

pmerk34

Legend
Actually easier is beneficial at the ameteur level and this is what drives the sport. You have to make the sport somewhat user friendly otherwise people loose interest quickly. On the pro level, now some new strokes are hin heavy spin, I have heard MacEnroe say to volley one of Nadal"s ground strokes is exceedingly difficult. He has also stated that Nadal has become one of the best volleyrs on tour( recently stated during Nadals last match) so so much for the Bab APD is a poor volleying stick, irregardless that Nadals layup may be different than stock it is not an 85 sq inch rkt.
So I am in the over 50 club as is MacEnroe and an appreciation for the modern game I possess.

Most of this board will never grasp that the shots that Mac, Edberg, and all the rest of the great volleyers of yesteryear were dealing with did not have the spin and pace of today's game. Jurgen Meltzer hits harder and with more spin than Ivan Lendl ever did. The combination of spin and pace makes volleys at the pro level a lot more difficult than years past.
 

woody88

Rookie
the dumbest thread ever. if it is all about technology, then all women on tour can hit like her. by the same token, if technology dominates, then everybody can hit like nadal. but why don't they? nadal is just some lucky schmoe then?

silly rabbit......
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Most of this board will never grasp that the shots that Mac, Edberg, and all the rest of the great volleyers of yesteryear were dealing with did not have the spin and pace of today's game. Jurgen Meltzer hits harder and with more spin than Ivan Lendl ever did. The combination of spin and pace makes volleys at the pro level a lot more difficult than years past.


Agreed, but I always think this point is taken too far in the direction of devaluing those great volleyers' skills (not that you are necessarily doing that).

Not many people during the aforementioned eras could volley like Mac and Edberg and Cash against even the top players in their eras like Lendl, Becker, Connors, Borg, etc. Volleying against top players may be harder today, but it was never exactly easy and it's not like just anybody could rush the net against Lendl or Connors (for example) and enjoy instant success. Even if it's more difficult today, it was difficult then too.

I often hear that these great volleyers would be toast today because of the consistent pace and the dipping nature of highly spinny strokes. But, I've rewatched a lot of McEnroe and especially Edberg matches and they took a lot of vollyey below the net, many down low. Not every volley was hit in no-doubt territory above the net. And, there were players who hit with considerable (if less than today) spin and dipped shots, and players who blasted the ball.

I'm not arguing with you're general point - today's volleyers, overall, have it much tougher and would find consistent success much harder to come by.

But, I still think volleying could and should be an important part of a player's arsenal and the downturn in volleyers' collective fortunes isn't due only to more consistent spin and pace coming off players' rackets. Also, as has been noted endlessly, the slow down in surfaces. Put Boris Becker or Sampras against a Nadal-type on slick grass or speedy indoor carpet and, and I'd think they'd do okay. yes, the Nadal-types would get more passing shots past them, get more good returns back, but I hardly think the balance would be so immutably shifted that Becker and Sampras could never win.

Also, I just don't think volleying as a gamestyle is really tought that much any more, so there are few elite volleyers. Clearly, every tennis player learns to volley (the actual stroke), but fewer really learn how to incorporate it into their game other than when hitting a huge approach followed by an easy knock-off volley or when forced into net against their will and having to make a deperation volley.

It's a skill that takes a while to develop and without repeated "reps" in the form of repeated trips to the net, a player will never develop into a great volleyer. Beyond the actual volley, a player has to learn and develop anticipation at the net, passing patterns of his opponents, lateral and forward movement at the net, percentages of where to lean on which approach shots.

But, no player does repeated "reps" any more in match play, thus volleying suffers. This is only exacerbated by junior tennis, where all players, naturally, want to be successful from an early age, and being an elite volleyer rally takes physical maturity. High-spin groundstrokes are the norm and a 5 foot tall 12-year old boy can more quickly develop those groundstrokes than an impressive volleying game. The 5-foot tall 12-year-old on the other side of the net who isn't even tall enough to have a good serve to set him up for volleying is going to usually lose the battle if he comes to net. So, everyone is sort of forced to play the same game, the same game we see on the ATP tour, at a much lower level, of course.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
My first thought after reading the title was:" I knew it, Sammy is a cyborg engineered by Aussies, than I saw who created this thread and It was a legend himself bp...
 
Top