Time machine

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:09 pm

During the exiting final of Queens i was wondering what would happen if we send the current top 50 back in time 30 years.
So what would the top 10 ranking be if tennis was played with smaller and heavier rackets and balls?

I’d say the top 4 would survive. Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils are out, simply not handy enough. Sod had very good results on indoor courts, knows how to play under fast conditions but i chose Delpo instead.
Fish is an interesting one, i’ve seen him play live and was impressed with how clean the guy can hit a ball. He looks heavy on the screen but in real live appears to be a very decent player. But he just didn't made it..
I would say some single handed BH’ers would be more succesful and of course the attacking ones.
A big server has to be on my list too.

And now the difficult part, the ranking. BTW: I’m not judging upon the current form, just the bigger picture. My principles: Serve and netplay become more important, fitness and the importance of the DHBH: the opposite

10. Andy Roddick, how to break his serve under those conditions? He’s a top 10 player for 8 years now, so 30 years ago he would he would be one too

9. Youznhy. The guy wasn’t made for these times but would have been very competitive back then. His lack of power wouldn’t have been such a big deal. And i want an extra SHBH on the list.

8. Delpo, Probably the most talented of todays big hitters. Just recall the US open 2009 final and it’s hard to ignore him.

7. Tsonga. 2 words: Yannick Noah

6. Nadal. Week in week out playing on courts like Bercy or Cincy, AND faster balls? Ouch! But hey, there still would be clay and that’s where he would secure his top 10 position

5. Gasquet. See Youznhy, even more talented though. Plenty of room for artists early 80’s

4. Djoko. Two words: Jimmy Conners (don’t worry, i like Djoko much more than Jimbo!)

3. Murray. Under those conditions i rank him higher than Djoko: softer hands! His passive FH wouldn’t have been such a weakness. Even Borg was “placing” the ball with his FH like Andy does so often.

2. Nalbandian. The grinding got the better of his hips, wouldn’t have happened back then. Would have loved the carpet. Proved he can be too fast for my no.1 too on several occasions.

1. Federer. Remove Nadals FH crosscourt, what could have stopped Federer from winning 20 slams?

I know Davydenko should be on the list, but i don’t want to sacrifice Youznhy Wink

Remember, pick your players from todays top 50. This is not meant to be a Nadal-Borg debate.

by socal1976 Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:21 pm

Interesting topic gallery play, I think the players that play a more volley based game would fair better. The power baseliners most of the tour would probably not fair that well.

Here is my top ten:

1. Roger: love to see Rog play with a wooden racquet he practically plays with one right now
2. Tsonga: his serve would be real hard to return with a wooden racquet even if he doesn't hit it as hard and has great feel at net
3. Rafa: the guy would find away to win
4. Murray: great feel at net but better not try to play 10 feet behind the baseline
5. LLodra: Lefty great volleys
6. Lopez: same
7. Djokovic: takes the ball early and goes up the lines well
8. Gasquet: great feal at net, good one hander
9.Radek Stepanek: great volleyer
10. youzhny: single hander good volleyer

Of course we don't know how these players would adjust to the small wooden racquet.

by yummymummy Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Del Potro
Almagro ( Whistle

) Clay was an anathema back then
Nadal (of course)
Lopez ( heart

) Just for a glimpse of those thighs (faints)
Murray for his incredible tennis brain .
Federer was too busy having tantrums Whistle

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:50 pm

Good post GP......But I will differ on this occasion.

Heavy racquets with small frames means slow conditions. Be it grass or clay, double care was needed to hit the ball and placement was more important than pace. That means the difference in surfaces pace is not as relevant. This is why back then the FO/Wimbledon double was not so special. A good feat but Borg and many before him did it. It is the graphite, larger frames that made grass and clay play very differently and allowed for 2 different types of styles to thrive on those surfaces.

Now McEnroe had the genius to beat a guy like Borg with a small frame on grass and USO but he was the exception, certainly not the norm. Now considering that Nadal runs twice as fast as Borg and would do so tiring less than anybody else, I woudl not want to have to hit through the Spaniard with a small frame.

Sure Nadal's topspin would be entirely toothless but he himself would be able to retrieve any ball and we would have endless rallies where only the fittest would stand at the end. And we know who that is.
On clay Nadal would have been even more impossible to beat. On faster surfaces, certainly more open but not much more...though Murray and Djoko would probably have the better ofNadal as they can stay wih him physically nowadays.

So where do I put Federer? well while I started writing this I was going to put him 4th but suddenly it occured to me that he is actually currently playing with the smaller frame and even have natural gut on half his strings...so surely the conditions would not be as different for him as it is for the others.....

Still a big ask to shake Nadal off with a small frame, but Federer may after all have the genius to do it. Pretty open ....Let me think about it a bit more..... Wink

by socal1976 Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:00 pm

Tenez, Fed plays with a luxilon natural gut mix, actually the only player of the top guys that plays with all natural gut is surprisingly Rafa Nadal. Djoko, Nadal, and Fed all mix gut with luxilon. Nadal generates all that spin with no luxilon, scary isn't it.

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:13 pm

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, Fed plays with a luxilon natural gut mix, actually the only player of the top guys that plays with all natural gut is surprisingly Rafa Nadal. Djoko, Nadal, and Fed all mix gut with luxilon. Nadal generates all that spin with no luxilon, scary isn't it.

You are wrong I am afraid! Nadal plays"officially" with RPM black code, a polyester. You coudl not generate half as much spin with 100% natural gut! Trust me!

by socal1976 Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:18 pm

Not what i have heard, several times they have mentioned it on the US broadcast that he doesn't play with luxilon strings. Maybe he doesn't play with all natural gut, but he doesn't use the extra spin from the luxilons.

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:32 pm

Socal...One day, you'll learn that I am always right! Wink

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:32 pm

socal1976 wrote:Interesting topic gallery play, I think the players that play a more volley based game would fair better. The power baseliners most of the tour would probably not fair that well.

Here is my top ten:

1. Roger: love to see Rog play with a wooden racquet he practically plays with one right now
2. Tsonga: his serve would be real hard to return with a wooden racquet even if he doesn't hit it as hard and has great feel at net
3. Rafa: the guy would find away to win
4. Murray: great feel at net but better not try to play 10 feet behind the baseline
5. LLodra: Lefty great volleys
6. Lopez: same
7. Djokovic: takes the ball early and goes up the lines well
8. Gasquet: great feal at net, good one hander
9.Radek Stepanek: great volleyer
10. youzhny: single hander good volleyer

Of course we don't know how these players would adjust to the small wooden racquet.

Good call on Llodra. Although i'm not sure his S&V game puts him automatically in the top 10. I'm not sure what the real ranking was thirty years ago but i doubt it was dominated by S&V'ers. (Vilas, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Conners, Borg to name a few non S&V'ers)

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:35 pm

Tenez wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Tenez, Fed plays with a luxilon natural gut mix, actually the only player of the top guys that plays with all natural gut is surprisingly Rafa Nadal. Djoko, Nadal, and Fed all mix gut with luxilon. Nadal generates all that spin with no luxilon, scary isn't it.

You are wrong I am afraid! Nadal plays"officially" with RPM black code, a polyester. You coudl not generate half as much spin with 100% natural gut! Trust me!

socal, Tenez is right. I have a Babolat Aeropro Drive Cortex and I use the strings he does and that is the strings he uses. No natural gut. His rackets wouldn't last long enough if he did.

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:38 pm

Tenez wrote:
Still a big ask to shake Nadal off with a small frame, but Federer may after all have the genius to do it. Pretty open ....Let me think about it a bit more.....

But not too much thinking T, my list is written spontaneously anyway

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:39 pm

Federer has a 90sq inch headsize on his racket.

Nadal has a 98sq inch headsize on his racket.

I think that is why I am amazed Federer has the control he does on a smaller racket.

by yummymummy Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:42 pm

Thank God it's not their head sizes

:run2: :run2:

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:43 pm

yummy :run1:

by yummymummy Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:46 pm

Soz !!!!

:run1: :run1:

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:49 pm

The thinking won't take us very far anyway. But as you noted, and for the reasons mentioned, there wasn't much SVing back then.
Just endless rallies with Borg, Vilas, Clerc and young lendl.
Nastase, Gueru, Armitrage and many others had a beautiful touch but none could put the ball past Borg...So I can;t see how to do it versus Nadal. If you look at the kind of balls he brings back nowaday despite being hit with today power. I find it hard to see him being shaken off.

The large racquets allowed for SVig to thrive again....until guys like Chang and then Hewitt pushed the physical bar higher.

Remember Chang wnning his 5 first encounters v Sampras...including on carpet?!?!

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:51 pm

legendkillar wrote:Federer has a 90sq inch headsize on his racket.

Nadal has a 98sq inch headsize on his racket.

I think that is why I am amazed Federer has the control he does on a smaller racket.

And Fed beat Sampras on Sampras' garden with Sampras' 85sqin racquet! That's genius!

by yummymummy Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:52 pm

And the Cramps Tenez - I remember him at one tourney
(I think it was in America) where he could hardly move !

Poor Lad

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:58 pm

Tenez wrote:
Sure Nadal's topspin would be entirely toothless but he himself would be able to retrieve any ball and we would have endless rallies where only the fittest would stand at the end. And we know who that is.

As long he defends, no problem. It's the counterpunch which makes him so deadly. The attacker can't afford to hit one less lethal shot, because that brings Nadal back in the rally in no time. Rafa's swings his racket so fast, that there's always the possibility for Rafa to take over. Imo his shoulder would not have been able to swing that fast (and so long) with those rackets.

BTW: I'm not sure who it was but didn't a big server of recent times produced easily 140 m/ph serves with a wooden racket?

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

gallery play wrote:As long he defends, no problem. It's the counterpunch which makes him so deadly. The attacker can't afford to hit one less lethal shot, because that brings Nadal back in the rally in no time. Rafa's swings his racket so fast, that there's always the possibility for Rafa to take over. Imo his shoulder would not have been able to swing that fast (and so long) with those rackets.

Fairly good point!

Though with PRP treatment, his shoulder woudl have stuck fine like his knees. I am pretty sure he woudl have found a way to get some spin and powerful balls but surely, not much more than anyone else. It's today's technology and fitness regime that has allowed his type of game to be successful again.

Imagine with faster conds at Wimbledon, Nadal would have lost to Querrey in 2006, then Youshny in 2007 and his experience on grass would have been cut short a few times, taking the confidence away aswell. It's amazing what conds do.

Look at Sampras 14 GS...0 on clay!...not even a final!

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:23 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Federer has a 90sq inch headsize on his racket.

Nadal has a 98sq inch headsize on his racket.

I think that is why I am amazed Federer has the control he does on a smaller racket.

And Fed beat Sampras on Sampras' garden with Sampras' 85sqin racquet! That's genius!

That is genius. A friend of mine plays with 90sq inch racket head and it when it hits out of the middle it is a beast.

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:29 pm

A friend of mine plays with 90sq inch racket head and it when it hits out of the middle it is a beast..
---------------------------

I used to...until my elbow gave in...

You certainly have more precision with smaller frames. And having a 37kg tension lik Sampras had made his serve extremely accurate...though a touch less powerful than others but on second serve that was key, especially on those tense tiebreaks moments.

He certainly was an extremely gutsy, menatlly strong player...but also helped by a relatively mental poor opposition.

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:33 pm

I have tried to use a small headsize racket and I keep getting strokes off the frame!

Sampras had the field defeated mentally. Maybe Agassi was the closest, but he has admitted in his book it had a mental thing that he found it hard to beat Pete and that he accepted each defeat that Pete deserved it.

I think when Safin defeated him at the US Open in 2000 signalled the end of his dominance, followed by the Wimbledon 2001 defeat to a certain Roger Federer.

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:44 pm

But let's stick to 1981 for a moment, it makes sense if you say that if the fittest of 1981 couldn't hardly be beaten, the same thing can be said about the fittest player of recent times.
But imo Nadal effectiveness depends much more the amount of spin he's able to put on the ball, more than ever was the case for Borg. Mind you: Borg did win 22 titles on carpet!
However, i was a young fellow in Borg's heydays, you know Borg better than me T

Lists guys, i want to see the lists
Wink

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:46 pm

Ok gp I will provide a list Smile

by legendkillar Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:05 pm

Here is my list

10 - Michael Llodra - I think his game is very suited to this era. Looking back at past match with Borg at Wimbledon in 1977 and the game is like the doubles game of today. Would be hard to pass at the net.

9 - Xavier Malisse - Hits a heavy shot. I think with heavier racket and heavier balls would make it difficult for any player to out hit him.

8 - Richard Gaquet - Using single handed shots and would be at ease in this era. Sublime backhand and forehand. Equipped with his footwork would make it difficult for anyone to beat him on the baseline.

7 - Gilles Simon - Always loved his game and I think with heavier balls he would certainly hit more winners. Physically perfect for this era.

6 - Mardy Fish - I picked him over Roddick because he has a better net game. Would be able to rally from the baseline and would pick up cheap points on the serve.

5 - Juan Martin Del Potro - Amazing power he can generate from his forehand alone, all wrist. Would struggle on grass due to speed of the courts, but would do fine on clay

4 - Rafael Nadal - I think his retrieval skills would be enough to keep in the top 10 and he would be a danger on grass. I think only his play at the net would be his undoing.

3 - Andy Murray - I think what stops him being ahead of Djokovic is the serve and consistency. In other departments he matches up to Djokovic, apart from the drop shot.

2 - Novak Djokovic. Has a great forehand and backhand. Would be quick on the courts and also has the mental strength to back it up. Would be a demon at the net with his speed and his dropshot would be disguised brillitantly.

1- Roger Federer - He uses a smaller racket which puts him ahead of the field already. Would have the elegance to hit even hard winners with a heavier ball. Would be at home in any era I feel.

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:01 pm

Tenez wrote: And Fed beat Sampras on Sampras' garden with Sampras' 85sqin racquet! That's genius!

Actually, that's not correct - 90sq vs 85sq.
Genius may also be defined as how did Sampras win 14 slams with a racquet that size and a string tension of 85lbs.

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:06 pm

Lopez
Stepanek
Roddick
Dr Ivo
Luber
Nalbandian
Murray
Djokovic
Nadal
Federer

by Chazfazzer Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:08 pm

85lbs?! Jesus, I string my racquet at 58...

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:15 pm

Indeed Chaz...that completely takes any power out of the racquet at that tension and yet he could blast serves and forehands.

This is what Pete's stringer once said:

"What Pete likes is the level of control that he gets because the racquet responds predictably. He doesn't have any doubt in the back of his mind, that is created when a player switches racquets. He has never said, "That shot would have been in with my old racquet." The most important thing that the Wilson Pro Staff 85 gives Pete is control. I custom "build" his racquet to take as much of the power out of the racquet as possible. It is a stiff racquet, has a very small head size, weighs nearly 400 grams/14 ounces and is strung with gut at around 85 lbs. He adds the power. I make the paddle, Pete gives the spanking. He whips that "log" of a racquet around like a swizzle-stick. Only he has the strength to crack serves in the high 130's with a racquet that most guys couldn't even get around. "

Can you imagine giving him a modern racquet and strings, with lower tension?

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:16 pm

lydian wrote:
Tenez wrote: And Fed beat Sampras on Sampras' garden with Sampras' 85sqin racquet! That's genius!

Actually, that's not correct - 90sq vs 85sq.
Genius may also be defined as how did Sampras win 14 slams with a racquet that size and a string tension of 85lbs.

Well sorry but again I am the one who is correct. Federer adopted teh 90sq inch version in .............2002!

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:20 pm

lydian wrote:Genius may also be defined as how did Sampras win 14 slams with a racquet that size and a string tension of 85lbs.

Well maybe he would have won less slams with a lower tension. As explained, it's this higher tension that gave him the consistency on his serve.

by Simple_Analyst Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:21 pm

It's all speculation and there is no way any one could foresee how current players will do 30 years ago. Great players always find a way to win regardless of time and changes in conditions. I really can't see how Gusquet makes someones top 5 list. When will people get the fact that talent is not hitting pretty shots?

by **laverfan** Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:24 pm

Pancho
Laver
Federer
Borg
McEnroe
Sampras
Rafter
Rosewall
Emerson
Connors

thumbsup

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:27 pm

lol...."again". Yes you're always right Tenez, we all know that.
I thought Federer changed his racquet around 2000 but nonetheless.

Seen as you talk about genuis with that racquet perhaps you'll be interested that he said this about the 85sqin..."I already had the idea that when I played with the Sampras racket, you know the 85sqin, I told them that the 85sqin for me is just too small. I need the bigger head because I’m shanking too many balls. I asked them if they couldn’t do a 90sqin but in the same kind of model. I eventually convinced them to do it (nCode) and it sold very well. And then the [K]Factor racket came out.”

You refer to genius with the 85sqin racquet which Federer didnt win a slam with and self-admittedly shanked alot with - yet Sampras was able to time the ball off it to win 14 slams. I presume that would say something about the genius of Sampras?

by **laverfan** Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:30 pm

Tenez wrote:
lydian wrote:
Tenez wrote: And Fed beat Sampras on Sampras' garden with Sampras' 85sqin racquet! That's genius!

Actually, that's not correct - 90sq vs 85sq.
Genius may also be defined as how did Sampras win 14 slams with a racquet that size and a string tension of 85lbs.

Well sorry but again I am the one who is correct. Federer adopted teh 90sq inch version in .............2002!

Fed did beat Sampras with an 85sqin, but switched to the 90sqin afterwards.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=659&zoneid=9

PS: Surprising that Courier also used an 85sqin.

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:35 pm

But imo Nadal effectiveness depends much more the amount of spin he's able to put on the ball, more than ever was the case for Borg

Nadal would have found a way to send a deep and consitent ball. Not a spinny one ofcourse but one difficult to attack with a small frame....exactly like Borg. Borg's shot were dep and heavy, for the time anyway..and he did manage to play topspin BH and FH.

But you may have convinced me as the more I think of it, the more Federer woudl probably have had the better of it cause his racquet and style woudl be less affected than Nadal's.

The real question mark however is today's fitness . But if McEnroe got the better of Borg, Federer, at least as talented but much more dedicated could have had the better of Nadal.

My list?
on HC:
Tsonga
Kholshriber
Petchner
Gasquet
Monfils (really impossible to shake off...especially since he does it wihout Nadal's topspin)
Nalbandian
Murray
Nadal
Djoko
Federer
But frankly I am not convinced by my list nor any I have seen so far.

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:38 pm

lydian wrote:lol...."again". Yes you're always right Tenez, we all know that.
I thought Federer changed his racquet around 2000 but nonetheless.

Seen as you talk about genuis with that racquet perhaps you'll be interested that he said this about the 85sqin..."I already had the idea that when I played with the Sampras racket, you know the 85sqin, I told them that the 85sqin for me is just too small. I need the bigger head because I’m shanking too many balls. I asked them if they couldn’t do a 90sqin but in the same kind of model. I eventually convinced them to do it (nCode) and it sold very well. And then the [K]Factor racket came out.”

You refer to genius with the 85sqin racquet which Federer didnt win a slam with and self-admittedly shanked alot with - yet Sampras was able to time the ball off it to win 14 slams. I presume that would say something about the genius of Sampras?

The game was also changing rapidly at that time and Luxilon was starting to make the balls difficult to control with a 85inch racquet. 90 now is easily the equivalent of 85 then.

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:52 pm

Tenez wrote: The real question mark however is today's fitness . But if McEnroe got the better of Borg, Federer, at least as talented but much more dedicated could have had the better of Nadal

Who cares about who was theoretically more talented. Its about what they actually achieve in the game.
Wilander won as many slams as McEnroe and across all 3 surfaces. He dedicated himself to the sport, McEnroe's application was lazier. Maybe McEnroe could have won 13 slams had he dedicated himself - but he didnt. He won 7, less than many others in the game.

So shouldnt we define talent as those players who are able to extract the absolute 100% out of their skills and apply them?
Why should we revere players who cant be bothered to dedicate themselves fully versus those who did/do?
Seems a weird logic of assessment to me. We could all say - oh, what if so and so was able to do did, or do that. Its the argument of never-never land. Its what they actually did that counts.

Oh, and fancy fitness coming up again - care to point us to where or how Federer has been consistently less fit or strong vs Nadal?

by Tenez Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:05 pm

lydian wrote:shouldnt we define talent as those players who are able to extract the absolute 100% out of their skills and apply them?

Very simply cause as explained so many times playing conditions make a big difference between having or not having talent, whether you are dedicated or not.

Fast grass never saw Wilander past the 1/4f while McEnroe won 3 titles. Why? cause the on faster conds, talent can deal with the more physical players.

by **laverfan** Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:20 pm

Talent should include physical prowess as well.

Vilas's 'talent' was a sum of Tennis skills and his physical prowess. Muster?

For example Usain Bolt's times are absolute clock times. Does the evolution of the track surface determine talent? Think of the Kenyans, Morrocans and Ethipoians who train on natural surfaces but can run on others due to their 'talent'.

by Tom_____ Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:22 pm

Isn't Nadal was using a co-polyester string? he switched from 100% poly in 2010.

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:25 pm

Tenez wrote:Very simply cause as explained so many times playing conditions make a big difference between having or not having talent, whether you are dedicated or not.

Fast grass never saw Wilander past the 1/4f while McEnroe won 3 titles. Why? cause the on faster conds, talent can deal with the more physical players.

Who cares about fast grass - why are fast surfaces the be all and end all? Hello - the whole year isnt played on fast grass. Never was.
Tennis is as much a clay sport as a grass sport, what about McEnroe on clay where Wilander won the FO 3 times...where was McEnroe's talent then?

The true talent in tennis is winning matches! Across all surfaces...Wilander won slams on the 3 different surfaces, more than McEnroe ever could. Yet you have us believe that McEnroe is to be revered as much uber-talent because he was good on faster surfaces. That holds no more argument than those who are good on slower surfaces. One doesnt have priority over the other.

So your first sentence about "playing conditions make a big difference between having or not having talent" means that Wilander had more talent than McEnroe because he could win on that playing condition called clay.

You cant have it both ways Tenez

by Simple_Analyst Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:37 pm

I agree with Lydian. It seems to me Federer fans have been clinging on to the fast surface theories for too long. Who determines what surface is the best to judge a player. There is no rule which says winning on fast surface means more talent.

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:42 pm

lydian wrote:
So shouldnt we define talent as those players who are able to extract the absolute 100% out of their skills and apply them?
Why should we revere players who cant be bothered to dedicate themselves fully versus those who did/do?
Seems a weird logic of assessment to me. We could all say - oh, what if so and so was able to do did, or do that. Its the argument of never-never land. Its what they actually did that counts.

It's not easy being a genius. Wink

by **laverfan** Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:45 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:It seems to me Federer fans have been clinging on to the fast surface theories for too long.

Where have I heard this tone before, I wonder? Whistle

by gallery play Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:57 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote: There is no rule which says winning on fast surface means more talent.

You know what clubs do when they play against FC Barcelona? Longer grass. Moreover: Hard rain, wind, snow, hail, anything.. all will be welcome. The less true the conditions become, the better chance the "mortals" will have.

It obviously takes more skill to hit a fast traveling ball than a slow one

by Tom_____ Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:09 pm

Tenez wrote:
lydian wrote:shouldnt we define talent as those players who are able to extract the absolute 100% out of their skills and apply them?

Very simply cause as explained so many times playing conditions make a big difference between having or not having talent, whether you are dedicated or not.

Fast grass never saw Wilander past the 1/4f while McEnroe won 3 titles. Why? cause the on faster conds, talent can deal with the more physical players.

So the massive power serves that dominated the latter stages of fast grass wimbledon in the 90s was 'talent' dealing with physicality?

hmmm....... Erm

Do you realise there a glaring counter argument to all this talent vs. physicality jibber, in that to hit a clean winner or service winner, you rely not only on timing, but also on an element of power and hence physicality to hit a skilfully placed shot; Whereas to out manoeuvre a player strategically, you are using 'talent' of thought to 'physically' outplay someone by choosing when to play certain shots.

It is physicality (as you put it) packaged two different ways. Tennis is perhaps one of the few sports where there are multiple ways to approach a game - all require physicality, all require talent. The true beauty of tennis is how different game styles utilise these two elements in different ways, adapted to an individuals strengths

I don't think any of today top players fit exactly into a model game style, but

Take serve volley for instance.

Talent wise i'd say you needed great flick reactions and touch
However physically you needed great speed in running forward, a powerful serve helped and you needed agility at the net - this is all physicality and is required by your natural talent to deliver on your natural aptitude

- but did you need a talent of particularly complex game plan, physical ultra stamina, lateral speed, or the talent of depth of thought for the opponents game or were you simply trying to end points quickly and shortcut your way out of rallies?

Baseline play.
talent wise you needed an instinctive understanding of how a rally is structured and how to exploit it, anticipation of your opponents shots/tactics and the ability to 'focus' on repetition of hitting balls in courts with depth to similar positions. For me being able for focus for long periods is a natural talent that many people lack.
Physically you need lateral speed, an element of powerful strokes, and the stamina to hit several balls as required by your natural aptitude

-but do you need talent for flick reactions, deft touch or a physicality for a massive power serve?

by lydian Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:10 pm

gallery play wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote: There is no rule which says winning on fast surface means more talent.

You know what clubs do when they play against FC Barcelona? Longer grass. Moreover: Hard rain, wind, snow, hail, anything.. all will be welcome. The less true the conditions become, the better chance the "mortals" will have.

It obviously takes more skill to hit a fast traveling ball than a slow one

You know what players do when they face Nadal? They wish they could play on faster surfaces where they didnt get moved around as much in a game of chess, where their technical weaknesses were not exposed and where they can go for the big winner to get the point over quickly before they mis-time the ball.

It obviously takes more skill to win a game of chess on clay than win a game with 4 aces on a fast surface that reward one-dimensional players but not the actual ability to outsmart opponents.

by Simple_Analyst Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:11 pm

gallery play wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote: There is no rule which says winning on fast surface means more talent.

You know what clubs do when they play against FC Barcelona? Longer grass. Moreover: Hard rain, wind, snow, hail, anything.. all will be welcome. The less true the conditions become, the better chance the "mortals" will have.

It obviously takes more skill to hit a fast traveling ball than a slow one

by Sponsored content