Cheers for Federer

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:

quote:

One player who I think would really suffer with a wood racket would be Nadal. He is very dependent on heavy topspin in his game

The modern powerful racquet ruining the game, is one of those myths circulated by people who don't play and/or understand the game. The wooden racquet gives little power and is ideal for heavy topspin style.

Funny maybe coincidence then that all the smaller agile players were replaced by base line bashers with the new raquets then?

Squash as well started playing with tennis size raquets.

Not sure what happened in the badminton world.

Same thing happened in Table tennis, skilled pimple bat players were replaced by players from six or seven leagues lower because they had reversed pimple and sponge bats. There were a few left, who could still beaten them even with a plain piece of wood, but most of the "old school" players just retired, as many just could not come to terms with way the game had gone.

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:
The wooden racquet gives little power and is ideal for heavy topspin style.

As someone who started playing with wooden rackets in the 1970s and who has used modern frames for the past 20 years, I would agree that wooden rackets are much less powerful than those used these days. Their frames were heavier and less stiff than contemporary models, so it was simply not possible to generate as much racket head speed at the point of impact as it is now.

However, modern rackets also have a larger playing surface (95+ sq inches compared to 85) and a much larger sweet spot that is the result of the application of sophisticated engineering principles to optimize various aspects of the design of the frame (e.g. its shape and balance). That larger sweet spot has made it possible to take huge swings at the ball and thus generate much more topspin than was previously possible, while not having to worry so much about mishits or other errors.

The impact of modern strings is not to be underestimated either. Babolat (among others)has made something of a name for itself by developing strings that have been engineered to enable players to generate much greater spin than was possible with older string technlogy with, as mentioned above in relation to modern frames, less risk of error. It's no surprise that Roddick and Nadal are probably their (Babolat's) two most famous clients. Nadal in particular regularly hits powerful topspin winners from 6-8 feet behind the baseline while off balance or moving backward - something that would not be possible with a wooden racket, no matter how good the player.

The good old days, my racquet from 1980, which some guy went and wrote on...twice!

My first racket. I loved those Dunlop wood rackets. As someone who hits a one handed backhand I found the older rackets much more to my liking as the larger the racket head became the larger throat really bugged me for my left hand. I think the smaller throat gave those with a one handed backhand more control over the racket head. Always hated those Wilson's that McEnroe used.

I do agree that guys like Roddick would be nowhere without the power equipment. You watch the guy play and it is clear that he has no idea how to play a point. I can't believe he hired Connors and still refused to stand anywhere near the baseline. Here he's got the guy teaching him who was the best ever at standing on or just behind the baseline and taking the ball early and on the rise and here's Roddick still standing 8-10 feet behind. Connors also was the best at playing a well thoughout point. Connors is exactly what the guy needed to learn how to actually "PLAY" tennis if he had a shot tobe in the top 2-3 again and he learned nothing.

My first racquet was a wooden Slazenger (can't remember the model) given to me by a family friend in 1975. Unfortunately, I damaged (warped) it by playing in the rain a few months later and then got another Slazenger (again can't recall the model). During this time, I once tried a Dunlop (not the Maxply) but I found it a bit too heavy for me (I was only 12 at the time and I also hit my backhand one-handed).

By 1977, I was playing with an early Wilson metal racquet (similar to the T2000 popularized by Connors) and then switched in 1978-9 to a Head Professional (also metal), which I used for about 10 years and was really pleased with. The early metal rackets interested me due to their lighter weight - I was not very strong in my teens and always found wooden rackets a little too heavy for me.

Since then I've used composites, starting with the Dunlop Max 200G.

Well, he started yesterday and showed a champion shot in his first match when he returned a ball way out of his side of the court.

This is what McEnroe wrote about Federer in july 2004:
Now, I'm not suggesting for one moment that I believe Federer can surpass Sampras's extraordinary record haul of 14 Grand Slam titles, but I do think he is a more gifted player than the American and he certainly has it within his capability to go past me with my seven Slam successes.

I thinks it's time to give this one a little bump!

Looking forward to the championships finishing on a high note tomorrow... Just sat through the total boredom of watching the Williams's go through the motions.

Jehovah won, apparently.

Unbelievable!

Ironically, Roger knows all too well how Roddick feels, after last year.

It would only be right and just after that effort for Roddick to continue to play as he did the past two matches, and gain a Wimbleton title in the next few years.

That being said, I continue to admire Roger's game, his level of competing, and even more so, his grace in both victory and defeat.

Cheers for Federer.

I think that win was all down to stamina.

50 Aces!

Congrats to Roger, what a 5th set.

Both players. All that effort over the past year. All that concentration. All that training. All that investment. All boiled down and crystallized , after two sets each - followed by a tie-break in the longest ever set played at Wimbledon since the place was founded and in the end, won by one single simple return of shot error. Such a gossamer-thin thread between victory and defeat, such a micron-sized difference in physical and mental fitness deciding the outcome. Simply breathtaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Both players. All that effort over the past year. All that concentration. All that training. All that investment. All boiled down and crystallized , after two sets each - followed by a tie-break in the longest ever set played at Wimbledon since the place was founded and in the end, won by one single simple return of shot error. Such a gossamer-thin thread between victory and defeat, such a micron-sized difference in physical and mental fitness deciding the outcome. Simply breathtaking.

I agree. Andy Roddick deserves a lot of credit for the way he has broadened his game over the past year or two, particularly with his return game and his new-found ability to hit through his backhand and direct it down the line with penetration (there was a time when all he could do on that side was chip it cross court, particularly when under pressure). I take back all that I said about him earlier in this thread and look forward to more performances like this from him in the future. If he can maintain this level, he certainly deserves a couple of grand slam titles before he retires, and will likely have several opportunities to get them.