or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Wimbledon 2009
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wimbledon 2009 - Page 23

post #331 of 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
You find serve and volley more interesting than what it is now? Did you watch the final last year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx View Post
Though Sampras was a great champion, I didn't find watching him too interesting. Serve, volley point over. Even though this year's mens final was somewhat epic, it was more about the player's service game, and who would blink first and be broken. Last year's final was much more compelling to watch. I guess there is a fine line somewhere between how the game use to be played at Wimbledon and what it has become today. edit: I will add my favorite tournament is the French Open, I love watching the longer rallies on the slow red clay. So, that somewhat sways my opinion on what kind of tennis I enjoy watching.
Yeah I saw last year final, I almost cried when Federer lost it. Tough I really liked when he started to serve and volley every point (might be last year French Open actually). so much drama in this part of the final, it reminds me of the charge of light brigade or the kamikaze attacks during WWII. You know you are going to lose no matter what, but stil you give all you got and go forward and forward and... I really hate the spanish rallies like they typically do in RG. I live 5 kms away from the place, but I never go there, too afraid to sleep. On the other hand serve and volley is all about coordination, timing, visual sharpness, taking risks, touché... It's almost like a ballet. I used to worship guys like Rafter, Edberg and Federer at the beginning of his career was really good in this field. Finally I find that it's really sad that we get to see the same kind of play no matter the surface involved. What's the point of keeping such a short grass season, if it's going to be pretty like what we get on clay? The other consequence is nobody takes the risk anymore to volley and the players' style are less diverse than back in the days.
post #332 of 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canal Directo View Post
Finally I find that it's really sad that we get to see the same kind of play no matter the surface incolced. What's the point of keeping such a short grass season, if it's going to be pretty like what we get on clay?
This is definitely a good point.
post #333 of 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canal Directo View Post
Yeah I saw last year final, I almost cried when Federer lost it. Tough I really liked when he started to serve and volley every point (might be last year French Open actually). so much drama in this part of the final, it reminds me of the charge of light brigade or the kamikaze attacks during WWII. You know you are going to lose no matter what, but stil you give all you got and go forward and forward and...

I really hate the spanish rallies like they typically do in RG. I live 5 kms away from the place, but I never go there, too afraid to sleep. On the other hand serve and volley is all about coordination, timing, visual sharpness, taking risks, touché... It's almost like a ballet. I used to worship guys like Rafter, Edberg and Federer at the beginning of his career was really good in this field.

Finally I find that it's really sad that we get to see the same kind of play no matter the surface incolced. What's the point of keeping such a short grass season, if it's going to be pretty like what we get on clay? The other consequence is nobody takes the risk anymore to volley and the players' style are less diverse that back in the days.

When I was growing up my favorite player was Guillermo Vilas. I modeled my game to be similar to his, and I'm still a baseliner who rarely comes into the net. I didn't care for guys like McEnroe, Edberg and Rafter back then, but now looking back I appreciate their game more.
post #334 of 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canal Directo View Post
The other consequence is nobody takes the risk anymore to volley and the players' style are less diverse than back in the days.

This is true. Yet some players still serve and volley; they just mix it in
and use it as an adjustment rather than the backbone of their game. Roddick's a good example at this year's Wimbledon, coming to net often (much more than usual) as a strategy against Murray and sometimes Fed.

I think we might start seeing more serve and volley in the next 12 months as some baseliners, finally realizing they can't beat the better baseliners from the baseline, start occasionally coming to net off serve. It will obviously never be the classic serve and volley game again-no matter what surface. But if these guys can develop it as a weapon, and show it every few points as a possibility, it will pressure the game's better returners and keep them on their toes (as it stands now, guys like murray can safely chip returns with the comfort of knowing his opponent won't be at net.) I feel like this is starting to happen already, and as some players use it with success, others are likely follow.
post #335 of 371
Yeah, the courts are homogenized more than ever. People used to think Wimbledon was boring because a point would begin and end with a serve, or the point was two strokes long (a serve then a volley to the open court). People seem to enjoy the longer rallies, and thus slowing of the faster surfaces made sense to make tennis more appealing. When the grass was faster, you hardly see guys who play like Nadal make it past the 2nd round. In fact, many of those guys didn't even bother showing up to the tournament and were clay court specialists. Now pure baseliners and claycourt style players are making it into the second week. When Federer beat Sampras in 01' Wimbledon, he serve volleyed on a majority of the points. Now he is more of a baseliner but still has the best all court ability out of all the current players.
post #336 of 371
Thread Starter 
Could you imagine if Federer played back in the day of Laver when 3 out of 4 majors were played on (fast) grass? He would've cleaned up.
post #337 of 371
Maybe, but he would be using an old school wooden racquet too, so his shots would not be as fast and powerful off the strings. I think he'd do well though, he can place that ball where ever he likes.
post #338 of 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachy View Post
Maybe, but he would be using an old school wooden racquet too, so his shots would not be as fast and powerful off the strings. I think he'd do well though, he can place that ball where ever he likes.

Yea, but like everyone else on tour at that point, he'd be used to that.
post #339 of 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachy View Post
Maybe, but he would be using an old school wooden racquet too, so his shots would not be as fast and powerful off the strings. I think he'd do well though, he can place that ball where ever he likes.

having held and strung Federer's racquet, it is likely the least technologically advanced racquet used by any player on the tour. it is essentially the Pro Staff 6.0 that wilson has been making for about 30 years and imparts very little power or pace into the shots. i mean it is definitely more forgiving than a wood racquet, but not by leaps and bounds.

the strings that Federer uses, and the strings that most guys on tour now use, probably play a larger role in contributing to his ability to pull of some of the shots that he does than his racquet (sorry awkward wording).

tennis is like any sport, the reason the modern day player's are so much better than the player's from past, is the fact that they are much better athletes.
post #340 of 371
Oh yeah, by racquet, I meant the whole thing, strings etc. And I didn't mean to imply that Fed still wouldn't be better. Modern day athletes are better across the board in all sports, than they were even 10 years ago. A lot of it is to do with training and the knowledge of nutrition, the study of the game, but with some players, like Federer, it's just natural ability.
post #341 of 371
One thing that translates well for Federer, regardless of racquet technologies, is his anticipation, court sense and movement. If you stop watching the ball and watch Federer move, his footwork is absolutely genius. Always balanced and efficient, he doesn't take more steps than he needs to and does not expel too much energy. He can also change strategies on the fly and can always make players play their worse tennis (save for Nadal on clay). He would be awesome in any era.
post #342 of 371
That's pretty sweet.
post #343 of 371
Thread Starter 
Laver vs. Roche

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.       I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.
post #344 of 371
Federer uses the stock K-90 with modifications (weight, grip, etc)
post #345 of 371
I'm surprised how hard they are hitting in Laver vs. Roche. I thought it would be slow with the wood racquet's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Wimbledon 2009