1994: Rafter vs Lendl

[don_budge]

The Great John McEnroe and The Great Roger Federer...

Maybe horrible was the wrong word. Definitely very effective, but certainly not stylish. Just not aesthetically pleasing, at least not to me. Compare his game to Federer's stylish game.

Unfortunately because of the "evolution" of tennis equipment comparisons between eras are not possible. Not stylish? But of course his was all style…McEnroe style. Continental gripped amidst the budding two-handed, strong gripped game. Aesthetically pleasing? It was a thing of beauty. In every sense of the word. Not only that…he was a tactical genius. When all others were floundering in the face of the Borg onslaught…McEnroe was taking it head on. The modern game is virtually void of anything that could be called style…it's all cookie cutter stuff. Save for Federer of course.

Comparing McEnroe to Federer? From the book of Bill Tilden to the model of Richard Gonzales with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman was actually his coach at some point…Roger Federer being the Living Proof. McEnroe fits neatly into the don_budge paradigm of teaching. Of course the "style" may have somehow been engineered out of the present game making it look somewhat "different"…historically speaking in the big picture it will always be relevant. I just love how "modern day tennis aficionados" like to down play the greatness of past players. It gives them that all so important superior feeling to go along with their superior attitude.

Roger's game is the gold standard…but the question remains…what would it have looked like with the wood racquets? It's an interesting thought and one that I am certain that he has entertained at different points in his career. Or maybe not. But even he recently had to capitulate to the fact that bigger tennis racquets play a significant role in the fair competitive nature of the game. Players at least through the Pete Sampras would frequently ponder what it would have been like to play with the traditional equipment.

The equipment issue has become somewhat of a dead issue since 1984 when for the first time all four semifinalists at a Grand Slam event were using oversized racquets. Speaking of Federer/McEnroe comparisons…I remember McEnroe charging the net on Ivan Lendl's FIRST serve in the finals of the 1984 U. S. Open final much as Federer has been half volleying return of second serves since the summer. This has been treated as a first in a lifetime phenomena when it fact it is not. Propaganda machine working quite nicely. The past is being slowly and surely erased…much as it is in life.

But for those that were lucky enough to know what the "real" game was like before the engineering tinkering took place…not to be mistaken for the word evolution which by definition is void of human intervention…McEnroe will always have a place at the very top of the game.

This is of course only my most humble opinion.

[gzhpcu]

Maybe horrible was the wrong word. Definitely very effective, but certainly not stylish. Just not aesthetically pleasing, at least not to me. Compare his game to Federer's stylish game.

[don_budge]

The Great John McEnroe...

I wouldn't say his strokes were horrible to look at... fascinating more like. I find him the most fascinating player that ever played the game.

Most fascinating…the most fascinating. It's beyond me how ANYONE could find horror in his tennis game. His behavior aside. He was a phenomena as much as he was an incredible tennis player. He was the last to make his mark and rule the tennis world with a traditional wooden racquet yet he managed to rule the "modern" racquet era for a time as well. This was no flash in the pan.


There's a great book called "Being John McEnroe" by Tim Adams…a recommended read for any student of the game. It was given to me by a rather interesting tennis student of mine from Stockholm, Sweden. The Swedes have a certain contemptible admiration for McEnroe…an appreciation that sort of fits ironically between the creases of their culture.

[stotty]

Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

I wouldn't say his strokes were horrible to look at... fascinating more like. I find him the most fascinating player that ever played the game.

[John Yandell]

Phil,

Love the racket pic.

Stotty,

Yes it took the players a while to find the real potential of the rackets. Then you put the strings on top of that and truly you have modern tennis.
Swinging volleys Stotty! Put in some poly and try that against the same guy!

[gzhpcu]

Rafter vs Kraijek, Canada 1998 (his best year):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR1v4X0HVt0

[bottle]

"If I need money."

[gzhpcu]

Rafter interview on Federer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iupF1Voom4k

This is the 2001 match he was talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la0ON7Xh4og

[klacr]

If a player were the only one allowed to use a particular racket, granted. But it is available to everyone. It is called progress. Obviously superior tennis rackets allow superior play. What's the problem? Does this mean the game must be played with the original Wingfield model racket? No evolution allowed? This is valid throughout the history of tennis.



To say of a double US Open winner that his strokes are not all that good is ridiculous. Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

Not saying his strokes are not good. In fact, his strokes were great and he was a blast to watch, but he was more lively and athletic and did not exemplify the classic serve and volley, instead he brought it into a modern era.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

As for Patrick Rafter…he is athletic for sure but it certainly appears to me the racquet is enhancing the appearance of his athleticism. The extra size in the head of his racquet is also doing a pretty good number in enhancing his volleys as his technique doesn't appear to be all that nifty. He doesn't seem to hit the ball all that cleanly in general. Rafter is playing with a racquet that is at least 97 square inches compared to Sampras' 85 square inches. Unfortunately the size disparity casts some suspicion on the results.

I think that Roger has given us a superb demonstration just how much size does matter the last couple of years. The racquet switch enabled him to reach the very top of the game once more whereas he was really beginning to struggle to maintain his position.

Racket head size does matter. There is no question about that. Roger has proved that all on his own.

But I think there is more to it than racket head size alone. It's the strings that have also made massive inroads. If you hit a topspin forehand with nylon strings and then hit the same topspin forehand with poly strings, you will get 25% more topspin. Maybe I have misunderstood something but this is what I read somewhere.

Poly strings were probably the death knell of serve and volley tennis more than oversize rackets...or at least the final nail in the coffin.

I hit with a guy last week who is close to tour level. It's terribly difficult to volley against him once he opens up. The ball literally fizzes. It's really difficult for the volleyer to control the ball.

[don_budge]

You're right...

Nobody is getting emotional or hysterical. Am just pointing out the fact that continuously evolution of tennis equipment occurred. Everytime it had a benefit. No benefit, no change. Your disliking larger head sizes is just one of the many changes which occurred. Someone could have objected everytime a change occurred and then we would be back to the picture I showed. It just goes to show that equipment evolves as allowed by the rules, like it or not.
You apparently interpret it as a personality conflict, I don't.

Ok…never mind.

[gzhpcu]

gzhpcu…I am perfectly willing to have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject but I wonder why you would exaggerate my words with depiction of antique model racquets. I mention standard sized racquets and standardisation of equipment and you throw this at me. I will continue this conversation in my next post without taking into consideration your obvious gamesmanship tactic. This is a valid conversation without getting overly emotional or hysterical.

Nobody is getting emotional or hysterical. Am just pointing out the fact that continuously evolution of tennis equipment occurred. Everytime it had a benefit. No benefit, no change. Your disliking larger head sizes is just one of the many changes which occurred. Someone could have objected everytime a change occurred and then we would be back to the picture I showed. It just goes to show that equipment evolves as allowed by the rules, like it or not.

Can't this be a difference of opinion instead of a personality conflict?

You apparently interpret it as a personality conflict, I don't.

[don_budge]

Why the exaggeration?

If a player were the only one allowed to use a particular racket, granted. But it is available to everyone. It is called progress. Obviously superior tennis rackets allow superior play. What's the problem? Does this mean the game must be played with the original Wingfield model racket? No evolution allowed? This is valid throughout the history of tennis.



To say of a double US Open winner that his strokes are not all that good is ridiculous. Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

gzhpcu…I am perfectly willing to have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject but I wonder why you would exaggerate my words with depiction of antique model racquets. I mention standard sized racquets and standardisation of equipment and you throw this at me. I will continue this conversation in my next post without taking into consideration your obvious gamesmanship tactic. This is a valid conversation without getting overly emotional or hysterical.

I like this thread so far and the fact that you like Patrick Rafter and I don't particularly have the same feelings is not disconcerting to me. It serves a point from my point of view though. Hopefully you won't be offended by what I have to say and perhaps it might even stimulate some intellectual thought…or even conversation. If that is possible between "civilized" and "evolved" human beings. If there exists such a thing.

Can't this be a difference of opinion instead of a personality conflict?

[gzhpcu]

If a player were the only one allowed to use a particular racket, granted. But it is available to everyone. It is called progress. Obviously superior tennis rackets allow superior play. What's the problem? Does this mean the game must be played with the original Wingfield model racket? No evolution allowed? This is valid throughout the history of tennis.



To say of a double US Open winner that his strokes are not all that good is ridiculous. Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

[don_budge]

Surreptitious and The Prince

As for Patrick Rafter…he is athletic for sure but it certainly appears to me the racquet is enhancing the appearance of his athleticism. The extra size in the head of his racquet is also doing a pretty good number in enhancing his volleys as his technique doesn't appear to be all that nifty. He doesn't seem to hit the ball all that cleanly in general. Rafter is playing with a racquet that is at least 97 square inches compared to Sampras' 85 square inches. Unfortunately the size disparity casts some suspicion on the results.

I remember a conversation we had some years ago about Rafter and the way he volleyed. A few of us felt though he was a good volleyer, his style of volleying had departed from the way great volleyers used to volley. Primarily because he is a volleyer who mostly hits a tad around the outside of the ball. Many volleyers before Rafter's time would frequently hit from inside to out as well as outside to in. This is a useful option on the backhand volley. It's quite significant how the classic volleyers were so much more at home when hitting volleys out of their body, and how good they were at low volleys with this inside to out option. From a central court position a classic volleyer could hold his decision very late using the inside to out method...either go behind the player or into the corner.

I would be in that group.
Great style but he definitely did not do it "textbook" Whatever textbook really is. He got away with some stuff that you would have a hard time teaching.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I am going to take these comments that both of you surreptitiously and tacitly agree that it is quite possible that the size of Patrick Rafter's racquet enhances his ability to volley…and of course it is true. On so many of his shots in general I get the distinct impression that the response of his shot is actually better that what he applied to it within his person. His actual strokes are really not all that good. Therefore there is an artificial influence being applied that the casual observer is not aware of. Even the serve is not all that great…it is only that his ability to put exaggerated spin on the ball makes it so effective. The double whammy of exaggerated spin on the serve and the artificially enhanced volleys and there you have it…voila…instant serve and volley.

Gene Mayer was the original poster boy for Prince tennis racquets…he went from absolutely nowhere in the world to number six. This was the dawning of the artificial intelligence…I mean the artificial ability enhancer in the racquet head size. Mayer's fraud occurred when the majority of the rest of the players were using standard sized equipment. He must have been a very lonely guy in the locker room with his "Princess". I was really hard on guys that went to this "cheater" in the beginning.

In a sport such as tennis where the difference between winning and losing is often so fine there needs to be strict and stringent rules regarding the equipment and this would include the size of the racquet head and the strings and their response.