And Nalby does what Nalby does best! winning while coming from behind!! I really would like to see him back to his best.


I was thinking the other day about Federer's generation who was very successfull 3 to 5 years ago: Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Nalbandian, Safin. They all have been number one or very close but when the game started to speed up even more, with it become more physically demanding asking for that extra step or stamina...they could not catch up and are steadily going down the ranking now. Some isolated cases like Blake, Gonzo and Haas are still there or threabout in the top 10 but we feel their presence there is very fragile with the chance of going down when Murray, Gasquet and Gulbis will finally push them out once and for all.

The real exceptions here are Davydenko and Federer. Davydenko because he is actually one year older and is certainly one of the most solid player on tour despite his ridiculous schedule. I like to think that a better managed season would make him a better player in the greater events. He is also the only one with Federer which I fancy with a chance versus Nadal and Djoko. So considering that not so long ago people classed him as a journey man....it s quite amazing.

But of course the most amazing of them all is Federer who has been able to adapt to the new generation like no-one else has so far. He is still the Master despite Nadal, Gasquet, Djoko, Berdych having had the priviledge to have him and his generation as "masters", they have not been, so far, able to better him. When you think that Federer grew and acquired his reflexes about 7/10 years ago when guys like Lapenti, Kiefer and Tod Martin or Enquist where in the top 10 and had guys like Stoltenberg, Reneberg, Mark Woodford in the top 30– whom he was more likely to play – all good players certainly but the pace at which they were playing was slower, considerably slower in gfact. This is the time you build your reflexes. To give an example, I often mentioned, the Sampras/ Federer sole encounter at Wimbledon. Sampras was outacing Federer for the first set, the second third and son on....but at the end Federer knew how to read Sampras serve and ended up at the end of the match with the same number of aces. That shows how quick a youngster can learn, and Federer is doing his best to keep track with today's youngs. He even invites them to Dubai so he can train with them and prepare for the near future. This is so smart and I believe unprecedented in this sport.

Anyway, I don’t think he ‘ll manage to stay ahead for much longer as he is helping those youngs more than he is helping him in fact but just thought I ‘d create a thread about that as it is an amazing achievement in itself to dominate 3 generation as he ‘s doing. Lendl comes to mind as well in that category except that he never quite dominated them all. He certainly could have been close to be the greatest of all time had he not lost 11 of his GS finals.

Ok T, a good post deserves a reply ;)

The statement “Federer is doing his best to keep track with today's youngs” is a bridge too far as far as I’m concerned. I reckon it’s still the other way around.

First of all we have to agree every player from the age 25 to 27 can be considered as Fed’s generation. If so; we have a debate.
It’s true, the presence of players you mentioned (Safin, Hewitt, JCF, Nalby) have waned a bit. But to me that isn’t necessarily because they can’t cope with the new generation’s level of play. Their downfall started basically a few years back. I’m sure the way Federer demoralized all of them over and over again had a huge effect on their determination. And once you take away 5% of determination things look different; players starting to change their mindset (like Safin once stated “if it all ends now I’ll be satisfied”).
If you look closer to the current balance you will see the new generation doesn’t have a clear upperhand at all. Let’s look at the quarters finals of the GS’s of 2007;
“new generation” players who made the quarters Ao; 1 RG; 2 Wim; 5, USO; 1
Moreover; it (still) seems to be a big task for the youngsters to qualify for the Master Cup anyway. With the exception of Djoko and Nadal, probably none of the others will qualify.

Nevertheless; these stats aren’t fully the nature of this debate, my point is; when someone in sport stands up and raises the bar like Roger and Tiger have done, the logical result will be that the old generation will lose contact and the new generation has yet to prove they can follow. Surely the newbies are getting closer but I’m sure as long as Fed can maintain his level of of play of 2006 and some parts of this year he will remain no.1. Like you would say; “They are at the mercy of Roger”. Even Rafa once said –when his H2H with Fed was something like 6-1 BTW- that Roger will be no. 1 as long as he’ll keep playing like this.
The question is; for how long can he maintain this level? With this consistency max 1 more year i'm afraid..

Hi GP - Thanks for taking care of my post. ;) I agree it was not well written (though you did not say that), I could have done a better job.

My point, is similar to the one you reached at the end but with a few exceptions.

First I would not compare Tennis and Golf. There is a big gulf between those sports in terms of competitivity. As mentioned a few times, Woods started to train at golf like Borg did in the 60s. That is starting very early and Woods will now be facing in the next year or 2 with a bigger pool of young players who will have started as early as Tiger did and with the same dedication. Yet, tennis can be played by millions of Europeans, Russians, North and South Americans and Asians, while the daylly ticket to a golf course still puts millions off that sport. (I remember you sent a link confirming those stats).

But back to the main point, we agree that up to last year, Federer was still ahead of the young pack (Nadal and Djoko) but it is getting very close and those guys are only 20 and 21. I think Gasquet and Murray are not far behind and the injuries and fatigue has certainly delayed their success but tennis wise they are probably very close. My point was essentially saying that those youngsters are now better players than Federer's generation. Djoko has easily got close to Safin's shots for instance but with more consistency and a huge margin for inmprovement. Gasquet has shown a few times that on form at 20 he can play close to the same level as Fed and only nerves are falting but his tennis is there or thereabout already. It is clear, it is a question of time before Djoko and Gasquet push the level above Federer's. I don't expect their style or grace to be equal to Fed but they will soon be able handle Fe's serve and FHs with more ease than older players and take the sting out of his game.

Borg for instance dominated like mad till 24/25 but then when Lendl and McEnroe came along and the new generation came up, he was clearly being caught up. His game had not enough bite to survive in the new arena. I am quite convinced of this. He was a great chmpion as long as he athletism gave him some margin to win confortably in most cases but asa his footwork reached its limit versus new power players, he knew it was a lost battle for him because his Bh and FH had no more to offer than Lendl's or McEnroe could not handle.

I created this thread just hilighting how great was Federer in that respect in the sense that he is still ahead of the younger generation but I don't envisage this to last for long. Let's just look at the last 3 slams and they were pretty close or lost! Even a tired Gasquet coudl have won that first set in the Wimbledon semi. I can easily see Djoko adding a bit more power and stamina to his shot and next time getting the better of Federer. This year is certainly going to be very intersting but in my view Federer won't get away as easily this time around though i believe that in the zone he is still ahead of anyone else. But the zone will be more and more difficult to find.

He sure is great, greater than Borg or Lendl if you ask me.
To be honest this domination (aka level of play) is laster longer than i ever expected.

Even if you're right; Fed has that typical quality that great champions have, something Simon Barnes (Times) beautifully descibed the day after Wimbledon; Timing. Will Gasquet ever copy that?
I'd say Fed didn't meet his "Borg's MacEnroe" yet. As long as Fed's only not winning playing below his (nearest) best, the new generation has yet to prove they'll ever be able to reach Feds highest standard.
For this moment we can only wait and see what happens in Shanghai.

very true. Timing is what made Federer this special player he is. If you look at Pele for instance, he had it as well. It is an extra time great players have that others can't buy. But strangely enough this extra time is not a constant and like McEnroe was rushed at the end, Fed is also going to be rushed more and more, like Pele's timing would not have been good enough to cope with today's players. This timing a la Zidane is something a champion develops amongst its peers. It is a relative factor. Gasquet look rushed in comparaison to Federer's style, I agree, but his quick eye and fast shots are (or will be) eating in Federer's timing. And in my view only someone who is currently exposed to today's pace will be able to recreate this "extra time" perception.

I'd love to see Federer keep this "time cushion" for another 5 years and I am sure he 'll have matches in his later years similar to McEnroe v Becker at the AO but like Mc they will likely be the exception than the rule.

How I ended up singing Federer's requiem while I started this thread to sing his glory is a mistery! :rolleyes: :shrug:

oops T, i should have been more specific, i assumed you knew to which article i referred, a bit premature from my side :doh:

This article is about "the timing" i meant; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/col...icle2045547.ece

I think this is a really smart post.
Many of the big guns of Feds generation-Hewitt being a prime example, have prematurely aged because of the Federer effect.
Hewitt wouldn't be human if endlessly losing out in slams didn't effect him, and as well as Safin, JCF, Nalby i think Roddick must have had some wind taken out of his sales too, it's hard to come from a position he did winning the US Open and being the great American hope, only to endlessly be beaten in slams by Fed.

Obviously Fed will succumb at some point to the younger guys, they are getting stronger day by day, but they can't do to Fed what Fed did to his peers, and Fed has such a multi-dimensional game that i think analogies with players like Borg are flawed too. McEnroe's game nullified Borg's game on fast surfaces-it's really hard to imagine how anyone could nullify Feds game in quite the same way for some years yet-unless someone like Fed came along, and many players have won many slams over the age of 26 in the mens game in the past-Borg is the exception rather than the rule.
I think one thing that is a problem for Fed with the younger guys-more than with Feds own generation is that he is more nervous when playing them-his game still seems way ahead of them if judged in it's own terms. Fed was nervous when playing Nadal at the French and Wimbledon, and he was nervous of Djoko at the US Open-Fed hardly went forward at all.
This is often the case with established players facing young guns-but i think fed has so much talent this can give him the edge even against the younger guys for some years yet. Fed's head to head with Nadal is getting better, not worse, because Fed has enough talent to overcome some of his nerves-and more wins means more confidence-it's a virtuous circle.
But i think it's the mind rather than the body that usually goes first.

I think Federer has more years at the top. I think talent wise players like Gasquet and Djokovic are close, but can they make that transition from potential into champion over the next 12 months? At the moment that looks unlikely.

Also, will Nadal be able to play a schedule in 2008 which will ensure he is not completely knackered after Wimbledon and almost a non factor between July and November?

As for Safin and Hewitt, I'm prepared to cut them some slack. They came through too early. They were challenging the Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Rafter period around 1999 throgh 2001. Federer matured later so he's not suffered any burnout.

I think a good comparison for Safin and Hewitt is Chang and Courier. These two players came through very early against Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander so when Sampras and Agassi matured, they were struggling to keep up with injuries and motivation.

I always think it's better to mature around 22 years of age than peaking as a teenager then burning out physically and mentally. It happens a lot in womens Tennis but has happened in mens Tennis as well.

:doh: this is on me.

I think we can't separate the mind from the game. They are very linked, especially between great players like those top 3. Federer has every reason to be nervous when playing Nadal and now Djoko. To me Nadal's game and maybe to a lesser extend Djoko is the Federer anti-dote. They both deliver a ball which Roger does not like. Nadal's is coming from his LH and with a trajectory and spin he is not used to nor does he suit his flat(ter) hitting. Suddenly Federer has to re-invent his game and therefore his mind is in doubt. With Djoko, it is the same phenomen but but with flatter, faster and consistent shots coming from both sides. We know how close some of the matches were then with Safin but now we have a better version or at least more solid version of Safin.

Federer's luck here is that Nadal's game does takes its physical toll on the player and affected his improving curse you would expect on such a young player. However recently we have seen Nadal hitting harder and spinnier FHs than Fed and we know the BH has always been more solid.

Djoko on the other hand has been extremely consistant in his progress and I can't see him suddenly stop there unless he gets injured but his game is certainly less physically demanding than Nadal's and will probably be the one terminating Federer's reign in the next years if not months.

Unless your name is Muhammed Ali off course ;)
Obviously I agree with your post, no matter how good Djoko and Rafa are, it’s just not the same when Roger entered the scene and that’s not only about aesthetics. Even though Roger at the same age lost more matches than these players, Rog is just incomparable.
I don’t think we will see another Federer in the next 20 years and therefore his aging will be a decisive factor as the gap closes
BTW; thnx for the compliment ,BT

Laurie - I agree about Hewitt burn out. For Safin, I think the problem was essentially mentally and physically. He was a nutcase uncapable of driving his frustration into long term success. Probably just too happy to be successful at a young age. I like this in his character and personally don't mind his underachieving. I still like the player. And as GP and BT mentioned, Federer's success has certainly contributed in their demotivation.

My point was not about who is the new Federer. I can't see anyone dominating like Fed did anytime soon. Thtas' clear. It is about Federer being the sole player of his generation still able to compete with the newer generation as the newer generation will become better (or more efficient) in the next coming month. All those youngsters are learning a way to beat Federer and his generation. They naturally develop their weapons against the very top, like McEnroe develop his game to beat the likes of Borg, Like Agassi develop his game to tame those SVers. We can't stop that and nor can Federer.

I already understood your point very well, T. My reply isn’t about the absence/presence of a new Federer, I’m saying they won’t catch up on Federer as long as he’s on top of his game (which is practically impossible to do for another few years btw)
I don't see a Borg-McEnroe scenario here. It's easier to dominate being the most complete player of all times than to dominate due to being the fittest of your generation ;)

Ah Good. :) But i think they will catch him sooner (08 IMO) than later. Of course they won't beat him consistently but I 'd be very surprised if they don't beat him more often than not (though that is the case of Nadal already, Federer's had enough look into Nadal's game and Nadal might have physical problems from now). I certainly think that Djoko's game has a superior BH and puts Fed under a lot of pressure. I say superior in the sense of more efficient, certainly not nicer to watch. The last 2 encounters certanly is showing just that. The way Djoko handles Nadal's game also proves the point I think. So yes Fed has a more creative game, more complete as well but will it be enough?

Fed is this year not as good as he was in 2006. Next year he won't be as good as this year. So off course someday they'll catch up.

Let's put it hypothetically; image the Fedster of today would be 21 years old, who would you think who would dominate the next 4 years?

I know you know i know what's your pick :D

Federer? ;)

I kind of agree. His BH however is a bit of a concern. It is the best one-hbh out there (or close to) but those one-hbh have a smaller sweet spot than dble hbh which means errors/framing are more frequent and power is significantly reduced. Fed's main force on the BH is the disguise/surprise shot but a riskier one than a steady powerful BH a la Nadal, Djoko.

So if he were 21 he may have had adopted a dhbh like all th eother youngsters. I believe that Gasquet fragile mental comes from also a fragile BH. Mental strentgh and games are very much linked as I said above.

Gasquet's BH isn't so fragile. I'd have thought that it's the other way round, Gasquet's fragile mental strength can adversely impact his backhand.

Fed's backhand is actually very solid imo. Technically very correct. I'd take his one handed bh over a two handed one any day. His limitations on that wing would be the same for almost any other play with a one handed bh. I have a one handed bh and the high ball is infurtiatingly difficult to play!!

I think that Fed suffers an awful lot from pressure than he lets on, from being expected to win. Personally, I think that he's played to his potential in only one of the slam finals this year, because he's been so nervous.

If he overtakes Sampras in terms of slams, then maybe he will relax a bit more? When he plays with freedom, he is at his most dangerous. He seems to play too much of a percentage game to beat Rafa regularly for example. It's a shame that the Rome epic didn't go his way as that I feel would have given him the confidence to continue to take the game to Rafa.

As for peers, well, simply that their limitations have been exposed by Federer. Other top players have had limitations in the past, so they are not that different.

A DHBH reduces errors but becomes not necessarily more powerful, in fact it’s easier to generate swing speed with a SHBH because of the wider swing movement. If you ever have tried to hit a double handed forehand you know what I mean.
Ljubo in his prime has an incredibly pacy BH; long arm, wide swing.
Obviously everything changes with a high or un-true bounce, the nightmare of all the SHBH players

Yes for you and I, it looks like being well placed and generating the swing for both hands on the grip and the upper body to create pace is painful. But for the pros and even some friend players, it is actually very easy and the power they generate is simply amazing. My double partner has a double HBH and in terms of power and consistency I don't come close. This guy really has a pro BH and I have not seen any single BH generating the same power amongst our peers. I have hit very well timed BHs in my life but to few and far in between great frames too :rolleyes: . In fact the power generated from Nadal or Djoko also proves that. It seems relatively easy for Djoko to open up the court with his BH when he plays Nadal, whereas Federer often seems to be the one suffering from this side.

Exactly...that too. Woudl the game be played on faster courts, I woudl probably give the advantage to the Shbh as it saves the players an extra step and low bounces make it easier, but today, Federer is even struggling on grass. As you saw the Wimbledn final a few times I remember, you can also see that on the FH Nadal has the upper hand. If it was not for his serve and amazing natural skills, Federer would probably have lost that one.

Usually the DHBH benefits from the stability of the left hand (for a RH player). This means balls with more pace can more easily be taken early and the pace of the incoming ball used to generate more pace in reply. Same with service return. The SHBH has the benefits of a longer swing path for slower/medium paced shots, so ability to generate pace from nothing. Also, the stability and strength of the right arm (for a RH player) as well as the footwork required for a SHBH usually means that SH players have the luxury of a better slice backhand. I think that the trade-off between the two is negated by these factors and players often go with the backhand that best suits their game. Players like Sampras changed pretty late to a SHBH and the better slice suited his game style pretty well.

I would love to have a single handed backhand but I posses a double hander Greasepipe and I assure you two handers are much more powerful.I play with an open stance on my backhand wing and believe me the pace I can generate sometime shocks me :yikes: It also stronger than my forehand which is weird. :yikes: Also I can hit it in many different way.I have somewhat mastered the Safin technique which I have found to be the best out there and I also can use Agassi's technique which is designed for really quick hands.Also,this may sound weird but Hingis has a unique technique which really is best suited for down the line shots and I can hit that one two.Two handers are much more safe.Remember your follow through is basically all your left arm and if you have a strong left arm you can then generate so much more pace.(If you are a right hander)

With regards to Federer and his backhand,Im led to believe that its arguably alongside Gasquet's,the best out there.His technique is sound and the fluency of his stroke is masterful.Also watch how he keeps his eye and head on the ball until it leave the raquet.This was what got my attention back in 98 when I first saw him and he made the quarters of RG that year I think and lost to Corretja.He also has much more variety in terms of angles and spins with that 1 hander.I would give anything to have a 1 hander like that. :(

:ok: Spot on!

:ok:

This is lamenting what Im saying!

:ok:

Concerning Fed's backhand: the one shot that he's absolutely brilliant on, apart from the slice, is the backhand pass. The power game is always going to be vulnerable to being drawn in and passed.

I think the SHBH variation card that Fed can play is still one of the main reasons why he's so hard to beat. You can't expect him to dominate on all courts. A weapon on one court can always be a slight weakness on another court.

Petalp, I think Gasquet BH is solid because he takes it 2m behind the baseline. As soon as he takes it early and the percentage drops considerably. I noticed that again watching his yesterday match.

I wrote a post about the advantage of the dhbh v single and I do believe that Federer's BH, as solid as it is lacks power and consistency when facing the very top. unfirtunately with this browser, it seems everytime I misshit the back buttion I can't retrieve the text.

But in short if we look at the top 5 players, only the Federer has one HBH and as it requires trememdous talent to have one. If we look at Blake, Youshny, Haas, Gonzo they are also extremely talented, yet none provide consistent results way to dependant of their moment form. While Nadal, Djoko, Davydenko are simply more solid though possibly less creative than the formers. In the last 16th today in Madrid I believe 75% or more had a dhbh and clearly the game is going that direction.

I would agree with Brakkus that Federer might well be one of the last great Shbh player.

No way tennis.When Federer is in the zone he hits that ball hard and with prescision.I cant see where or how you can say that he lacks power.Sure he may not hit it as flat as Blake but he is about control.But believe me he can also wollop that ball!

;)

Tenez, I guess that taking the ball earlier is going to heighten the risk, off whichever wing!

I would also disagree re: Fed's backhand. Personally I think that against players at the very top it puts him at an advantage. He has the variety that the others don't have and therefore means that he can mix things up more. He can use power in the backhand sometimes; a point against Rafa in the masters last year springs to mind (was it matchpoint? certainly was near the end).

Backhands of other top players. Gonzo, for example. Inasmuch as I like him, his backhand is hugely limited to playing slice shots. Stefanki has reined his game in well though. A-Rod. Limited, functional double handed backhand, nuff said. Fed has twice the backhand of eiher of them. Then Rafa and Djoko.. well, they have good two-handed backhands, but I'd bet that they work on using one handed too to build variety into their game.

Fed could however indeed be the last of the great one handed backhanders though, as I see this shot as becoming an additional weapon rather than an essential one (sadly). And re: talent, it's no coincidence that the world's best player in the women's game also has a one handed backhand. She may also become the last great one handed bh player in the women's game.

Shurely sickening mental weakness from the transitional Swiss ;)

Outstanding post Mr Star. Irrefutable factual analysis on the superlicious (sp) Swiss.

Petalp, Here it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhyR4LYD58Y...%20great%20shot

Yes but this very point kind of proves actually my point. The comentator says it in French, it needed 0% margin for error, in other words a risky shot, even for Fed. That is pure talent from Federer but is certainly not his bread and butter BH. I can come up with many BHs from Nadal and djoko that are as efficient even if less arty. Let's just watch at the whole Wimbledon Final match this year and clearly Nadal's ground strokes do more damage than Federer's.

One a fast lower bounce surface, Federer's BH is still great but even there we need to see more of Djoko can deliver in the next few months.

I agree Tenez, the higher bounce on more surfaces nowadays makes it harder for the SHBH. Testament to Federer's ability that he can make finals at RG and win the AO. I disagree about the youtube point though - I think the commentator meant that there was no margin for error because he hit it so close to the line for an outright winner. There was a bit of space down there and the margin doesn't change whether you hit a single or double-handed backhand. It's all in the execution and timing - things that Federer is better at than any other player out there.

I don't think we disagree there. But these are the kind of points that can go either way. In fact it is those very points that Federer miss in some big occasion like the FO where he had 10 BPs in the first set. Certainly similar points gave him access to those BPs but let's look at his H2H with Nadal. I believe that in Rome, Dubai and another encounter, Federer actually won more points than Nadal yet ended losing. If we look at Djoko first set v Nadal in Wimbledon, he won without having too risky shots. his ground strokes were simply hurting Nadal. That is the main difference.

No doubt that Federer is a genius we all agree on this (even Chetpanv I am sure), but it is mostly his genius and more recently nerves rather than his BH and FH that helped him versus Djoko and Nadal. Those 2 have certainly not as much talent yet they compete on almost a perfect par with Federer.....so far.

A lot of coaching drills concentrate on crosscourt rallying and working opportunitites into the net, but one of my favourites is a drill where two players try to push each other back and force a mistake down the middle of the court. It rewards consistency and power. I wonder who would win those kin of exchanges out of the top tour players. I suspect that Djoko would do well, because he seems to rely less on hitting angles. Federer can soak up the pace and can be relentlessly consistent and Nadal would be able to stand well back and counter with huge groundies, but for directness, power on both sides and attrition of the opposition, Djoko has a good mix. :shrug:
I will suggest they televise some practice sessions together so that we know who would win what drills......

Indeed, an outstanding contribution. (I could add something meaningful to the discussion, but instead I'd rather pat your back some more.)

Good article which in short summarises (from the technology perspective) what I was saying.

Revolution in string technology changing sport's dynamic

By Joel Drucker
Special to ESPN.com

Updated: October 18, 2007, 11:47 AM ET

In the world of pro tennis, the early 21st century has been marked by a revolution in equipment. What's happened in the past seven years represents a bigger technological shift than anything that occurred in the previous 25. You'd have to go back to the onset of oversized racket heads to find something that made as big an impact as what's currently taking place.

This revolution is taking place in the world of racket strings.

Time was when pros played with gut, highly resilient strings that added both buoyancy and control to fairly dead racket frames. Spin certainly was deployed, but in large part, the name of the game was to drive through the ball and create penetrating shots that paved the way for attacking. Scott McCain, long-standing coach for Paul Goldstein and a number of other pros, referred to this as "a linear stroke."

Even as a young pro, this was the model Roger Federer followed. "Seeing Roger play when he started on the tour around the year 2000, it seemed he was obviously modeling his game after Pete [Sampras]," McCain said. "He was one-handed, could block the ball, had a good forehand and seemed like he was looking to attack."

And then came the string called Luxilon. Unlike the lively strings of days past, Luxilon -- a company that makes fibers and strings for industrial applications -- is a dead string. According to Nate Ferguson, head of Priority 1, the company that strings for such pros as Federer, Lleyton Hewitt, Fernando Gonzalez and Novak Djokovic: "It's a total shift. Because the string is so dead, the player can swing loose and hard. The result is much more dip, whip and power."

"The rotation you get is drastically different than with gut," Goldstein said. "The ball jumps and moves unbelievably. A ball that looks like it's going way out and then drops like a stone -- that's what everyone calls 'a Luxilon shot.' "

"It's now parabolic," McCain said. He likened contemporary tennis to pingpong, adding that the size of racket grips also has been reduced considerably.

"It used to be, you didn't want the racket to twist in your hands, so the goal was to use as big a grip as possible," Ferguson said.

Such legends as Roy Emerson and Tony Trabert often used grips that exceeded five inches in circumference. These days, a man as physically imposing as Rafael Nadal employs a 4¼-inch grip, all the better to whip his racket back and forth like a windshield wiper. A veteran coach jokingly refers to the Spaniard as "The Butcher" since he so voraciously slaughters each ball that comes his way. (Nadal does not use Luxilon but does string his rackets with a similar synthetic string.)

McCain and many others have noted how Federer does not play as aggressively now as he did at the beginning of his career. Federer's current game is a special, highly-effective mix of patience, wise defense and powerful offense.

"I realized things were slowing down," Federer said following the final at the U.S. Open. "The new string generation came along where returning and passing shots was made easier. It was harder to attack in some ways."

One factor that created the opportunity for a string such as Luxilon has been the increasing slowdown of court surfaces. Responding to criticisms in the '90s that big serves and even more powerful service returns were shortening fan engagement, tournament directors all over the world began to drastically slow down their courts. Indoors, slick carpets gave way to much slower courts. Cement courts at outdoor events also lost their one-time slick quality. And even Wimbledon got in the act, its grass courts of the past five years bearing little resemblance to the lively grass that was heaven for net-rushers and hell for ground-strokers vexed by erratic bounces.

"Now you can play the baseline at Wimbledon," Goldstein said.

Fast-bouncing courts provide pace, ball speed aided by the very quickness of the court and the ball moving through it. John McEnroe was superb at this brand of fine motor billiards. But for every McEnroe, there were dozens who merely slashed and burned their way through one match after another. Moreover, the ascent of Europe as a tennis power in the past 20 years -- both in the economics of the sport and on the court -- has created a natural affinity for that continent's most popular surface: slow clay. And clay is a surface on which it takes more effort to generate pace. Enter Luxilon.

For the current pros, the use of Luxilon is a pragmatic necessity. According to McCain, so staggered was Pete Sampras by the string's ability to turn defensive baseliners into forceful counter-punchers that he dubbed it "Cheatalon." But of late, even an exemplary net-rusher like Sampras has gotten in on the act by using a mix of Luxilon and gut -- a combination that Federer and many other pros use, too.

Over the long term, though, it's uncertain what kind of impact Luxilon will have on the duration of players' careers. "It's physically laborious to take these big cuts all the time," said the 31-year-old Goldstein. "It's much tougher on the body." Nadal, for example, is only 21, but over the past three years, he has suffered a few injuries that could well have been caused by his exceptional physical vigor. Then again, injuries are bound to happen, no matter what equipment a player is using.

On a more grassroots basis, McCain and others worry that youngsters seeking to emulate many pros will use Luxilon without truly possessing the skills necessary for harnessing the blend of a dead string, a lively racket and a big swing. It could well be a race to see which breaks down sooner -- the body or the strokes.

"Even now," McCain said, "even at the level of Roger and Rafa, the name of the game is to get the ball in the court."

(Joel Drucker is based in Oakland, Calif., and writes for Tennis Magazine and The Tennis Channel.)

That's an intersting article Tenez. I'm sure we will see attacking players excel again at some point in the future. Things always go in cycles. I would have thought these strings could aid volleyers too. Since I started using these type of Bablot strings a few months ago I absolutely love volleying with them.

Anyway back to the generation topic. After today's final in Madrid I may reassess my thoughts again (I've done that about 3 times this year!!)

I've always been a Nalbandian fan, he plays a really smart strategic game.

I think 2008 will be an intersting year. It's fair to say that in the last 3 slams Federer has had to work much harder for victory than he has had in a long time. Plus he's lost big finals in Canada and Madrid plus not doing well at Indian Wells or Miami. He won Cincinnati but Hewitt gave him a harder match than Hewitt's done in a long time. Blake in the final is a gimme, Blake doesn't have the mental strength to mount a challenge despite his talent and Federer loves to hear he will face Blake in a final.

I'm speculating now by the way, but Federer might drop off a bit more next season. Despite the 3 slams this year Federer hasn't played that well consistently and his aura has gotten him out of trouble. Historically speaking, Federer may be about to pass his peak. Now we all know that Federer's career has been an almost mirror image of Sampras'. So if we look at Sampras' career up to October 1997 and Federer's up October 2007 you will see what I mean:

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

By October 1997 Sampras won 50 titles including Grand Slam cup in October that year (which no longer exists)
By October 2007 Federer won 51 titles

By October 1997 Sampras was number 1 in the world for 198 weeks
By October 2007 Federer was number 1 for 197 weeks

By October 1997 Sampras won 11 slams out of 13 finals
By October 2007 Federer won 12 slams out of 14 finals

By October 1997 Sampras lost 14 finals
By October 1997 Federer lost 17 finals

So by end of 1998 Sampras' form compared to previous years had started to dip at the age of 26/27. He wasn't as consistent as previous years and won fewer titles. He also started to change his style of play even more and come to the net more and staying back less. He won titles that year on hardcourt, grass, green clay and indoor carpet.

Now I wonder whether history will repeat itself and Federer will win fewer titles next season as well. Can players like Djokovic, Nadal and Gasquet can get closer to Federer? Nalbandian has lost his way a bit but maybe starting to come back into form. Nalbandian has never been afraid of Federer and has beaten him in big matches before. So maybe Nalbandian might get up to top 5 again if he maintains his form and fitness.

Davydenko and Murray? Have they got what it takes to make the big breakthrough in 2008?

Correct me if i'm wrong Laurie, but on the website address you post it states that
Fed 12 to Sampras 10 in terms of grandslams-i hate to be pedantic i know you're only out by one slam, but to tennis fans these little things mean a lot.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'It's fair to say that in the last 3 slams Federer has had to work much harder for victory than he has had in a long time' well Fed didn't achieve victory in the French so you must mean the last three slams Fed has achieved victory in, then you must mean Wimbledon , US Open and Aussi Open, in fact the Aussie open Fed won without the loss of a set-is that what you mean by 'working harder' pray tell?
However I have to admit you're spot on when you say 'I'm speculating now by the way, but Federer might drop off a bit more next season'-bravo Laurie!
Of course the key word there is 'might', you're saying Fed 'might drop off' but you clearly aren't certain he will 'drop off'-so in effect your saying he might, but then again you can't rule out that he might not-thanks for the incite Laurie-have you ever thought of writing a book on tennis?

Well I'm not a soothsayer so that's why I prefer to specualte just to hedge my bets!

Whoops, sorry about that, Sampras did indeed have 10 and not 11.

Well, no I was thinking French. He didn't win the French but he got to the final and had to work unbelievably hard in the semifinal to defeat Davydenko, ihe could have lost in straight sets with Nicolay serving for all 3 sets. In the US open he could have come unstuck against Davydenko again and in the final against the Joker. Plus the Wimbledon final he had 4 break pints against him in the 5th set. I think Federer knows the luck can turn against him at any moment in these big matches.

But we'll see. It just means of course that mens Tennis will become more interesting if opponents and fans think there is more of a chance to beat him.