An interesting article here :

http://www.tennis.com/tournaments/2006/uso...n.aspx?id=42888

In brief, she advocates limiting the size of racquet heads, restrictions on strings and playing more on surfaces where the ball bounces lower.

I particularly liked this quote :

"I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve volleying in today's game."

Thanks so much for that, it's a great article. :ok: I would totally agree with her. I hate the way that some aspects of the game are going, players are playign mroe by rote and less by instinct and imagination as she says. I tis so much easier to hit the groundstrokes and keep plugging away for a winner with the larger racquet heads, so I think she is right to want to restrict that. teh bigger the sweet spot the less skill involved for sure. I think ti is a travesty that doubles can eb won so often form the baseline nowadays as she says, and that simply doesn't seem right. if Nav says she would have trouble as a serve and volleyer these days then I will trust her opinion. I hope that when she retires, she will stay involved in the campaigning and advocatign role as she knwos what she is talkgin about. I am sure she will. No way will she quit tennsi totally.

I agree with Martina about racket technology, and here points about courts. Why have they tried so hard to slow wimbledon down? Serve-volley tennis is exciting, because every break is important etc.

Watching Rafa Nadal is the tipping point with me about racket technology. The guy would be nowhere if he had to play with wood rackets, the topspin he generates is the on;ly real factor in why he is so high in the world, nothing else (Rafa fans will have the knives out but IMO it's totally true)

:ok: I could not agree more. Glad you said it first as I have had stick for criticising rafa I dont; think he would be playing even challengers were it not for racquet technology, as the spin he gets is ridiculous. Sure he can move, retrieve quickly and is intense, but withotu all that spin I am sure he'd be average. there are plenty of players otu there who can move, retrieve, defend and counterpunch well but they are ntohing special maybe cos of this spin business. Not be funny but I cant; see maria being able to hit like she does form the baseline with and older racquet. She woudl nto generate the pace, and would be more forced itno comign into the net instead, whcih we knwo is nto her forte.

i think we ought to make a speculative "top 10" for players if they had wood racquets!

Fed would undoubtedly still be blessed because he has so much attacking talent, but after that it could be pretty interesting! I'd be looking at guys such as Nadal and Roddick to really struggle with wood racquets because the spin couldn't bail them out. Nalbandian would do fine I think, so would Murray, Ljubo, Blake etc. Even Tim would still be top 20! roflmao

In the women's I think Dav, Mauresmo and Justine would be the top three in that order, after that the williamses and Hingis. You're totally right about Maria, and other russians such as Petrova, Dementieva and Myskina, they would all struggle IMO.

Oh sure, all those hard hitting baseline bashers would have no game. They'd be ripped apart by a serve volleyer liek Martina, in fact I reckon she coudl beat soem of them aged 49 now if you gave them wooden racquets. :D I reckon definitely MoMO, JHH cos they have feel and talent could handle wood. Dav proabably cos she strikes so cleanly, but she might have to volley. There are quite a lot of older players who arent; top 20 but may be abel to pull it off, like Dechy as she has touch and skill. Not sure about the Williamases- but I can see a few broken racquets! roflmao Hingis woudl do well, although she'd have less power and that lack sin her game so hard to tell where she'd be ranked. In the men's someoen liek Henman coudl be top 5 for sure. Tursunov woudl be more like top 500 as he is hitting most shots hard form the baseline and hoping to score a winner. With a smaller sweet spot he'd be making more errors. Not sure with Nalby - you coudl be right. So I reckon top 3 woudl eb

1. Federer
2. Henman
3. Bjorkman

Now that woudl eb nice! :D

Yeah roflmao

Hewitt would be up there I reckon, the real deal as a counterpuncher. I put Nalbandian up there because he does have great feel, a little in the way fed does, but he isn't quite as consistent.

Phillipoussis would be up there as well if only he could stay fit because of that serve, and what about Mr. Karlovic? roflmao

Dav would be my no.1 in the women's because of her ball-striking ability

Im no expert on rackets so am probably not qualified to comment. But I think at Wimbledon at least even with wooden rackers Serena and Venus would still be up there because of their attacking abilties and athleticism. Serena is also when she's on form an excellent striker of the ball not quite as good as Dav but up there, afterall Lindsay can be just as awful when she's off form too. Serena does have erratic techniques on the forehand but at the same time it's also because she hits the ball so hard and screaming that we sometimes miss how well both sisters stike the ball. I think SB may be on to something saying that they may break their rackets a lot :rolleyes:

Doubt the structure could handle the grip some people adopt these days and being whacked for all they're worth also.

I think Justine would probably be number one as the power involved wouldn't be as great and she would be able to hold serve more easily and wouldn't run the risk of being over powered on an off day.

I think my main motivation was to get at somebody like Rafa Nadal to be honest, I hope to god most youngsters don't idolise and copy his style because we are going to have some dreadful matches in the future if that is the case! roflmao

Totally agree about the racket technology . Id love to see an enforced return to smaller rackets at Wimbledon if nowhere else. We then might see more serve-volley and less huge serves and groundstrokes. Its unlikely to happen as the grass season is so short which is a real shame.

And think of Borg , who Nadals often compared with . He didnt have the benefit of modern technology or training but was a topspin phenomenum in his day . Its not a fair comparison.

Too bloody right. Comapring Nadal to Borg is just OTT and almost an insult to Borg :angry: Well to be compared he's got 4 more FOs and 5 Wimbys to win ;)

I find that comparison unfair.

Nadal is playing 'can't miss' tennis at the moment, which really would have been very difficult to do with wood rackets where people would be well more capable of attacking him

I agree SMM; defensive tennis is boring if the players just hit the ball back and forth all the time almost effortlessly and the only test is endurance.

That's why Wimbs will always be my fav slam and RG my most tedious and why I love watching Fed play but get bored by nadal more often than not.

I wouldn't class myself as a Nadal fan (I prefer watching Federer), but I think you are doing him injustice. He has proved by now that he is very good at adapting his game. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised that people still don't take him all that seriously outside clay, even though he has more than shown that he can do well on all surfaces. (Federer said as much already during the FO.)

I agree it would be a big change if he had to play with a smaller racquet head, but given enough of a transition period I think he would still play at the top of the game. His speed, accuracy and power would serve him well with any technology. And if he needed to badly enough, I'm sure he could put together a good volley!

I think I tend to agree with jedi here, too. Some of you guys are selling Nadal too short. He's got speed, talent and hear, and I think he'd do quite well, even without the modern racquet technology.

Nadal is a fine player and would be even with a smaller racquet. (Dont forget the opponent would have a smaller racquet also) . I think he would be pretty much as effective on clay because of his speed. On a fast court , he would find it much more difficult as he would have to have better timing because of the speed/ low bounce and the smaller sweetspot . Thats my analysis for what its worth anyway.

His main strength though is defence, and I hate to say this, but that weapon would be largely taken away if all of a sudden people who play more attacking tennis were given the advantage. On clay he probably would still be the man to beat, but on faster surfaces he really would be struggling I reckon.

Anyway, the whole point of this conversation wasn't Nadal, he is by no means the only beneficiary of technology! roflmao

well i'd agree with that - on faster surfaces the guy would struggle though with wood rackets IMO.
And it would be way harder to play his brand of 'no-miss, no-risk' tennis with the wood ;)

Exactly. Defensive tennis like his would not be so great if more people played a good attacking game and he would not be able to play his game and win with an older style racquet. I do agree he is adapting his game, as he showed at Wimbers, but I still maintain that his easier draw at Wimbers gave him such a great opportunity to play himself into the tournie and achieve this. If he'd bene in Fed's place in the draw no way would he have been able to do that and he would nto have made the final.

No, I agree. Ancic would have beaten him .

Definitely. And you can laugh but I believe that Henman could have beaten him early on, given Tim's form at the Stella. There were so many good grass courters in that side of the draw.

Hey none of this did Rafa any good last night.

Youznhy was getting the first strikes in, and stayed patient on rafa's favourite exchange, Forehand to backhand, and took his moments to strike every time

I may be a Fed fan, but a lot of people are seriously overestimating the effects of switching racket size.

Baseliners would have a problem? Has anybody ever heard of Guillermo Vilas? Ivan Lendl? Jimmy Connors?

Although undoubtably the volleyers would benefit somewhat from smaller wooden rackets reducing the speed of the groundstrokes, you shouldn't forget as well that the average pro today is so much faster and more athletic than a pro in the wooden racket age was.

Why do you think Borg was so difficult to beat at Wimbledon? He had way too much time to prepare because of his phenomenal speed and it took someone as talented as McEnroe to defeat him. McEnroe however wasn't that much of a fitness freak which meant he eventually lost the battle against fitter players.

Courier won four Slams with a power game and a very small but very heavy racket. Sampras was able to serve and volley, because he could serve AND volley. Rafter won slams using serve and volley because he was an incredible athlete and because he served smartly, like Edberg before him. Becker may seem a great serve and volleyer, but Agassi had his number throughout his entire career.

Finally, does anybody remember what tennis was like twenty years ago? Woman's tennis was like watching grass grow, men's tennis on clay, which today is all about agressive play, consisted of boring, slow 120 strokes rallies and finally Wimbledon consisted of a serve and, if you were lucky, a volley.

Woah a lot of rhetorical questions ;)

Well I think it's good that the two sides to the argument are being presented here. But I don't think that anyone is saying that baseliners as a whole would be at a disadvantage. Just because you're a baseliner doesn't mean you're not an attacking player i.e. Fed. Some of the baseliners would undoubtedly enjoy a change to wooden rackets, Fed, Lindsay Davenport etc. they would prosper now just as Vilas and Evert did in the 70's.

But I think Matchstick's points about Nadal are valid to a certain extent. Defence is his game, and I'd never looked at it this way till SMM brought it up but he does play can't miss tennis. If you took away his larger racket he would have this taken away; no doubt he would adapt but he would have one of the more difficult transitions of the players to a wooden racket. He would also struggle against the elite players on faster surfaces more than he does now...that is something I am sure of. I mean he's a good striker of the ball and with his physique and fitness is always going to be a factor on clay and any slower surface but on faster ones well I think that is questionable.

There's no getting around it, racket technology affects the way the game is played and is significant. I don't think we should change back to wooden rackets but we can't go on improving racket technology until you hit the ball off it at warp speed. The ATP/WTA should start thinking about this now.

I don't think ALL baseliners would have problems - I just happen to feel that Nadal doesn't have the same amount of feel as some of those great names you've mentioned and may therefore struggle with the wood. I doubt he'd be able to generate the amount of "No-miss" topspin he currently does with modern technology!

I agree with that :ok:

Well, I'm late onto this particular thread! :blush:

A few things spring to mind here. If wooden racquets were to be reintroduced, then I would agree with the thoughts that this would reward the more naturally skillful player. Players such as Martina Hingis who be doing a whole lot better than they are now.

I would add that it would widen the gap between Federer and the rest of the field. In order to play well with a wooden racquet you need to develop very good racquet head control, as the margin for error is significantly reduced. For my money, Fed is the best in the business on this front by a long shot. JHH would also pprove to be even more dominant in the women's game as imo she has the game extremely well-suited to a wooden racquet as well.

Where I would be less inclined to agree is that Nadal would be so reduced in effectiveness. Remember that his main weakness is against the players who take the rising ball early and hit flat. A wooden racquet would take this attacking option away from his opponents, and therefore make him less susceptible to them. I would however agree that fed would have beaten him more now, and would probably be well on his way to a positive head to head against him.

I would love to see more serve and volleying. not just because of the variety in terms of attacking play. There is also the variety in terms of defensive play as well. i'm not just talking about the passing shots; I'm also talking about the well-disguised lob which is now sadly a rarity in the singles' game, simply because players a in less of a position to be lobbed!

Having said that, both Fed and A-rod came to the net a lot in the USO final. however, the volley there is simply to finish the point off when they had played an effective forcing shot so much so that the opponent is alreawdy on the back foot and likely to lose the rally anyway. Ostensibly a low-risk approach with less of the gladiatorial serve/ volleyer and counter-puncher.

So, I would agree with Martina. This is a bit of lateral thinking but the solution could be a combination of things. Why not make the racquet head smaller, and also do something with the tennis balls so that they are a little slower or/ and take less spin? Oh, less spin would also remove that yawnsome clay-court habit of moonballing (zzzzz....!).

I have one final thought which is the most radical (and probably far-fetched!) idea of the lot. It is complete wishful thinking on my part, but I would love to see players not allowed to play shots using both hands. Ironically it was Mr Borg who started this (due to his ice hockey background, appparently)! For starters, it is much more difficult to play sliced shots with two hands. JHH, Amelie and Fed all play sliced shots really well; all one-handed tennis players. It is easier to both play and disguise drop shots with one hand (again Fed, JHH).. and also easier to play top spin lobs too. Also aesthetically the one-handed shot a much more elegant shot. So, there is simply much more artistry with this, and as it would take the power aspect out of the equation once more, then surely would be the best of both worlds?? I mean, i've seen some pro players swing a racquet when warming up as if they were holding a lightsabre! It just didn't look right...

Whilst my head is undoubtedly in the clouds with the last idea, to me it is a nice 'what if..?', if nothing else..

Brilliant post petalp :ok:

I love the lightsabre bit! roflmao I know what you mean, some players do seem to make holding a racquet and hitting a ball look like they are wielding a dangerous weapon, and it is rather ugly to behold. I tend to prefer single handed hitting, take smore skill and control and looks so much more pleasing. I dont; mind if players do both single and double handed shots an dmix it up, but soem dont; seem to be able to hit a shot with one hand do they? :o

And yes anything to get rid of moonballing .... yaaaaawn, play the bloody ball I say! Can't be doing with it really. I prefer an attacking style of play and I too worry that serve volley is dyign out altogether. :(

Yes good post Petalp :ok:

I don't mind two handed back hands, mainly because I use them and it's my best shot roflmao

Two handed shots in general can become tiresome and it does tend to stifle true technique and development of that.

Whilst what you say about Nadal is true, although his opponents may have some advantages taken away with a wooden racket, so would he, he has basically based his game around top spin, an adjustment to a wooden racket would certainly impair his skills rather enhance them, particularly on the faster courts, I would've thought. He would still be brilliant at defending with a wooden racket or not, but how would he attack so competently?

By the way I realise I've been vehemently arguing that Nadal would suffer a change to wood all the way through this thread. Im not trying to be disparaging of him or his talent but am simply trying to press home that I believe that Nadal is really the personnification of modern tennis and how racket technology affects the way one plays. Taking away his racket wouldn't take away his ability to win Grand Slams but it would impair it, for a while at least; imo of course ;)

SW, I would say that your assessment of Rafa is very measured and objective, and not in an anti-Rafa bias at all... Heaven knows how such a thread would turn out on the beeb board!! :D

I also agree that such a change would reduce Rafa's attacking options.. his extravagent topspin would be negated to some extent, for sure. I would think that there would certainly be a less of a gap between him and the rest of the players. His speed around the court and his defensive capabilities would certainly still stand him in good stead, and I still think that he would be a force to be reckoned with on the red stuff.

re: two-handed shots.. I realise that they are here to stay, and sometimes they are ok to watch ( a rather specific example being Jankovic's two-handed backhand down the line).. I guess that the fact that I have always play my tennis with one handed shots on either wing might colour my thoughts on this too!! :D

It's a really interesting thing to work through the top 20 or so players on both the ATP and WTA sides and wonder how they'd get on.. You know, I'd actually think that Murray would benefit from such a change, probably Gasquet too.. Marat? Ooh, maybe it would accentuate his peaks and troughs.. he'd be even worse on a bad day!! :yikes: but all the more dominating on his good days :clap:

Yes I think it could well benefit Murray, Fed and certainly Gasquet who are all very clean strikers of the ball. I wonder how it really would turn out as there is no way to tell.

What do you think would happen in the women's game petal, im not sure Venus or Serena would like the change, probably because they'd go through a racket every game roflmao

They strike the ball cleanly but have also based their game on the ability to play high risk tennis and hit shots with larger racket heads that that might not necessariliy work so well (technique wise) with smaller wooden rackets. Their athleticism would still make them top players on faster surfaces. But I think, Lindsay and Justine may well be the greatest benficiaries overall; I think Lindsay in particular would do better on clay without so much topspin.

Hey SW :)

Good observation about Serena and Venus :ok: Even when their timing is off with the big sweet-spot racquets, they shank more than their fair share of forehands! :lol: I I think that you're right, their off days would be bad ones indeed! Hmm.. those racquets could indeed have a limited shelf life in their hands! roflmao Yes, their athleticism would certainly still make them oppponents to be reckoned with, top 10, but not whipping everyone out of sight for the fun of it, like they used to do..

Yes, Lindsay would certainly benefit as much of her hitting is more like the old-school style, and I think that most of her opponents would have real difficulty getting those heavy forehands back. Most of her game reminds me of players of a bygone era, so would be very well suited.

Yes, agreed also re: JHH. She just has one of the best techniques in the women's game, and wooden racquets would be far more of a examination of that sort of thing.. I also think that if Capriati were ever able to return to the game (looking unlikely) she would also do well. She has the technique and indeed the physique to be able to extract quite a lot of pace on the ball as well. Ooh, Kim Clijsters would be terrible to watch with those racquets! :yikes: I'm thinking of the Russians; would any of those do ok? I'd like to think that Myskina might manage ok, as she has quite a nice fluid style to her play, is capable of good clean hitting on her day, and is less of a bludgeoner than many of the identikit players. I can't see many of the younger players excelling.. Mirza? Ivanovic? Makiri? Shara? Vaidisova? All v unlikely..

Are there any others that might spring to mind? :shrug:

Chris Evert?

Neither has a game that makes you go wow! But they both hit the ball very cleanly and it has brought them both great success; more than people predicted, in the case of both.

Oh God kim would be awful :rolleyes:

Yep a lot but not all of the Russians would go, I've always thought of Myskina as the Russian with most finesse and feel so Id expect she'd do well as would Hingis. Sharpie et al may not get their feet in the top ten. Elena might I don't know though. She like the Williams is prone to error-fest off days :lol:

This thread was obviously talked about a while ago,but because I'm new,I've missed it.
Just thought I would add some bits and pieces.I have to admit I was actually old enough to have played with a wooden racket.When I first took up the game all those years ago,it was definitely different from now.The racket I use now is light years away form my wooden Mcenroe replica.
The main difference on this I feel is speed and spin.Extreme grips just didn't plain exist with wooden rackets.Most forehands were continental or eastern.Single handed backhands played continental or eastern.
There were no looped take backs,mostly straight take backs.Players prepared with more closed stances,and the strike of the ball was much flatter due to hitting more through the ball,with a high finish.
If anyone has seen Connors in particular he is the baseliner of this type.

The modern game really has evolved due to changes in tech mainly.The way I look at this kind of speculation is that players are the best for a reason.They have mastered the skills to more of a degree than anyone else.The requirements of the modern game have been mastered by Federer better than his peers,so he is the best.
I'm of the opinion that if you swapped Federer and Mcenroe round and put them each others era with what was available to them then they would still be great players.
IMO they would simply adapt to the conditions of the game in front of them.

Guys like Nadal,play the way they do because they can.Connors played the way he did because that was was the limit at the time.Talent is talent in any time,and the only thing I believe that would perhaps limit a player is that repeated phrase I often hear of "touch and feel".

So if they were to alter things,I would perhaps question some players ability to develop the finesse that some of the past legends had,like Laver,Mac,or an Edberg.

Hope this makes sense to you





These images are interesting from 1926.They don't look radically different from today's strokes.

Those pictures are very intresting :D

Just shows the fundamentals havent changed at all, there is always:

Raquet preperation
Contact point
Follow through

It will never change :D

Fine posting, Brakkus!! :ok:

I would agree 100% And very interesting that you cited Connors and Rafa as moreso players of their time, which was kind of along the lines of what SW19 and I had been discussing earlier on..

I also like your analogy of swapping JP Mac around with Fed in terms of eras and they would still flourish.. I would firmly agree with that.

Interesting set of photos, and as dl rightly pointed out, the fundamentals basically don't change.. :)

Thanks petalp.

It's an interesting debate that continues to pop up among ex pro's in commentary.Speaking from my own playing perspective,I used to have an eastern forehand grip like Sampras and a single backhand playing continental,using mainly slice.I also volleyed a lot more then.

Now some 10 years later picking up the game again,I'm playing double backhand,and a semi-western forehand.
Then i'm looking to sneak the net as opposed to rushing it.

How the game changes,and how we are influenced by playing styles of the pro's. :)

I think all this really goes to show that you cannot compare eras, even ones only 10 years apart. :)