Tennis: Players Records Vs. Top 10 at Slams ...

Fair enough mate, you seem to know your racquet stuff. Mr Graphite. :good

 

He tried, it was public knowledge. Going to a mid size graphite means MUCH more trampoline effect and therefore hard to control power for someone not used to it. Connors and Evert to name two had plenty of probs early on but then showed the benefits later. These people are incredibly tuned in to what they actually use and such a big change throws them way off their game for a time. A Borg could belt that tennis ball pretty much wherever he wanted to and more power was an immediate hindrance.

Borg actually used a wood racquet when he made his unsuccessful comeback. Sources close to Borg said he admitted to making a mistake trying to come back with the wood instead of taking the time to acclimatise to graphite.

 

The steel thing was an improvement on the wood though, right ?

Some of his rivals should have bombed the factory.

 

Be happy, the Max 200G was an English raquet that both Mac and Graf used to take the tennis world by storm. Navratilova upon having been beaten by Graf a bit Martina used a thinly disguised Max 200G (blacked out) with a Yonex logo on the strings in 1987 Even funnier is she won Wimby and the U.S. with it. The 200G is legendary and was ahead of it's time. Dunlop discovered a process called injection moulding that took great amounts of vibration out of the racquet, one of the complaints many pro's had about them.

 

Some didn't mind steel Sonny, many hated it. They reckoned the T-2000 vibrated to buggery. It gave Connors a personal advantage but others didn't find the same. Tanner was another to use steel very early on. Lendl went to graphite before just about anyone, but not to a mid size head.

 

Interesting.
Were there any notable players who struggled (in the rankings) with all this transit and old racquets becoming obsolete ?
I know you mentioned Borg, but his was a comeback.

 

Thinking of the big names. I used to have a good article outlining Evert and Connor's troubles. Wilander come thru with one as did Becker, Edberg and the gang. Navratilova transitioned perfectly into a R-22 Yonex. Austin retired to injury i think around the time. Noah used an oversized wood/graphite for years, Vilas and Cash the same blend for ages. Gomez transitioned well. Arias so so. Nastase ok.

Yeah most if not all moved forward quite ok. For people like Connors and Evert it involved adding a bit of topspin from the backcourt, this took a little time. The extra power was sending the ball long and topspin brought it back down. These people are so finely tuned to their instrument it takes a bit of time, but their talent makes it inevitable.

 

Federer is way ahead of anyone esle to have ever played the game, belive me watching him live is incredible. Sampras was pretty impressive too but too many times it was his massive serve alone that got him out of trouble , something Federer doesnt need. Agassi has a good shot and in my opinion was actually the better player than Sampras but Pets serve rescued him many times in that head to head. Also LAver loses out bevause although he won ethe grand slam (2 times) only the FRench open was not on Grass at that time .

 

Yeah, that makes sense.
Obviously, being the best they can adapt to whatever they have to use. The tennis tour schedule is so busy and intense though the pressure must have been on. It's not like other sports where they would have 3-4 months or more off-season to dedicate to practicing the new racquet. A lot of it had to be done in competition, I guess.

 

Yes exactly. We can't say so and so was better but Petes serve bailed him out - the sum of the parts is what makes Sampras better. The serve was his biggest weapon. It would be like taking the left jab off a Larry Holmes.

 

Looking back on the content of this thread, I think history has perhaps vindicated my caution in accepting the position that Federer would break the Grand Slam record or was necessarily the greatest of all time. That is, certainly Federer is in the running- his "three-Grand-Slams-in-three-separate-years" accomplishment is pretty fantastic, as are the 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals and 17 consecutive semifinals, which no other player has ever come close to equalling- but certainly the position does not look like a cinch to me at this stage.

I would consider the total Grand Slam titles, total years at number one, and consecutive years at number one records, all of which are still held by Sampras, to be the overruling factor in comparison between the two if all else remains the same, as they are the most overarching measurements of total career achievement. It now seems clear that Federer will not equal Sampras' consecutive-years-at-#1 record, as Nadal has overtaken him and it would take virtually-flawless performance by Federer and absolute collapse by Nadal for Federer to regain #1 before the end of the year- it is also doubtful, I would say, that Federer will ever regain the year-end #1 position, given the fairly precipitous nature of his decline and the emergence of Nadal and Djokovic, along with a couple of other young contenders who may take up more room at the top of the game in the near future.

It now appears extremely unlikely Federer will ever win the French Open, which would complete the career Grand Slam and push him ahead of Sampras in my estimation, as Nadal is only becoming ever more dominant at the tournament while Federer falls further into the rear-view mirror. What's more, Nadal has now overtaken him at Wimbledon as well, and both Nadal and Djokovic have plainly outperformed him on hard courts this year, although admittedly Federer's sickness early on in the year had something to do with it at the time; even still, it looks to be a potentially-permanent momentum shift, with Federer's repeated flops in the North American hardcourt circuit followed by his loss to Blake at the Olympics, which would mean that Federer is no longer a clear favorite at any Grand Slam event.

Federer has been far more vulnerable to lower-level players this year, and has for the most part been consistently bested by the other two elite players in high-level events. Federer clearly seems to have lost a step physically, and even more significantly, his mental edge has all but evaporated; he no longer displays his old steely nerve on crucial points, nor do his opponents have the same sense of hopelessness and demoralization when faced with the prospect of meeting him on court, and Nadal now looks to be Federer's master in a contest of wills.

All that said, though, Federer is still one of the most talented players ever to grace a tennis court, his Grand Slam results even this year- a semifinal and two finals- have been at a level which would make any other player proud, he was within two points of capturing the Wimbledon title once again in his epic with Nadal, he must still be considered at least one of the top three favorites at any of the Grand Slam tournaments, and he probably still has two to three years left at or near the elite level. As such, I believe there is certainly still a live chance for Federer to capture the necessary three more Grand Slam victories break Sampras' total career Slam record and clinch recognition as the greatest player of the open era. Personally, I'm glad the plot has thickened the way it has; this makes the issue far more dramatic and suspenseful than it would have been had Federer merely continued cruising to title after title.