Kent Carlson

...does anyone remember? he was a tennis phenomenon a la Nadal. Same game, running everywhere and successful at 16yo.

But that was a time where science was not of much help and at 21 retired after many knee op.



His game was very simple. Moonballing to death....but at that time I thought it was pretty cool!

Where did you pull him out of?
What a terrible player.
I could only bear to see a few points.


It is amazing to see how much tennis has changed, though.

Yep...I am watching Noah v Edberg too (when Edberg was 19)...such a different game nowadays.

Tenez wrote:Yep...I am watching Noah v Edberg too (when Edberg was 19)...such a different game nowadays.

I don't blame you.

It was more human and artistic.

I saw a 10 year old have a lesson in the club yesterday...hitting the ball as hard as anyone else...and thought: what will he be like in 10 years' time, what will he do with all those years of ball striking in his muscle memory?

... wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yep...I am watching Noah v Edberg too (when Edberg was 19)...such a different game nowadays.

I don't blame you.

It was more human and artistic.

I saw a 10 year old have a lesson in the club yesterday...hitting the ball as hard as anyone else...and thought: what will he be like in 10 years' time, what will he do with all those years of ball striking in his muscle memory?

Honestly I prefer to watch Fed v Nadal. ...now that Fed is winning.

Those new strings brings more variety to the game....even if it has been a pain the last 10 years to see fit players making the most of it. Now the youngsters are going to make those RRuners life much harder.

Problem for me now is that a lot of young players are bashers as a result of rr era.
Too much baseline, too much percentage - mainly thanks to dbh.

That is particularly evident in women's tennis, which has become unwatchable.

The players that are best to watch now are the "oldies" , 30+ yo in fact.

... wrote:Problem for me now is that a lot of young players are bashers as a result of rr era.
Too much baseline, too much percentage - mainly thanks to dbh.

That is particularly evident in women's tennis, which has become unwatchable.

The players that are best to watch now are the "oldies" , 30+ yo in fact.

I have always said that the best players talent wise were early 2000: Blake, Nalby, Coria, Safin, Davydenko, Gaudo, Federer, etc...they all gave up early disgusted by the brand of tennis dominating...or else but then tennis was exciting to watch.

Now I think Dimi and Thiem are also very talented and great to watch .

Tenez wrote:

... wrote:Problem for me now is that a lot of young players are bashers as a result of rr era.
Too much baseline, too much percentage - mainly thanks to dbh.

That is particularly evident in women's tennis, which has become unwatchable.

The players that are best to watch now are the "oldies" , 30+ yo in fact.

I have always said that the best players talent wise were early 2000: Blake, Nalby, Coria, Safin, Davydenko, Gaudo, Federer, etc...they all gave up early disgusted by the brand of tennis dominating...or else but then tennis was exciting to watch.

Now I think Dimi and Thiem are also very talented and great to watch .

You're right! (Gonzo was good, too)

Tennis was great then - fast and "real".

I was just thinking in which era Federer was playing the most attractive game, and it would probably have been then - he was free, not pinned to the baseline by superfit DBH percentage "walls".

But the fact he found the way to beat them and win this last AO is mind-blowing.

Yes. The problem is that he is too erratic nowadays due to his old age. He would have been unbeatable had he adopted that raquet as early as 2001 or 2.

Anyway we are looking too much behind. But that thread is about Kent Carlson who clearly was a beta version of Nadal. ...just that he was never prepared physically like Nadal. But I am sure that with Wilander Tony got inspiration from him.

Tenez wrote:Anyway we are looking too much behind. But that thread is about Kent Carlson who clearly was a beta version of Nadal. ...just that he was never prepared physically like Nadal. But I am sure that with Wilander Tony got inspiration from him.

"inspiration"

Oh, dear...if only Carlsson had known...(btw, how could you think he was "cool"!!!)

Problem is, these "Carlssons" are everywhere!

Is it reasonable to conclude that when Nadal, Murray and Djokovic stop winning big titles (which we may be witnessing already) fitness percentage tennis will have run its course for good?

Carlsson's Epitaph


Inspirarion you were
That reached the stars
Through a Moonball.

... wrote:[Is it reasonable to conclude that when Nadal, Murray and Djokovic stop winning big titles (which we may be witnessing already) fitness percentage tennis will have run its course for good?

It's down to technology. Those RRuners would have no chance without those new strings. They all got extinct in teh 90s, Baseliners were hard hitters. No retrievers. Chang got nowhere after his 1989 slam. Only new strings allowed guys like Hewitt to be successful v SVers.

I think those retrievers are being found out now but they are still number 1, 2 and Nadal is on his way back!...so not over the hill just yet. And again, some new technology or diet might bring them back.

... wrote:Carlsson's Epitaph


Inspirarion you were
That reached the stars
Through a Moonball.

So cruel!