Federer says:

"Tennis has become more a sport of movement, rather than shot making and talent. Work is, more than talent, which takes you to the top today.

In that sense I am at a disadvantage compared to the current style. I have made many adjustments to my game as things changed, am I am proud I have been able to succeed in current climate and retained my elegance of tennis past"

http://elpais.com/hemeroteca/el-pais-semanal/portadas/2014/07/20/

Woahhh...

In a couple of sentences Fed has validated what all, at OTF, have been saying.

It's no news here....but to hear it from the horse's mouth is quite refreshing!

Now I would like to hear it from the road runners and their fans.

And was of course always going to be the case with Professional tennis. We first saw it at the very beginning when Borg was winning all those 5 setters versus more talented players than him.

The bigger frames gave a reprieve to the talented ones on grass and HC but already became a one way traffic for lungers on clay.

With the new string technology...it's like we are back to small frames again and long rallies, like we have between Borg, Clerc, Vilas, etc....

Yes, Fed said so much in those few sentences. In fact, he said everything.
This year's Wimbledon final (I am up to the 4th set of watching so far), is a perfect example of where tennis is at now as it featured the extremes: top legs vs top hands.
It's very sad that physicality was allowed to take over and suffocate talent and creativity.
I have been experimenting with some racquets and was stocked to see what variety of racquets and strings exists on the market, we have had the same court dimensions, same net height, same rules, but the technology has taken over and made the mockery of tennis.
Something needs to be done about it, although I doubt it will.

During last week I had two completely opposite thoughts cross my mind.
First one was that SBH is on its last legs, and then yesterday while watching Mayer vs Ferrer, I thought maybe not - and even asked myself if SBH is actually making a comeback.

To me, tennis is at an unexpected crossroads: I believe Nadal's physical tennis has hit the brick-wall, I can't see anyone who is going to take the torch over at the level he has set up.
Spinning the ball and fitness that go hand in hand will obviously continue to flourish, but at a relatively human level which may give way for SBH to reestablish itself. Shot-makers are also gaining extra time now, Stan's win over Nadal in AO was a good example.
As we have noticed at the beginning of this year, the pack has caught up with fitness and the fitness leaders are beginning to feel the heat.
That's why Nole has hired Becker, to try and change the balance of legs vs hands in his game, and from what I have seen, he's been successful there.
Nadal, on the other hand, being unable to take the ball early has zero room for "improvement", and he can thank his lucky star he won his last 3 slams.

But even with him out of the picture, the game is still physical, mainly thanks to strings that enable safe endless rallying and control.
I was so disappointed to see how much spin Thiem loads his FH with.
Zverev is even worse...he doesn't mind rallying in the least. Kyrgios looked exciting, but am not convinced about his level-headedness that is a must for week in-week out ATP grind. Raonic in theory looks the most dangerous, but he has a few things hindering him on the inside.
So the wait for another, proper flat-hitting talent continues.

In the meantime, we can enjoy Fed's game and appreciate the love and effort he puts into it without being critical as he really is swimming against a huge tide.
I hope he gains a bit more confidence on his FH and starts playing his A game.
Ideally, if the balls get changed to help the speed of play, otherwise it's still going to be very difficult.

truffin1 wrote:"Tennis has become more a sport of movement, rather than shot making and talent. Work is, more than talent, which takes you to the top today.
In that sense I am at a disadvantage compared to the current style. I have made many adjustments to my game as things changed, am I am proud I have been able to succeed in current climate and retained my elegance of tennis past"

These are such beautiful words from Roger. They need to be shouted from the rooftops.

He played with no compromise and when all is said and done that's what we'll remember him for.
He surely chose the narrow path.

And this came to me as, for some unbeknown reason, I had a wish to hear Fur Elise out of the blue this evening for the first time since I was about 6.
So I found two vintage recordings, from yesteryear. When things were done out of love, made to last, strove to excel.

Like a silk scarf or an old watch you pass down the generations. Timeless beauties that need no preface, PR, or post scriptum.

The pianist is long gone, but his magic lives on in this unedited Youtube clip:

I thought you guys would enjoy Fed stating what we all known. it seems he's been a bit more forthcoming recently about the problems in the sport with his time wasting ie nadal comments and now this.

As proud he must be of all he has accomplished, it must disgust him to know how his capability of talent has been robbed

"Work is, more than talent, which takes you to the top today."
100% agree with that. sometimes only talent is not enough and I know a plenty of people who achieved a lot by working hard, while lazy talented people made pretty much nothing.

Nicely put by Roger.

So everybody agrees with this but looks like some like FK and SB still do not see why the game is now tougher for Fed than it then was? ...and why his domination ended?

Tenez wrote:So everybody agrees with this but looks like some like FK and SB still do not see why the game is now tougher for Fed than it then was? ...and why his domination ended?

His domination ended because of age.  Nothing more.  Even given that it's now more physical (very slightly more than 2006), he still would have won almost everything.  And I don't think Federer is referring to the last 7 or 8 years anyway.  He's not comparing 2014 with 2006.  He's comparing it with probbaly as far back as 2000.

He's 33 and just come within a whisker of beating Djokovic at Wimbledon.  Meanwhile, the "strongest" player Nadal has lost to total rank outsiders 3 times in a row.  Federer wouldn't have, even now.  You only have to look at the videos from 2004-7 to see how much better he was as a player.  No 33 year old in the history of modern tennis has won Wimbledon (or even a Slam?).

Until that changes, and numerous players are winning Slams well into their thirties, you have to concede that age is a massive factor in decline, and that decline starts in the late 20s.  All evidence suggests this is so.

It's very clear Federer is talking about the physical players....he is talking about the way Nadal, Djoiko and Murray (to some extend) are winning their matches and slams. In 2000 we also had a very physical era (Hewitt, Canas, etc...and before Chang, Borg, Wilander etc....)....but there was always talented guys who could beat them. Nowadays we have the most talented player ever and yet the match is not in his racquet cause talent is the first thing that breaks down under extreme physical challenges.

Federer was already losing against those guys when he was at his peak and they were not!! And that was even in faster conds than nowadays!


But you don;t want to see it so there is no point arguing further.

Relevant to this thread:

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11387952/us-open-runs-more-novak-djokovic

In this little feature they analyze hawkeye data for the run distances of Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Stan Wawrinka:

- distance run/ point at the latest four slams
- average distance run/ match (only using USO, excluding the SF for Wawrinka/Djokovic)
- the SF
- USO return positions ( = percentage of returns taken inside/ outside the baseline;  @Nadal)
- return positions at the four slams

The data clearly supports the point made by Federer/ this thread.

Yes that was a very interesting piece of information AL. I wish those details were also available in 2006 when fed and his peers were running a fraction of what they run today and that made such a difference about results and stamina over the whole season .

Interesting pieces of interview from Federer:

Q. Compared to last year, you're serving four miles per hour faster on the first and second serve. Do you think that's sort of the key to your success on hard courts?

ROGER FEDERER: I mean, part of it. I mean, just serving is not going to win the point every time. You have to back it up. It's how you back up especially your second serve, I think, that is key and crucial in the matches against the best players. I definitely feel like I'm serving better overall with the new racquet. I think it's definitely helped me in this regard. I do feel easier power. I've never heard the stat before, but I guess it also depends how much you're going to slice or kick or if you go big more often or not. I think tonight I tried to go bigger because I tried to hit through the wind. No, I think I've definitely had a very consistent, solid serving year as well, whereas last year, because of the circumstances, I just couldn't do it.

Q. I'd like to ask you about Wimbledon. The last point, I turned off the TV and promised myself not to watch any match again.
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, even if I would have lost in four, I don't feel like I had no chance. I was close. The match was close. Even if it would have ended in four, the press would have made it sound like, Yeah, somewhat routine. But it wasn't if you would have asked him and me. I prefer it to go five and know I was a breakpoint away, potentially one point away maybe, of rallying, putting myself in the driver's seat in the fifth. But I got over it quickly this time. That's why it was okay the way it was. I just didn't win the match.

Q. I realize you didn't play a five-set match tonight, but I was wondering how physically and mentally harder it is for you to play a five-set match over a three-set match and if you would prefer to play three sets at the Grand Slams?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, I think it's good avoiding the five-setters. Even though they're a lot of fun playing them, you learn a lot out of five-setters, you kind of get an unbelievably lot of information out of five-setters because you go through these momentum swings, you come out on top if you do win with unbelievable energy. But clearly every hour or every step you take that you're on the court longer, you'll feel that down the road. Not necessarily right at the tournament, the next day, but next week, next month, next year, it starts piling up. That's why I think it's always good avoiding five-setters when you can. The thing is we're not quite used to them anymore as much these days, because back in the day when I came up we still have five-setters in finals, other than the Grand Slams, in the 250s, 500s, and 1000s. That's all gone away completely. Five-setters only exist in Davis Cup play and Grand Slam play. I'm happy when I avoid them, but it also gives me great information when I do get stuck in one.
(T - You can tell through the words he used he is drained and cannot afford a 5 setter before the final!)

If I look back in '09 when I won the French Open, Wimbledon, my wife was pregnant, and it inspired me to great performances. I believe it's rather an advantage than a disadvantage in my opinion. Then again, he's a different guy, different background. My wife was with me. She's not here. Totally different situation. It helped me playing well.
(T - This answers some questions to those who believed fatherhood was a handicap for tennis players. I always thought it should not be..but then again they are not all as relaxed as Roger)

Awesome interview (and answers, as usual form Fed)! Thanks for showing it to us, T!

FedererKing wrote:

Tenez wrote:So everybody agrees with this but looks like some like FK and SB still do not see why the game is now tougher for Fed than it then was? ...and why his domination ended?

His domination ended because of age.  Nothing more.  Even given that it's now more physical (very slightly more than 2006), he still would have won almost everything.  And I don't think Federer is referring to the last 7 or 8 years anyway.  He's not comparing 2014 with 2006.  He's comparing it with probbaly as far back as 2000.

He's 33 and just come within a whisker of beating Djokovic at Wimbledon.  Meanwhile, the "strongest" player Nadal has lost to total rank outsiders 3 times in a row.  Federer wouldn't have, even now.  You only have to look at the videos from 2004-7 to see how much better he was as a player.  No 33 year old in the history of modern tennis has won Wimbledon (or even a Slam?).

Until that changes, and numerous players are winning Slams well into their thirties, you have to concede that age is a massive factor in decline, and that decline starts in the late 20s.  All evidence suggests this is so.

Federer domination ended also because of time. Its impossible for anyone to keep dominating forever even if we assumed the courts remained the same, the technology too and also also Fed's physical health. People learn about the game and pattern slowly and won't get beaten in the same way over and over.

Fed's compatriots and older opponents in earlier years would easily get outfoxed by Feds game. His serve was very difficult for them to read. He could so easily hit behind their back and they would all be sitting ducks. But the newer generation just studied his game a lot, time was on their side too. Its easy to see how easily the newer player's are able to guess Fed's serving direction or his smash as well. 

So no matter what happend Fed's dominance or anyone's dominance in a 1x1 game would definitely end slowly. The opponent will evolve faster and there will be a time when he would have read the game well enough.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Federer domination ended also because of time. Its impossible for anyone to keep dominating forever even if we assumed the courts remained the same, the technology too and also also Fed's physical health. People learn about the game and pattern slowly and won't get beaten in the same way over and over.

Fed's compatriots and older opponents in earlier years would easily get outfoxed by Feds game. His serve was very difficult for them to read. He could so easily hit behind their back and they would all be sitting ducks. But the newer generation just studied his game a lot, time was on their side too. Its easy to see how easily the newer player's are able to guess Fed's serving direction or his smash as well. 

So no matter what happend Fed's dominance or anyone's dominance in a 1x1 game would definitely end slowly. The opponent will evolve faster and there will be a time when he would have read the game well enough.

I don;t think that is quite true. Up to 2012, Federer was only losing to the 3 roadrunners. No different than when he used to lose versus Hewitt pre-2004 but became fit enough to withstand Hewitt rallying. With the arrival of Nadal and the other 2 the physical bar was much higher for Fed and you can see by looking at the score how many matches he lost to Murray and Djoko after winning the first set simply down to losing his edge due to tiredness...like he used to lose to v Hewiit. We know stamina probably plateaus at 29/30 so age was no excuse for losing to Murray Djoko and Nadal before 2010. He simply lost cause he never was as fit as the other 3! (probably for the reasons we like to discuss here). Since 2007, the fittest simply won whichever slam (when not won by Federer).

federer started to lose cause the game became very physical after 2006. Again refer to the list of players he was facing in 2006....none of them could physically challenge Federer...so clearly talentwise he was not going to be troubled.....quite different after 2006.....and nothing to do with age. If he can play 2 TMS finals in a row at 33...you can imagine that at 30 age was not much of an issue!

Tenez wrote:
federer started to lose cause the game became very physical after 2006. Again refer to the list of players he was facing in 2006....none of them could physically challenge Federer...so clearly talentwise he was not going to be troubled.....quite different after 2006.....and nothing to do with age. If he can play 2 TMS finals in a row at 33...you can imagine that at 30 age was not much of an issue!

Yes, that is the key point.
I am beginning to think that most people do not fully understand how huge a change that is and how it affects play.
I tried to explain it a bit on your Fed 2006 domination thread, but you would probably do a much better job of it than me!

Maybe even a thread on its own as it's so crucial in the current era.

You know when I mentioned I found the north-south movement more aerobically challenging than east-west, and you said that was true bur more of the past, as now the adjustment steps take it out even more...well I finally felt it last week...for time first time ever my legs turned into jelly...it was a shock.
And only after one game of longer points...the women I played (who is an incredible retriever) was barely able to finish the set and didn't bother moving much due to, according to her "a huge cramp" in one calf.

That was such an eye-opener.

Also the difference of handling a flat shot vs a power-spin one. How much more exhausting it is to handle
those bombs that come safely with such ease with modern strings now.
It's fun having talent and being able to deal with it for a set or two, but then that's it...a struggle and a wrestle to the bitter end.

No fun to watch, as to me it feels like an act of strangling.

But it's important to thoroughly understand those laws of modern game and now it's turned tennis upside down.
Then we can compare domination with domination.

noleisthebest wrote:I am beginning to think that most people do not fully understand how huge a change that is and how it affects play.

Despite having been my main point of discussion for the last 7 years since Joined tennis forums and expressed very clearly here by the horse's mouth!

You know when I mentioned I found the north-south movement more aerobically challenging than east-west, and you said that was true bur more of the past, as now the adjustment steps take it out even more...well I finally felt it last week...for time first time ever my legs turned into jelly...it was a shock.
And only after one game of longer points...the women I played (who is an incredible retriever) was barely able to finish the set and didn't bother moving much due to, according to her "a huge cramp" in one calf.

That was such an eye-opener.

yes everything can be felt at our level too. the principles are no different....just the level and pains are more extreme for them.

No fun to watch, as to me it feels like an act of strangling.

Hence why GP calls nadal the Constrictor!

But it's important to thoroughly understand those laws of modern game and now it's turned tennis upside down.
Then we can compare domination with domination.

Exactly. This is why even the fittest players like Djoko and Nadal can't even play a full year like Fed could back in 2006.

Tenez wrote:
Exactly. This is why even the fittest players like Djoko and Nadal can't even play a full year like Fed could back in 2006.

...and also a reason why it's virtually impossible to dominte now the same way as in 2006.
Then, skill alone was enough and body was free from pressure.

We all know what happened in AO 2012 final...who on Earth can dominate with that type of tennis and physical exertion?!
Even if Federer was 25 now, he'd still struggle the same way, (actually less as he will have learnt the game differently)
Nadal can't last even half a season any more...and Nole is trying everything to learn volleying and cut out long rallies.
That's why I'm so excited to watch Federer play with the bigger frame and Edberg's influence. This time last year, I was expecting a bit more power and control, but not this amazing S&V-ing.
Again, shame it didn't happen earlier, but better late than never.

Instead od hiring Annacone, he should have just got a bigger frame, but I suppose it was not so clear to him then as now.
He had to hit the brick wall first.

noleisthebest wrote:

...and also a reason why it's virtually impossible to dominte now the same way as in 2006.
Then, skill alone was enough and body was free from pressure.

It was extremely physical then and only Federer coudl afford to play the whole year without too much trouble....but back then I already thought the game coudl not get more physical. Agassi was already saying in 2004 that the game became much more physical than at his own time. It was not a stroll in the park then...now it's simply absurd.

I never noticed/realised then...the balls were not coming back ad nauseum like now.
But def more physical than 90s.

Surely, it can't get any worse than AO 2012...Nole said he had an out of body experience in the 5th set.

Some more interesting bits:

Q. I have a question about the string. A lot of people say this kind of string changes the game a lot. I think now you're playing with a combination. Did you ever play with 100 percent gut?

ROGER FEDERER: I did. Coming up on tour I played with all gut until 2002, and then I switched from the 85 to the 90 square inch racquet in 2002 before Rome. Then I think I won Hamburg with it, with the half and half. Ever since I play with the same combination. I've never switched Luxilon or gut in the main or the crosses. I've always kept it the same way. I do believe it's revolutionized the game to some degree. You can play with more topspin. With the same swing you could not find angles that we find in today's game. I've had to adjust over the years to this new play. It's had a big impact on the game, no doubt.
(T - This is the most important change for 2 reasons:
1 -It makes shots safer and more powerful
2 - It forces the players to do much more running and holding the centre of the court is not as important as in the past. This made the game much more physical. And Nadal (Toni rather) made the most of that.

Q. How do you adjust so quickly to those big serves? You returned at 147. Did you have your eyes opened or closed?

ROGER FEDERER: Got to check the replay. I'm not sure. It was maybe one of those moments (laughter). But the 142, honestly I hit it and I turned around. I didn't know if it went into the stands or the bottom of the net or on the other side. I just felt like I hit it clean. You have a feel that maybe it could have gone in and went for a winner. The 147 one I felt like I was there and felt like I had more control on it. The difference between 142 and 147, there's none really in the racquet. I think once you pass the 135 range everything is just really fast. It's true, though (smiling). There you got to maybe either maybe pick a side or maybe have read the serve a little bit, because you do see, I feel, with the big, big serving guys, when they go for the really big serve, I feel like you just have that feeling that they're really going to try to crank it and their body tightens up, and that gives it away sometimes that they're going to go down the T on the deuce side, which is normal. Can't be the same motion.

Q. Do you turn around and look at the speed gun? Did you see that was 147?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I did. I'm aware of every serve, how hard it is after the point when he goes big, because I think it's interesting and I want to see. Sometimes I feel it, as well. I'm like, That felt like 138, and it might be just a couple off. It's the same with my own serve. I can judge it probably to a few miles an hour close.

Q. There is a new president of the ATP players council. What do you expect him to do?

ROGER FEDERER: Eric is a great guy. He was a wonderful vice president. Very nice to talk to, to deal with. Never had a problem together. President never had to tell the vice president to behave. No, joking. I'm very happy he's the president. He's been on the council for some time now. He showed some interest in being the president. It was nice to see that actually a few guys wanted to become the president, which I was happy to see, because in the past sometimes it's not what you really wanted to be. You just wanted to be on the council. They want to be on the council and they want to be president and vice president. They feel it's something that -- you know, you learn from the council. You can lead the council. You can be there for the players. It's a nice feeling being able to serve the ATP, in my opinion. For me it was the same for so many years. I am convinced that Butorac and Gilles Simon, the vice president, and everybody on the council, including Stan and so forth, are going to do a wonderful job for the next few years.
T - agree, I can't see why not. I know Gilles is not happy about the extra time taken between points...for instance.

Q. With you and Serena going for the 18th major, what are the similarities and differences?

ROGER FEDERER: Probably serve about the same speed. That's about it. Other than that, we've been on the top of the game for a while, stuck at the same number. We'd both like to still add more to the tally, you know......

Tenez wrote:Some more interesting bits:

Q. I have a question about the string. A lot of people say this kind of string changes the game a lot. I think now you're playing with a combination. Did you ever play with 100 percent gut?

ROGER FEDERER: I did. Coming up on tour I played with all gut until 2002, and then I switched from the 85 to the 90 square inch racquet in 2002 before Rome. Then I think I won Hamburg with it, with the half and half. Ever since I play with the same combination. I've never switched Luxilon or gut in the main or the crosses. I've always kept it the same way. I do believe it's revolutionized the game to some degree. You can play with more topspin. With the same swing you could not find angles that we find in today's game. I've had to adjust over the years to this new play. It's had a big impact on the game, no doubt.
(T - This is the most important change for 2 reasons:
1 -It makes shots safer and more powerful
2 - It forces the players to do much more running and holding the centre of the court is not as important as in the past. This made the game much more physical. And Nadal (Toni rather) made the most of that.

Another insightful interview from Federer. Almost as interesting as watching him play!

Especially like the "T" comment!

From my experience (although everyone now plays with modern strings), the flat-hit ball is nicer to receive as the bounce is lower and the ball "normal". All you need is to know where the ball is going and try to get to it.
That's how tennis has been played for many years. Coordination (talent) was everything.

The balls hit with a lot of spin (and the amount is obviously tiny compared with what comes off pros' strings, ESPECIALLY Nadal's - hence so much grunting and sound of exertion from pros) are much heavier as they have a mind of their own if hit "properly".
It's more difficult to time those, and the contact point is trickier....or maybe I'm just not that used to them.
Interestingly, those who hit the ball flatly are much more creative than the spinny, usually quite dull players.

On a rec level, this is all slow-motion compared to pros. One guy told me last week: "I am only good for 10 minutes" (he tries to spin the ball as much as possible, he is a fit 30-year old). That gives an idea of what those 6 hours in AO 2012 final meant.

Looking at pros, the physical aspect appears three-fold: first the player who hits the ball with lots of spin expands much more energy than a flat-hitter (one look at Nadal's bicep conforms it safely) the receiver of that ball also gets involved physically (whether he hits his own shots flat or with spin) as it's a heavier ball, and because most of these pros have been hitting about a thousand balls since the age of 4, they can aim for lines pretty safely as the strings will allow spin to drop the ball and not let it fly if not timed to perfection.

The worst of all is the slow courts and high bouncing balls that allow players more time than they need to, making majority of them now look better than they are, which is where the third moment of physicality comes with players running those balls down around the court almost into the stands, rather than playing the game inside it by taking the ball early and attacking. But of course, one needs talent and courage for it.

Instead of keeping the speed of courts/balls and that way try and control the length or rallies, ATP have done the opposite and ruined the game.
It is also turning a blind eye on doping.
Too many players are now able to execute safe tennis, keep the ball in for a long time, blunting the shot-makers and killing creativity.

It's such a negative trend that has led first to AO 2012 final, and now further evolved into a sport played by dull giants, as that was the only way to blast road-runners off the court.

Unless you are the most coordinated athlete ever born and dare challenge them all with talent.

When you think that short Chang gave Pete lots of trouble with natural strings on fast carpet surface, you can imagine that a guy like Nadal with synth guts on slow court was always going to be a huge, impossible challenge for a SHBH.

It simply "unfair"!

Yes...double-handed shots should have never, ever been allowed.

I don't remember how it happened, surely there must have been an uproar!
Getting rid of them would sort a lot of problems, but that's never going to happen...one can dream, though!

Nadal...the biggest con tennis has ever seen. 14 slams!!!!!!!

I feel sorry for the entire generation of players.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the physics of it all, the spinny ball feels "heavy" because the forward movement is coupled with the movement around the axis. To generate both types of movement takes more energy than to generate just one type of movement.

For the receiver these kind of balls are "heavy" because they have to turn around the movement from forward to backward which is a lot more challenging because of the secondary movement around the axis which strengthens inertness.

Else  at Federer about Serena: "Probably serve about the same speed." Kinda weird when you look at the fact that Serena is a woman and should have less power.  But then again - she is a very special speciwoman.

Serena does not serve as fast as Federer... she may do the odd serve that is close, but that's about it. I had a look at some stats and 2008 US Open her average was 104 mph compared to Federer 114 (but this was one match).  I am guessing Fed's second serve fares much better.

Federer placement is also much better.

She serves very fast for a woman, though.

Oh and this from elsewhere:

A 120 mph flat Serena serve troubles no ATP player. A 120 mph sliced Federer serve troubles every ATP player. The difference is spin. Federer can crank a serve into the low 140's, but he rarely does so because a 120 mph serve with a lot of action on it is more effective. -

Autumnleaf wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the physics of it all, the spinny ball feels "heavy" because the forward movement is coupled with the movement around the axis. To generate both types of movement takes more energy than to generate just one type of movement.

For the receiver these kind of balls are "heavy" because they have to turn around the movement from forward to backward which is a lot more challenging because of the secondary movement around the axis which strengthens inertness.

Yes, that's partly true - due to spin the ball is "live" and moves left and right until it makes contact with the ball.
The real problem and heaviness come from the power that is applied to the ball, i.e. "muscling" it.
The harder the ball is struck the more power it will carry.

That is why players now need and have all the extra muscle.

In the era of natural gut and wooden racquets, there was little spin, and players looked human like the rest of us.

The challenge was to time the ball with such small racquet head, i.e. you didn't need the muscle, just hand to eye coordination=talent.

Modern racquets now marginalise talent because the racquet head is around 100 sq in, as opposed to 80 and that is a huuuge difference.
Racquets are also much lighter, by about a 100g, and then finally the strings that allow loading spin.

So now we have giants playing with light powerful racquets...whacking the ball safely and chasing it with strong, big legs.
Federer would switch to wooden racquets easily, but 90% of current tour would only be good for ballboys without the ease and power modern racquets bring.
They train and drill their CC and other basic groundstroke shots from a young age, adding more as they keep maturing as players, at the same time all improving their timing, and that's why there is so little versatility/variety...that is why also Federer's backhand stands above all other SBHs...he hits almost 20 different BHs per match (CC flat, sliced, DTL, half-volleys, volleys etc...) whereas Stan a max of 3-4...all because of Federer's extraordinary talent, i.e. ability to control the ball and control it with the appropriate direction and strength of hitting, depending on what he wants to do with it.
It often looks like improvisation, but what talent is...it rises above drilled routines.

Obviously, the ball is toughest to handle at the net, which is why his current S&V tennis is nothing short of a miracle. He is taming live power-bombs, McEnroe didn't have to.
Depending on how you hold the racquet (grip) you hit the ball with more or less spin, but basically even the so called flat hitters apply a bit of topspin.

One look at players arms tells you everything: Nadal's massive left bicep is a testament to his lack of talent.
Federer, Gofffin, Mannarino have bicep sticks...

@FK I didn't mean to imply that the Serena serve is on par in quality with the Fed serve, just that she uses incredible power for a woman to have a serve (almost) as fast as him. Lisicki is the record holder now though I believe with over 130 MPH.

@NITB yes, that's basically what I meant, but expressed in a very different way.  I was aiming at the pure physics there, i.e. power applied to a moving object to make it move (very fast and swirling).

noleisthebest wrote:

Yes, that's partly true - due to spin the ball is "live" and moves left and right until it makes contact with the ball.
The real problem and heaviness come from the power that is applied to the ball, i.e. "muscling" it.
The harder the ball is struck the more power it will carry.

That is why players now need and have all the extra muscle.

In the era of natural gut and wooden racquets, there was little spin, and players looked human like the rest of us.

The challenge was to time the ball with such small racquet head, i.e. you didn't need the muscle, just hand to eye coordination=talent.

Modern racquets now marginalise talent because the racquet head is around 100 sq in, as opposed to 80 and that is a huuuge difference.
Racquets are also much lighter, by about a 100g, and then finally the strings that allow loading spin.

So now we have giants playing with light powerful racquets...whacking the ball safely and chasing it with strong, big legs.
Federer would switch to wooden racquets easily, but 90% of current tour would only be good for ballboys without the ease and power modern racquets bring.
They train and drill their CC and other basic groundstroke shots from a young age, adding more as they keep maturing as players, at the same time all improving their timing, and that's why there is so little versatility/variety...that is why also Federer's backhand stands above all other SBHs...he hits almost 20 different BHs per match (CC flat, sliced, DTL, half-volleys, volleys etc...) whereas Stan a max of 3-4...all because of Federer's extraordinary talent, i.e. ability to control the ball and control it with the appropriate direction and strength of hitting, depending on what he wants to do with it.
It often looks like improvisation, but what talent is...it rises above drilled routines.

Obviously, the ball is toughest to handle at the net, which is why his current S&V tennis is nothing short of a miracle. He is taming live power-bombs, McEnroe didn't have to.
Depending on how you hold the racquet (grip) you hit the ball with more or less spin, but basically even the so called flat hitters apply a bit of topspin.

One look at players arms tells you everything: Nadal's massive left bicep is a testament to his lack of talent.
Federer, Gofffin, Mannarino have bicep sticks...

I meant "contact with the racquet/strings of the receiver".

Autumnleaf wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the physics of it all, the spinny ball feels "heavy" because the forward movement is coupled with the movement around the axis. To generate both types of movement takes more energy than to generate just one type of movement.

Yes and no. A ball hot flat is usually heavier cause it does not lose energy spinning around. A flat ball is usually faster....much faster in fact...see Nadal's BH and his FH. Despite much less whipping his CC BH can be extremely fast.

For the receiver these kind of balls are "heavy" because they have to turn around the movement from forward to backward which is a lot more challenging because of the secondary movement around the axis which strengthens inertness.

Nadal's ball is heavy cause he has spin and power....but I don't think Djoko's would be seen as heavy. Murray can certainly hit a heavy ball on his BH...and sometimes FH.