Roger Federer as Religious Experience

[El Dude]

A great article from way back in 2006, by the late David Foster Wallace.

First of all, sports writing doesn't get much better than that. It is a long but beautiful read, which any fan of the game should enjoy, and fans of Federer will love.

But it is an interesting article for many reasons; Wallace un-packs the modern game in a very interesting way. I am curious what folks think about his take on the modern power-baseline game, and if it has changed at all in the 11 years since the article was written.

Also quite interesting is his take on how Federer took the power-baseline game and went beyond it with his unique genius. Towards the end he talked about the Junior players emulating Federer, with the question of whether any of them might be another Federer. Obviously that wasn't the case.

The article leaves me wondering: What's next? According to Wallace, Lendl was the first to really exploit the potential of the composite racket, which led to the power baseline game becoming the dominant form. Federer upped it a notch, while we could say that Nadal perfected what Lendl had started, and Djokovic added his own brand of athletic greatness.

I don't know the latest in tennis technology, but I'm guessing there's nothing as game-changing as a new racket on the horizon. But where will the game go in a post-Federer world? Will we merely see players continue to get bigger, stronger, and faster? Or will some new and unforeseen innovation arise from an as-yet-unknown tennis genius?

 

[Busted]

I love that David Foster Wallace article...but sadly have no answers about where the game is going unless there's another GREAT player to carry it into the future. More than 1 great player would be great, but let's not get greedy. The fact of the matter is that in today's world there are too many other electric sports (and athletes) and too many entertainment sources to compete with. Tennis needs to have someone truly outstanding and not just a bunch of mediocre guys slugging it out for #1. Roger did the heavy lifting himself for a few years until Nadal's emergence. Then the two of them carried the game until Djokovic joined the battle. In some ways Roger is still the one doing the most heavy lifting. He's the one everyone still flocks to see and he's the one everybody still asks about. The question I have is - who's the next guy who can carry the baton for a sustained period of time? Technology aside - it's the players more than the equipment who are going to keep tennis alive and move it forward..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In terms of technology, now there are lot of data gathering being done with special racquets, shoes and even sensors attached to the body. That is going to produce a lot of data about a player's movement, strengths and weaknesses. Data science is taking over the world and that includes tennis world also. Remains to be seen as to how much it would be of help to players in improving their game.

 

[britbox]

The bigger game changer was just a few years before the article and the changes in string technology.

Good article here with takes by various players on how Luxilon changed the game.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...ow-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

Agassi's take stood out:

People talk about the game changing, about players growing more powerful, and rackets getting bigger, but the most dramatic change in recent years is the strings. The advent of a new elastic polyester string, which creates vicious topspin, has turned average players into greats, and greats into legends. [Coach Darren Cahill] puts the string on one of my rackets... In a practice session I don't miss a ball for two hours. Then I don't miss a ball for the rest of the tournament. I've never won the Italian Open before, but I win it now, because of Darren and his miracle string.

 

[mrzz]

People talk about the game changing, about players growing more powerful, and rackets getting bigger, but the most dramatic change in recent years is the strings. The advent of a new elastic polyester string, which creates vicious topspin, has turned average players into greats, and greats into legends. [Coach Darren Cahill] puts the string on one of my rackets... In a practice session I don't miss a ball for two hours. Then I don't miss a ball for the rest of the tournament. I've never won the Italian Open before, but I win it now, because of Darren and his miracle string.

I wonder if this actually makes sense... doesn't everyone have access to those strings?

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I wonder if this actually makes sense... doesn't everyone have access to those strings?

There is a lot of evidence around in the form of Simons and Aguts of this world doing just fine. The strikers fall behind.

 

[brokenshoelace]

String technology is definitely the biggest game-changer, as Britbox pointed out above, and it's going at a faster rate than we believe. I remember a Federer comment from this year's US Open which stood out to me, when asked about his upcoming match with Del Potro and the memories he had of their 2009 final, and Roger pointed out that Del Potro's forehand is probably even bigger now due to the advance in technology. For me, that was an eye-catching because I don't consider 2009 to be that long ago in the grand scheme of things (even though it's been almost 9 years, somehow!) and the way tennis is played, to the naked eye, doesn't look to be different in any way now than it did then. Shows you what we know.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In 2009 USO, JMDP was clocking forehand winners at more than 100 mph. While I don't have the data, I doubt his forehand now is better that at that USO.

 

[Busted]

I remember the Agassi quote about Luxilon. The interesting thing is that isn't Federer the only current top 100 player who still strings his racket half synthetic\half gut?. Then again about 95 of the top 100 are allergic to the net.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In 2009 USO, JMDP was clocking forehand winners at more than 100 mph. While I don't have the data, I doubt his forehand now is better that at that USO.

I definitely don't think it's better, but relatively bigger due to advancement in technology (at least according to Roger). Of course, this doesn't mean it's better since technology applies to both players so you have to look at how a shot works in relative terms (as in, I'm sure JMDP was able to hit more overpowering forehands on a consistent basis in 2009, even if in absolute terms, he can technically generate more pace now).