[Chelsea_Phil]

I think about baseball, I know, all you non-Americans don’t give a hoot, but one of the good things about baseball (and cricket for that matter, except for the crappy 20-20 stuff) if that they have clung to traditions, like only allowing wooden bats. So my question is who would be the top players if only wooden rackets were allowed, and who of the top 3/4 would suffer the most?

For me, 49/15erer would benefit the most, followed closely by Djoker, and I think Nadal would suffer the most. As to others , I think Zverev would thrive in a wood-only world.

 

[-Dominator-]

Everyone whose game is build on power and spin is done, players like Thiem and Nadal would obviously suffer the most.

Someone like Murray who doesn't really have big weapons, lots of variety and hits the ball pretty cleanly on the other hand would benefit a lot. Possibly other clean and flat hitters like Berdych as well.

 

[Unbiased]

Federer would still be dominated by the Big 2.

 

[Chelsea_Phil]

Good point about Murray and Berdych, especially Murray. I think Nadal would do Ok just due to his fighting spirit. I wonder how Borg would do with a power racket; didn’t he have his strings At some insanely loose value. I think McEnroe would not do well at all in today’s game. Laver would thrive.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

Federer would kick ass, Dull would get his ass kicked. Djokovic would do ok. Thiem would suck, Zverev would suck, Murray would do well. As Dominator said, players who rely on spin would suck and players who hit through the ball or have good feel would succeed.

 

[hammett]

Delpo would rock the atp world I think , hes really strong in his FH side , a slower game as is expected as well as a high jumping ball would give him both set up time and ideal striking zone , plus hell lot easier on his mobility . With his sliced BH he would be just fine . Id favor players like Murray as well.

Theoretically,
hammett

 

[Ilkae]

I don't see why Nadal wouldn't thrive even with a wooden racquet. Sure he's one of the players who would lose a relatively bigger portion of his advantage, but I'd reckon he's so talented that he'd still be up there. I.e. I don't think you can say he's merely a product of the modern racquet/strings. He can play also in the front court rather well. How would he differ from Borg e.g.?

 

[wake_up_bomb]

It's interesting that you posted this, as I saw a little of Lendl vs Born in the French Open final yesterday.

With the equipment that they were using at that time, it was a completely different game. It's more about keeping the ball in court and getting it over the net than hitting insane winners, at least on clay.

I prefer the game the way that it is now, but many of the techniques that have developed wouldn't have worked at all. It's hard to say who would be better or worse, as many players would have to completely alter the way that they hit the ball.

It's pretty obvious that Federer would be one of the best, as he's the best all-round player in terms of having different facets to his game, and is the closest to an old-school player. His backhand, serve, and volleying wouldn't need to change very much, he would have to work on his forehand, though.

Modern equipment has largely killed one-handed backhands, serve-volleying, chip-and-charging, sliced forehands, baseliner vs volleyer, different tactics on different surfaces, and probably several other things. It's only really Federer keeping many of those things alive, and when he's gone some of them will be gone for good.

While I still, on balance, prefer the way the game is played now, it has also gone too far in the direction of endless baseliner clones, who play essentially the same game on every surface, and have little craft, subtlety, invention or variety to what they do.

It would be nice if there could be a halfway house, but it seems that the authorities are happy with the way things are currently.

 

[just1ce]

It would be nice if there could be a halfway house, but it seems that the authorities are happy with the way things are currently.

2011-12 had this.Imho,best 2 years of the decade

 

[guitarra]

Fabrice Santoro would be the GOAT.

 

[Denis denis]

I wonder how Borg would do with a power racket; didn’t he have his strings At some insanely loose value. I think McEnroe would not do well at all in today’s game. Laver would thrive.

Borg had the highest possible tension in his rackets - so high that they used to spontaneously snap in his hotel room. Borg actually attempted a comeback in '91 still using his wooden rackets when everybody else was using graphite. It was a fiasco. He lost in R1 in every tournament he entered (can't remember how many but 3 or 4). Borg was stubborn - he didn't want to change his game even though the game had changed.

 

[Chelsea_Phil]

Yup, you are correct. It was McEnroe I think who had his strings at some insanely loose tension, like 35 pounds.