1994: Rafter vs Lendl

[gzhpcu]

Rafter has always been one of my favorite players. Here is a 21 year old Rafter playing Lendl in Hong Kong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62NaPkp6928

[klacr]

Rafter like a young and wild Mustang. Needs to be broken in a bit and tamed. You could see his flash and his desire. But you knew and he knew that he was a few years away from his peak and he would have to put in the work to do it, which he was willing to do. Lendl towards the end of his great career. Still had the wizardry and robotic power to hit a few zinger passing shots. Good find.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Prince Patrick Rafter vs. Ivan "The Stud" Lendl…and hockey sticks

Rafter has always been one of my favorite players. Here is a 21 year old Rafter playing Lendl in Hong Kong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62NaPkp6928

Nothing personal but I have never had any feelings about Patrick Rafter. He had some great results, there is no doubt about that. But he is the prototype of player that I resented all through the years. He is unfairly capitalizing on the equipment…only historically speaking. Not as an individual…he is not to blame for anything. I could imagine this type of player though of the typical Aussie mode with some type of wooden racquet looking very elegant and very classic.

Here is Patrick Rafter in 1994 at 21 playing against one of the truly legendary players of the game…Ivan Lendl. Lendl is 34 here…ironically the same age as the resurgent Roger Federer. Look how the years have changed Ivan from the video that I posted of him and Wilander in Borg speed thread. This further illustrates the remarkable makeover that our favorite Swiss soldier has made of himself. Lendl is a mere shadow of his former self. Lendl is fighting the impossible fight against Father Time. Rafter with his huge racquet is taking advantage of both…his racquet and the age differential.

It appears too that Lendl has reverted to a larger Mizuno racquet. Trying to buy some time. An extra year or two. It was a change that he resisted longer than nearly every one of his contemporaries…along with his countryman Miloslav Mecir.

Most of my uninterested in Rafter is that I discount him on account of the racquet that he used…the Prince. I cannot think of one single player that used the Prince racquet that I admired. I tend to hate them because of my background in classic tennis.

I came across this video interestingly enough about equipment. Ironically it is in the sport of hockey of which our dear departed hockeyscout was a great advocate of. Take a look at this video and the comments that the young players make regarding using the "old" wooden stick. Interesting and ironic. My favorite combination of flavors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeF6kvbKDeY

[gzhpcu]

Well, I like Rafter and his athleticism.

Here his win against Sampras in Cincinnati 1998 (prior to winning the US Open):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBhPxAKrMaQ

[bottle]

My sometime doubles partner Patrick O'Donnell met him one time in Bermuda and was blown away by how nice and interested he was.

[stotty]

I remember a conversation we had some years ago about Rafter and the way he volleyed. A few of us felt though he was a good volleyer, his style of volleying had departed from the way great volleyers used to volley. Primarily because he is a volleyer who mostly hits a tad around the outside of the ball. Many volleyers before Rafter's time would frequently hit from inside to out as well as outside to in. This is a useful option on the backhand volley. It's quite significant how the classic volleyers were so much more at home when hitting volleys out of their body, and how good they were at low volleys with this inside to out option. From a central court position a classic volleyer could hold his decision very late using the inside to out method...either go behind the player or into the corner.

[don_budge]

Patrick Rafter vs. Pete Sampras

Well, I like Rafter and his athleticism.

Here his win against Sampras in Cincinnati 1998 (prior to winning the US Open):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBhPxAKrMaQ

I just finished watching this match. I wanted to see if I was missing out on something about Patrick Rafter…but I have come away from this match thinking much the same as I always had. He's had some great results…here he is winning his second tournament in a row leading up to the 1998 U. S. Open. He's on a role.

Sampras beats him quite easily 6-1 in the first set then plays it rather lackadaisical in the second and he loses the tie-break. Sampras loses the third set and on match point Rafter's serve is called out but the chair umpire overrules and the match is over. Pete is hot…I have never seen him so upset. He never seemed to be happy with the officiating the whole match. This was pre-Hawkeye days.

As for Patrick Rafter…he is athletic for sure but it certainly appears to me the racquet is enhancing the appearance of his athleticism. The extra size in the head of his racquet is also doing a pretty good number in enhancing his volleys as his technique doesn't appear to be all that nifty. He doesn't seem to hit the ball all that cleanly in general. Rafter is playing with a racquet that is at least 97 square inches compared to Sampras' 85 square inches. Unfortunately the size disparity casts some suspicion on the results.

Here are some comments that Pete made about Roger Federer's switch of racquets…before he finally switched.

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2013/08/sampras-federers-racquet-switch-worth-try-beware/48699/#.VgbDON4sb8t

I think that Roger has given us a superb demonstration just how much size does matter the last couple of years. The racquet switch enabled him to reach the very top of the game once more whereas he was really beginning to struggle to maintain his position.

I can see why you like Rafter. Cliff Drysdale and Patrick McEnroe (the lesser entity) comment ad nauseum on how likeable and how good looking Rafter is. Luke Jensen pipes in that Rafter became even more likeable now that he is about ten million dollars richer…he said in effect that it was a factor of cash flow. That was pretty funny. Apparently Luke felt that being at the number three in the world had a lot to do with his popularity as opposed to his popularity when his ranking was 60 something. In this match Rafter's hairdo has evolved into a mini-ponytail where it was going to be the samurai style in the not so distant future.

The Aussies seem to be generally likeable in sports. The tennis world was hungry for another Aussie to lead the game. Rafter was the first player since Rod Laver to win a certain number of tournaments to this point in 1998. Laver had just suffered a stroke when this match was being played and Rafter was cited at having spoken some kind words about "The Rocket" at the tournament the week before…which he won also.

It was a couple of great videos to evaluate the game of Rafter but he was taking on Lendl and Sampras on the downward slope of their careers. Rafter did have some great results and it was virtually on account of his serve and volley game. By all accounts he was a very likeable guy as well…especially since bottle says so too.

[klacr]

I remember a conversation we had some years ago about Rafter and the way he volleyed. A few of us felt though he was a good volleyer, his style of volleying had departed from the way great volleyers used to volley. Primarily because he is a volleyer who mostly hits a tad around the outside of the ball. Many volleyers before Rafter's time would frequently hit from inside to out as well as outside to in. This is a useful option on the backhand volley. It's quite significant how the classic volleyers were so much more at home when hitting volleys out of their body, and how good they were at low volleys with this inside to out option. From a central court position a classic volleyer could hold his decision very late using the inside to out method...either go behind the player or into the corner.

I would be in that group.
Great style but he definitely did not do it "textbook" Whatever textbook really is. He got away with some stuff that you would have a hard time teaching.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Surreptitious and The Prince

As for Patrick Rafter…he is athletic for sure but it certainly appears to me the racquet is enhancing the appearance of his athleticism. The extra size in the head of his racquet is also doing a pretty good number in enhancing his volleys as his technique doesn't appear to be all that nifty. He doesn't seem to hit the ball all that cleanly in general. Rafter is playing with a racquet that is at least 97 square inches compared to Sampras' 85 square inches. Unfortunately the size disparity casts some suspicion on the results.

I remember a conversation we had some years ago about Rafter and the way he volleyed. A few of us felt though he was a good volleyer, his style of volleying had departed from the way great volleyers used to volley. Primarily because he is a volleyer who mostly hits a tad around the outside of the ball. Many volleyers before Rafter's time would frequently hit from inside to out as well as outside to in. This is a useful option on the backhand volley. It's quite significant how the classic volleyers were so much more at home when hitting volleys out of their body, and how good they were at low volleys with this inside to out option. From a central court position a classic volleyer could hold his decision very late using the inside to out method...either go behind the player or into the corner.

I would be in that group.
Great style but he definitely did not do it "textbook" Whatever textbook really is. He got away with some stuff that you would have a hard time teaching.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I am going to take these comments that both of you surreptitiously and tacitly agree that it is quite possible that the size of Patrick Rafter's racquet enhances his ability to volley…and of course it is true. On so many of his shots in general I get the distinct impression that the response of his shot is actually better that what he applied to it within his person. His actual strokes are really not all that good. Therefore there is an artificial influence being applied that the casual observer is not aware of. Even the serve is not all that great…it is only that his ability to put exaggerated spin on the ball makes it so effective. The double whammy of exaggerated spin on the serve and the artificially enhanced volleys and there you have it…voila…instant serve and volley.

Gene Mayer was the original poster boy for Prince tennis racquets…he went from absolutely nowhere in the world to number six. This was the dawning of the artificial intelligence…I mean the artificial ability enhancer in the racquet head size. Mayer's fraud occurred when the majority of the rest of the players were using standard sized equipment. He must have been a very lonely guy in the locker room with his "Princess". I was really hard on guys that went to this "cheater" in the beginning.

In a sport such as tennis where the difference between winning and losing is often so fine there needs to be strict and stringent rules regarding the equipment and this would include the size of the racquet head and the strings and their response.

[gzhpcu]

If a player were the only one allowed to use a particular racket, granted. But it is available to everyone. It is called progress. Obviously superior tennis rackets allow superior play. What's the problem? Does this mean the game must be played with the original Wingfield model racket? No evolution allowed? This is valid throughout the history of tennis.



To say of a double US Open winner that his strokes are not all that good is ridiculous. Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

[don_budge]

Why the exaggeration?

If a player were the only one allowed to use a particular racket, granted. But it is available to everyone. It is called progress. Obviously superior tennis rackets allow superior play. What's the problem? Does this mean the game must be played with the original Wingfield model racket? No evolution allowed? This is valid throughout the history of tennis.



To say of a double US Open winner that his strokes are not all that good is ridiculous. Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

gzhpcu…I am perfectly willing to have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject but I wonder why you would exaggerate my words with depiction of antique model racquets. I mention standard sized racquets and standardisation of equipment and you throw this at me. I will continue this conversation in my next post without taking into consideration your obvious gamesmanship tactic. This is a valid conversation without getting overly emotional or hysterical.

I like this thread so far and the fact that you like Patrick Rafter and I don't particularly have the same feelings is not disconcerting to me. It serves a point from my point of view though. Hopefully you won't be offended by what I have to say and perhaps it might even stimulate some intellectual thought…or even conversation. If that is possible between "civilized" and "evolved" human beings. If there exists such a thing.

Can't this be a difference of opinion instead of a personality conflict?

[gzhpcu]

gzhpcu…I am perfectly willing to have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject but I wonder why you would exaggerate my words with depiction of antique model racquets. I mention standard sized racquets and standardisation of equipment and you throw this at me. I will continue this conversation in my next post without taking into consideration your obvious gamesmanship tactic. This is a valid conversation without getting overly emotional or hysterical.

Nobody is getting emotional or hysterical. Am just pointing out the fact that continuously evolution of tennis equipment occurred. Everytime it had a benefit. No benefit, no change. Your disliking larger head sizes is just one of the many changes which occurred. Someone could have objected everytime a change occurred and then we would be back to the picture I showed. It just goes to show that equipment evolves as allowed by the rules, like it or not.

Can't this be a difference of opinion instead of a personality conflict?

You apparently interpret it as a personality conflict, I don't.

[don_budge]

You're right...

Nobody is getting emotional or hysterical. Am just pointing out the fact that continuously evolution of tennis equipment occurred. Everytime it had a benefit. No benefit, no change. Your disliking larger head sizes is just one of the many changes which occurred. Someone could have objected everytime a change occurred and then we would be back to the picture I showed. It just goes to show that equipment evolves as allowed by the rules, like it or not.
You apparently interpret it as a personality conflict, I don't.

Ok…never mind.

[stotty]

As for Patrick Rafter…he is athletic for sure but it certainly appears to me the racquet is enhancing the appearance of his athleticism. The extra size in the head of his racquet is also doing a pretty good number in enhancing his volleys as his technique doesn't appear to be all that nifty. He doesn't seem to hit the ball all that cleanly in general. Rafter is playing with a racquet that is at least 97 square inches compared to Sampras' 85 square inches. Unfortunately the size disparity casts some suspicion on the results.

I think that Roger has given us a superb demonstration just how much size does matter the last couple of years. The racquet switch enabled him to reach the very top of the game once more whereas he was really beginning to struggle to maintain his position.

Racket head size does matter. There is no question about that. Roger has proved that all on his own.

But I think there is more to it than racket head size alone. It's the strings that have also made massive inroads. If you hit a topspin forehand with nylon strings and then hit the same topspin forehand with poly strings, you will get 25% more topspin. Maybe I have misunderstood something but this is what I read somewhere.

Poly strings were probably the death knell of serve and volley tennis more than oversize rackets...or at least the final nail in the coffin.

I hit with a guy last week who is close to tour level. It's terribly difficult to volley against him once he opens up. The ball literally fizzes. It's really difficult for the volleyer to control the ball.

[klacr]

If a player were the only one allowed to use a particular racket, granted. But it is available to everyone. It is called progress. Obviously superior tennis rackets allow superior play. What's the problem? Does this mean the game must be played with the original Wingfield model racket? No evolution allowed? This is valid throughout the history of tennis.



To say of a double US Open winner that his strokes are not all that good is ridiculous. Look at McEnroe: horrible strokes to look at, yet successful.

Not saying his strokes are not good. In fact, his strokes were great and he was a blast to watch, but he was more lively and athletic and did not exemplify the classic serve and volley, instead he brought it into a modern era.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton