Lessons for tennis from Formula 1

I know fans of the other top players will disagree - because of course their interest will remain at high levels - but I think the game will suffer if they let it continue down this road. The same players make the end stages of all the Slams; the game is becoming very "samey", and if we took Federer out of the top echelon we'd have 3 top players playing an almost exclusively backcourt game based to greater or lesser extent on moving the opponent around and tiring him. I say that with caution, I know very well that some of those players are capable of much more but it's a common enough tactic that I think it's fair.

Just like in F1 when Ferrarri were running the show and they acted to make the game accessible to others, they'll have to act to give flair players a chance against the endurance boys. One of the big changes in F1 was to make it so that engines couldn't be run to the the very edge of their existence - this made it easier for other teams to compete and how many engines do you now see blow up in a race? I can't remember the last.

The same goes for players; I would like to see changes that mean I don't see players falling apart after 2 or 3 sets, and I don't want to see dozens of retirements during a Slam. I don't believe that shortening the season is the answer because we've seen it work fine before. The game has to change; it's wiping people out and it means that success is achievable through the artisan route rather than the artist, and when it comes right down to it people pay money to watch artists more than artisans. Unless your thing is watching Ferrer v Soderling, every day.

The reason for the slowing down of the court is very simple. People at large don't quite understand the skills required to hit a single HBH down the line. And I am talking about a SHBH taken early after the bounce and not Gasquet like 2m behind (though he is pretty skillful to0). Those who play the game and have tried, understand the difficulty and the risk it carries.

However seeing people running around and able to bring a winner (or so should be) back in the court can easily be appreciated by a much larger audience. It requires less eye/hand coordination skills but a much better fintess which is simply more obvious the eye for a larger crowd.

The best example of this was demonstrated at the London's masters 2010. The Murray/Nadal semi got much more drama, excitement that teh other semi between Fed v Djoko. despite Murray and Nadal having poorer shots. Their long rallies and retrieving skills made up for the fact that their FHs and shot placement and pace was not as good as Federer's on that day.

Sadly, tennis was a subtle art or sport which is clearly turning into a war of attrition that a larger audience can appeciate. Those who liked the raw skills in tennis are now losing out.

There woudl be a very simply way to re-establish a better ranking based on natural skills: Single Handed back hand only!

That woudl certainly sort the men from the boys, talent wise!

I say speed up the courts back to where they were but get rid of the 2nd serve.

noleisthebest wrote:.... but get rid of the 2nd serve.

That would be the death of attacking tennis.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:.... but get rid of the 2nd serve.

That would be the death of attacking tennis.

Not necessarily. The return game could flourish into attacking.

I like the modern game, wouldn't change it. Has nothing to do with my like of Novak. I like to see point construction and speed be crucial to victory. The game in the late 90s with big serve tennis was unwatchable for me. Everyone has there tastes bogbrush. I don't share yours in this regard.

As for injuries and the physical collapse of players tennis like many other physical sports has always had injuries as a part of the game. It is highly unfortunate but it is part of sports in general. If you read up on Bjorg, Agassi, Sampras and past stars they all had major battles with injuries. I don't see a rash of injuries occurring any different than what he had in the past. With one caveat, hardcourt tennis in general brings about more pounding on the body. In the past most events were on grass and clay and therefore the body would take less of a pounding.

That's a strawman argument socal. Check my article, I never mentioned 1990's tennis and these issues can be tackled without resorting to that as the option.

As for health, well what you're saying is bizarre. I have never in my >30 years of watching top level tennis seen Slam matches with two knackered players halfway through the 3rd set. That was obscene, match featuring two basket cases decided by who's body gave out first.
Neither have I seen a Slam with so many people retiring or withdrawing. It was ridiculous.

Once upon a time it was part of the sport that cars blew up; you'd watch a race with the winner apparently headed for home and suddenly Murray walker would be doing his nut because a car was parked up with smoke spewing out the back, or they'd just let go in the straight. Now races are decided by speed and tactics, not by endurance.

My taste is secondary to the fact that when there are 10 players as fit as Djokovic you will see the thing get exponentially worse; the moans about draws won't be about drawing great players but about having to get past successive monsterously long matches. And the injuries will accelerate as players have to go through not one match like the final but two or three.

Anyone with eyes can see how it'll go, it just takes the interest to look forward.

bogbrush wrote:
As for health, well what you're saying is bizarre. I have never in my >30 years of watching top level tennis seen Slam matches with two knackered players halfway through the 3rd set. That was obscene, match featuring two basket cases decided by who's body gave out first.
Neither have I seen a Slam with so many people retiring or withdrawing. It was ridiculous.

Socal had his sight fixed on the scoreboard as usual. The fact he doesn't see much difference between now and then just show how questionable is his sense of observation...so important to comment on the sport!

Its a nice analogy but there are limitations in comparing F1 to tennis.

Part of the increasing endurance in tennis is that players are also simply getting better strokeplayers...there was even a thread yesterday discussing how Federer is better in strokeplay than 2006....so this in itself extends ralleys.

So what are we to do? Should we set a standard of average ralley length to say 5 strokes and then game is constantly speded up appropriately to ensure this average is achieved? That isnt going to work in practice - so how do we get a fair balance of skill and endurance (I think endurance is an important part of the sport, and always has been - it is a physical sport after all! But the game shouldnt be ruled by fitness, and I'm not sure it is YET but it will probably move that way if courts/conditions keep getting slower and slower)

Speeding up the courts/balls too much may also tip the balance too far the other way and we get into serve-fests like the 90s. Remember racquets/strings are better now than before and the players have better techniques. If we speed up the courts we may just basically create a shoot-out that favours the forehand sluggers like Isner, etc.

You cant stop the players getting fitter...thats been happening across the Open Era, and their speed is getting quicker too. How do we compensate for these factors to reduce ralley length? I dont think there's an easy answer and tinkering with the game too much could have adverse effects the other way as I said. That said, I'd be in favour of some changes...taking the surfaces to how they were a few years ago but not like the 90s.

ITF/ATP need to VERY carefully look at speed indexes and make some subtle changes. There are too many HCs for sure and this is a key factor in injuries. They also need to stop the mad practice of back to back Masters and reduce the overall number of events that contribute to ranking points. It used to be best of 14 in 90s, now its best of 18 and DC contributes too...so this makes a huge change in the amount of events the top players are trying to excel in.

I dont agree with stopping 2nd serves - that would negate one of the key strokes of the game, all you would get is constant kick serves. In that case we might as well limit the power of forehands too!

It's a delicate balancing act.

The best analogy to F1 probably concerns the racquets and balls. The FIA just steps in and says "you can't use this" or "it's got to be smaller", and the same approach is easily applied. The game already has rules on head size and so on, all they need to do is make them appropriate for the modern technology.

However the starting point is further back than that. They need to take a step back and ask what sort of sport they want; do they want matches where two of the fittest players on the planet are physically gone after 2.5 sets? Do they want all these retirements? Do they want no players under 24 in the top 15?

They also have to look a bit forward and remember that the game isn't standing still - soon there will be loads of Djokovic type super fast, flexible players and ask themselves whether they want the consequences of that. In the US alone TV will start to kick up and we'll have pressure for 5-5 or 4-4 tie breaks, 3 set Slams, no advantage games, that sort of obscenity.

My personal main recommendation would be to make the racquet head size smaller. Power is reduced in line with retrieval and the benefit goes to anyone with unnatural timing. Volleying becomes benefitial, but it's not easy with the smaller head.

I like the racket and new strings as they can provide advantages to both attacking players and defensive ones though they certainly have given the returners the edge here.

However speeding balls and courts is crucial...if we want to keep on legalising DHBHs.

I'd like to see a tournament dedicated to the use of table tennis bats only, errors galore = entertaining viewing.

Tenez wrote:I like the racket and new strings as they can provide advantages to both attacking players and defensive ones though they certainly have given the returners the edge here.

However speeding balls and courts is crucial...if we want to keep on legalising DHBHs.

See this is what I mean by too much tinkering, now people are seriously considering banning the double handed backhand? This is basically fixing a result. There is no strawman BB, it would be like the late 90s except even worse. Tennis players are bigger, the racquet technology is better way better. Have you seen what babolat is doing and what Prince is doing with the O3 racquets, the amount of racquet head speed generating from the new racquets is beyond anything we imagined even 10 and 15 years ago. You put today's bigger and stronger athletes with similar conditions to what we saw in the late 90s and you would get eventually a tour made up of a thousand Ivo Karlovics. Is being born tall a talent, I suppose it is, but it isn't a talent I would like rewarded. There is a very good argument to be made that slower conditions are needed for an era with superior technology and bigger athletes. I loathe big serve tennis, should I subsume my tastes to the style of play you and tenez prefer to watch.

And if you tinker too much with the conditions what if you get the balance wrong, what if you shift the advantage too much to the other side with just a little tinkering. And restricting racquet makers in my mind is not viable either. Most of the pros don't play with too light of racquet or with too big of a racquet head because they lose feel and control of the racquet face. Technological advances are part of the game, always have been.

I also have watched tennis for a great many years, I really enjoy the modern game. The players today are not having shorter careers than the players 10 or 12 years ago, they are not suffering from what i am seeing more injuries when taken as a whole. You draw conclusions from one match where the two best retrievers in the business face each other at the end of a long grandslam season.

95sq in is what most pros use now.

I think a new breed of player will emerge over time, a new type of attacking player...one that can ralley and volley with equal skill. Players will always seek to differentiate as time advances, and that advancement will bring new coaching techniques. Or simply a new talent will come along that moves the game forward again, it always happens but I cant see ralleying getting much better, so why not move into the forecourt area of the game. Stepanek and llodra show an aggressive game can still succeed - well if you had a Stepanek with very good groundstrokes that could put the cat amongst the pigeons...and that style of play saves energy too. It just needs the players to be prepared to take more risks...thats where the game has gone a little soft, coaches are not pushing them to take risks anymore, they instead advocate % tennis.

Guys like Stepanek are doomed cause nowadays players can reach any drop shot at the blink of an eye. And more importantly, the touch game is harder to execute cause the ball carries more energy. This is what accelerated McEnroe's decline already back then.

Until they speed up the balls and apply the 20s rule, I can't see a return to a riskier/skillful tennis.

No Stepanek is doomed because when I watch his forehand I picture my grandmother attempting to play tennis. Tenez, I actually agree with you on the time between points. If evenly applied lets get on with the action. Do the players have to give themselves a full body towel down after each and every point as if their sweat is some form of hydrochloric acid which they must immediately remove from their bodies?

socal1976 wrote:No Stepanek is doomed because when I watch his forehand I picture my grandmother attempting to play tennis.

I told you. You should not play with your grandmother. It doesn't give you the best exposure to talk about physical tennis.

Indeed, Turbot has terrible groundies (that forehand is like Edberg's or Mac's) nd drop shots...BUT he still does well on the tour at an advanced age so he's doing something right and isnt known for his ralleying skills. If you could get a guy with his general volleying skils and great groundstrokes, they could move the game on. Its not easy I'll grant you as strings/racquets have come on...but its not impossible either.

Socal says we shouldn't "tinker" with the game, but that is exactly what is being done (slower courts, bigger balls, etc) and the result is that the last Slam final turned into a fitness contest. If Nadal could just have averted the cramps he'd have won. What a wonderful way to decide a Slam, and don't think it will be the last.

It most certainly IS your favourite strawman argument to suggest that any change = 90's tennis. It's your stock response to anything, but that isn't what's being suggested, just a lower bounce to give the advancing player half a chance and some chance of reward for the flatter hitter. Right now why not hit the ball miles over the net (another feature of the recent USO final), because hitting flatter just isn't worth the risk as there's no pay-off?

Oh. and the injury situation will get exponentially worse once another 8 or 10 players become capable of stretching rallies to incredible lengths.

Actually bogbrush faster conditions will make it worse than the late 90s because the players continue to get bigger, stronger, and taller. Not to mention the ever improving technology of frames and strings. If you think being tall and able to hit a serve 5 to 10 miles an hour more is a talented worth being rewarded by an unfair advantage then that is your opinion. It certainly isn't mine.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:.... but get rid of the 2nd serve.

That would be the death of attacking tennis.

Not necessarily. The return game could flourish into attacking.

Great serving is a remarkable talent and removing the second serve will only make things worse in an already declining talent pool where physicality is valued more than skill. If the 2nd serve is removed, no player will try to go for the lines and corner and extreme angles in the serve. It will all be like the 2nd serve, avg speed about 70-95mph. No aces, no service winners and hardly any 1-2 combination on serve for a winner. You say the return game could flourish into attacking?? How do you see the way Nadal or even Murray plays the 2nd serves standing way behind the baseline. They stand way behind the baseline even on the 2nd serve. Do you think removing the 2nd serve will change anything for them? Not hardly. A great serve sets up a point for an attacking player which he can use to get an upper hand and finish the point with a winner. For a defensive baseline retriever, he will just play the same as he did earlier. In today tennis there is already a lack of variety, and you suggesting something to make it worse. Please understand the dynamics of the game.

I don't know what aspects of tennis a lot of people enjoy these days when they can think that removing the 2nd serve is good for the game. I see a lot of people love watching long rallys with neither player trying to get a winner, instead playing safer shots and looking to win the point on the strength of legs, muscles and lungs, than trying to hit winners and attacking shots.

no way should the second serve be removed - tennis would become completely uniform very quickly.

I do wonder whether banishing the let cord might be a good thing, except of course when it totally deflects the ball - I suppose that is why it would be a difficult rule to implement.

I meant to say, we see far too little volleying as it is, banishing a second serve would hasten the decline even further

time please wrote:I meant to say, we see far too little volleying as it is, banishing a second serve would hasten the decline even further

I don't know, TP, it would certainly "shrink" the size of players and force them to engage their brains a bit more. It would be interesting to see a torunamet played like that.

Isn't what is magical about the game is that you bring different strengths into play.

I disagree about shrinking the size of the players - people are just getting taller. Some Eastern Europeans are much taller naturally than their Western Counterparts - I was in holiday in Croatia a few years ago and couldn't believe the height of the average Croatian woman, and certainly Americans and Canadians tend to be taller on average than a Brit, but even looking at families here there is a definite trend that children are taller than their parents, and certainly their grandparents.

socal1976 wrote:Actually bogbrush faster conditions will make it worse than the late 90s because the players continue to get bigger, stronger, and taller. Not to mention the ever improving technology of frames and strings. If you think being tall and able to hit a serve 5 to 10 miles an hour more is a talented worth being rewarded by an unfair advantage then that is your opinion. It certainly isn't mine.

Again you resort to the strawman of the 90's to avoid the issue.

My only specific recommendation was smaller heads. I'd love to see a lower bounce too, to reward the attacking slice approach. You won't, for reason that are obvious.

Not quite sure who that's addressed to Josiah. Can you clarify?

Clue should be in the wording, 'sprinting' i.e Novak and Nadal's premier talent, besides the time wasting issues they harm the game with..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Clue should be in the wording, 'sprinting' i.e Novak and Nadal's premier talent, besides the time wasting issues they harm the game with..

Oh right. Totally mystified at the posts that followed though......

Oh wait, just worked it out. Depressing but Admin probably have to really mind themselves.

I'm not sure anything is widely acknowledged as being wrong with the game so I don't see anything changing soon. I also don't see the most current technology not being used either. Maybe the next amazing player will come up with a new type of game more adapted to the current conditions like lydian was suggesting.

It's so easy to allow for the latest technology to go on without affecting the variety of the game.

Just need to pace up the balls by

1- Making them slightly heavier and smaller (like they used to be)
2 - harder so the new strings don't bite on the balls as much. (typical of teh Babolat used at the French).

3 speed up the HC.

Wimbleodn played with the Babolat woudl be great! Fed winning another 5 titles! .