Our Great Era Debunked!

First topic message reminder :

Now is a good time to reflect on the previous seasons and get a better understanding of what happened to our game in the last 5 years. We hear of course all the fans of Nadal, Murray, Djoko and even some of Federer say that we are experiencing the strongest era in tennis and they support their belief by belittling the players of the past, particularly the time when Federer was dominant and had no opposition outside clay.

Nowadays, the players we perceived as great in 2006 such as Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Ljubo even are no longer remembered that great and compared to Nadal Djoko and Murray seem inconsistent and erratic. There is something about the way Nadal, Djoko and Murray consistently reach the last rounds of slams, all slams!, that certainly make them look very good even if in Murray’s case, he has not won a slam yet.

However as some of us explained in other threads, the main difference between now and then is that the game is simply played differently and the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then. To compare the 2 “eras” I have highlited 2 matches played by the best players of those eras from the USO (06 and 11) and highlighted how the game and conditions have changed.

In short I have clocked the number of shots (length of court) played (that is how many times the ball travels the length of a court) on a few rallies and worked out the average time to get a more precise result. And here are the staggering results that you can check for yourself on youtube:


Nadal v Djoko USO 11
# rallies / seconds / time the ball takes to complete a length on average(ex: 1.32sec)
22 in 29s 1.318182s per length
22 in 29s 1.318182
31 in 44s 1.419355
14 in 18s 1.285714
Average 1.34s per length of court

Djokovic Murray AO 2011

14rallies in 19s 1.357142857
12rallies in 16s 1.333333333
18rallies in 26s 1.444444444
Average 1.38s per length

Federer v Blake USO 06
18 in 22s 1.222222
12 16s 1.333333
8 8s 1
12 13s 1.083333
13 15s 1.153846
13 16s 1.230769
8 7s 0.875
Average 1.13s per length of court

What this table says is that the rhythm played in 06 was nearly 20% faster than in 2011!! In some shorter rallies over 50% faster, helped by taking the ball earlier and hitting much flatter. This is a huge difference!!!

So what does that mean? It means that the players then, the best ones were the sharpest ones. Great reflexes, taking the ball early and flat and they were trying to take time away from their opponent to dictate and rushed the opponent into mistakes as opposed to today’s tennis where the retrievers push the opponent into mistakes by giving them smaller targets thanks to amazing retrieving skills that were unseen up to 2006.

But that’s not all. The game was faster, cause the conditions were faster, and that generation learnt their game with natural strings while spin was harder to generate and not as beneficial as hitting flat and shortening the point. Tennis was played at a smooth rhythm and everybody then was playing within the 20s rule. It was understood that there was no other choice so no need to learn a different tennis that could not be sustained over long distances, especially on those fast surfaces where taking risk was rewarding.

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What a lot of people here fail to realise is that the game has seriously changed and the skills are different but certainly not better. When the courts were fast in 2005/06, Nadal was being beaten by Blake…..3 times in a row in fact. Yet Nadal was good enough to have 2 FOs. The very talented Davydenko could not take time away from Blake. The latter holds a 7/0 H2H against the Russian cause whom could take the ball earlier and inject pace was simply better at that time. Davydenko could not handle Blake or Federer but we know he loves Nadal’s slower pace as long as he can handle a fair bit of running with the Spaniard.

For those reasons above, I think it is ignorant to believe that 2003-06 was a weak era. In fact in terms of tennis played under the rules and on fast conditions, it’s been the best tennis we have had and we don’t know how Nadal or Djoko would fare in those. Well I am certainly more optimistic about Djoko’s success than Nadal, especially if we were to apply the 20s rule but I would expect Djoko to lose more often than he did in 2011 being rushed by players who spent their life learning to take time away from their opponents (Nalbandian, Blake, Safin and others). We have to stress as well that in those days, there was no recipe to run as long and as fast while keeping UEs down, so no-one had a choice to play differently than taking risk and the more talented were the better at it. And Federer was simply the best when it came to “skilled” tennis. We wii never know how great his peers would have been without him. But on fast surfaces, it was not Nadal that stopped him from accumulating his slams. It was other very talented players trying their best but falling short. Saying it was a weak era, is as stupid as saying Nadal had a weak era on clay cause no-one was physical enough to fight with him there and noone won anything significant on clay bar Nadal. But as we have seen this year, it’s changing fast now that we have another physical player.

In conclusion, the game evolves and I don’t want to fall in the trap of some posters here, that is belittling today’s era, but we have to recognise that the game changed thanks to a few factors and those changes are extremely important is changing the scenery of tennis when we know small margins can have a huge impact on a game, a match and a career.

Source:
Federer Blake USO 2006 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8
Djokovic Nadal USO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYkXZwhdRBk
Djokovic Murray AO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQpKJYhjEcA
Difference obvious to the naked eye.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:...it's now a string era...

I don't normally point out typos, except this one might actually be quite accurate! I hope everyone can appreciate this little irony with a smile.

Yes - I keep making that typo...I know. And actually it fits perfectly with my thoughts on this era! Hence Nadal trying to pull it off his bum!

Tenez wrote:

You cannot argue with the average time per point. 56s v 34s. It's a huge difference which doesn;t say anything about the length of rallies but more possibly the time players take between points AND also longer rallies.

Yes but Nore Staat point still stands. The surface was faster. They are more defensive players- stats would be similar if they played in 2006- but Djokovic was too young and Nadal had not adapted to HC so they did not reach the latter stages of the tournament. Thirdly as S_A pointed out with his link:http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/GrandSlamStatistics.htm the stats prove the pace has got faster.

And to conclude even if you do win on a faster/slower surface it does not make you morally better, as argued by many today.

That article states "The data show that the hard courts used at the US and Australian Open events are similar in terms of court speed and bounce, at least in 2007 and 2008. Event statistics for previous years show that the US courts used to be slightly faster than the Australian courts"

Only one logical conclusion - the USO courts slowed down. Can't argue with the facts!

First Aus could have got slightly faster. Secondly how comes the raw data- the serve speeds are faster now.

2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORlsz-zCxWQ

2004: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEJJpfcxHAM

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

I use the foe button. It's pretty good. I just see a line that says SA and amritia3ee have posted.

I think he has noleisthebest

Teee nez

Still, just shows what a passonate Fed fan he is

Agree, there is no reason for anyone to really use the foe button under what Ive seen on the tennis forum so far. Just ignore the comments and move on. I think it also reflects a closed mind to other opinions...just because amritia and S_A dont agree with Tenez (and I do rarely either) doesnt mean they should be foe'ed.

I'm still not buying the argument built on flimsy, not statistically signifcant data. And Nore Straat has shown the debunker can also be debunked using his own data!

People perenially try to paint Nadal as some lung busting caveman. And yet the 17 yr old, less fit, less strong Nadal pretty much wiped the floor with Federer on a fairly fast HC in 2004 (why not do the stats on that match also?). Are we to now be told that the courts were as slow in 2004 as they as today? Nadal pushed Federer harder than anyone had before...even getting to the final of Wimbledo 2006 when he was hardly versed on the surface - hadnt even played that many matches on grass. And yet we are told the guy has no talent. Its almost farsical to deny the obvious tennis ability Nadal has - just because he doesnt hit flat shots all the time! Certainly since 2008 he's developed an all-surface game and that took talent to be able to do that alone. Nadal is no 'claycourter' from the 90s - but then his complete domination of clay demonstrates talent in itself anyway. And yes Nadal got completely inside Federer's head...everyone knew it. Anyone remember AO09 and Federer's reaction at losing perchance?

Yes the conditions have been slowing down for some time. My belief is that they slowed down to around 2006 but havent changed nowhere near as much between say 99-06 as 07-11. If you watch Nadal play Federer at Miami 2004 (go on, watch the actual match!!!!!) you'll see Nadal played fast ralleys, flat FHs, flat BHs, loads of variety and moved Federer all over the place. It was a hard paced game they played. Its no coincidence that Nadal won Queens which is still very very quick vs Wimbledon. My own belief is that Nadal actually had to adapt his game further as the courts continued to slow...I firmly believe that Nadal actually likes good paced courts, not stodgy slow ones. I also dont agree that Djokovic is a different type of player to Nadal. The essential basics of his game are very similar. Plus people forget that Federer grew up learning his tennis on clay not fast courts, slower courts were never going to harm him.

Stating that Blake beat Nadal when he was young doesnt really mean anything. Look at Henman's record against Federer early on...6-1...does that mean Henman was a better player? Nadal has always struggled mor against guys like Fed, Nalby and Davydenko...but OVERALL he's the better player versus the latter 2 because he uses his better OVERALL talent to win. The results speak for themselves and are not due to "lungs". Tenez, I have many times broken down the 17-9 H2H versus Federer to prove that lungs were not the factor. You keep thrusting this argument forward but it is not based on substance and as Nore Straat has shown this article can be deconstructed.

Again I say...where are the slams finals or semis, etc, for Blake, Luber, Robredo, etc. Where are they? This so called uber-talented group never arose to much at all in the game - why are we trying to exalt them as something special, they are but footnotes in tennis history. Even in the prime of their own era. I personally believe tennis went through a weaker period of player between 04-07...guys like Nalby, Safin and Hewitt went off the boil after early success, the older guys from the 90s were phasing out (but yet a mid-30s Agassi, and approx. 30 yr old Henman could still hold a candle to them). It was left to Luber, Robredo, Gonzalez, Haas, Blake to take the challenge to Federer. Some challenge! They could hardly get to slam semis or quarters...let's look!

AO'04 semis: Agassi, Ferrer, Federer, Safin
FO'04 semis: Nalby, Henman(!), Coria, Gaudio
W'04 semis: Federer, Grosjean(!), Ancic, Roddick
US'04 semis: Federer, Hewitt, Henman, Johannson

AO'05 semis: Hewitt, Federer, Safin, Roddick
FO'05 semis: Nadal, Puerta, Davydenko, Federer
W'05 semis: Federer, Hewitt, T.Johansson, Roddick
US'05 semis: Federer, Hewitt, Ginepri(!), Agassi

AO'06 semis: Federer, Kiefer(!), Nalby, Baghdatis
FO'06 semis: Luber(!), Federer, Nadal, Nalby
W'06 semis: Bjorkman(!), Federer, Nadal, Baghdatis
US'06 semis: Federer, Roddick, Davydenko, Youhzny(!)

AO'07 semis: Federer, Roddick, Haas, Gonzalez
FO'07 semis: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko
W'07 semis: Gasquet, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
US'07 semis: Federer, Davydenko, Ferrer, Djokovic

Besides Federer, only Roddick and Hewitt stuck out in any way and then not massively so.
Beyond them only Safin, Davydenko and Nalby got to a few semis (got to 9 semis between them out of 48 possibles!).

But Haas, Luber, Blake, Robredo....2 total semis out of a possible 64!
Yeah that's great talent on display.

The generation of Federer's same age were not exactly taking it to him were they?
And yet 04-07 is Federer's peak period...so it should have been his similar age challengers.
But they werent even getting to semis with any regularity.
The semi's for every year from 04-07 was a real mixed bag as there were no really consistently strong players across that period other than Federer himself to challenge the slams!

A nice attempt by Tenez to bolster his already firmly held construct that those 'illuminaries' he mentions are great players.
There's no way in my opinion that 04-07 is stronger or mor talented as a whole than 08-11 where you have more consistent challengers from the top 6-8 pushing for the slams all the time.

Bit confusing but I think JuliusHMarx is correct that the few points Tenez provided won’t necessarily have the average rally time. Also, to make it worse, a significant portion of the match is not actually playing but between points and games and that amount could also vary. Nore Stat’s figures intervweave an analysis of the whole match using a sample of a few points, it just won’t work for me. There is a statistical uncertainty which is probably large enough to invalidate any conclusion. I therefore debunk your debunking of the original debunking and add this to my original debunking of the original debunk.

Did enjoy the "string/strong" pun/typo as well.

(Also, the reason the 2.5-3 seconds figures come out like that might be because rests between points and games have not been factored out. If corret, the values have not meaning in an absolute sense and are only relative comparison values. Not sure about this, it's a bit confusing.)

1. Only one match (for 2006) - insufficent sample size.

What for? again I am not trying to prove that the courts were faster but that the game was played faster and that faster players were those to give Federer the toughest time. Blake was certainly doing better than Hewitt did 2 years before.

2. You happen to pick 2 fast players - a better comparison would be the same players as previously mentioned.

No. Again I am not tryinmg to compare pace of courts...especially to be told at the end that's nothing new as "we all knew it".

3. You are mixing AO - recognised as a slower surface - versus USO - a faster surface. The compared sample size from each year should show the same number of matches from each of these tournaments in each era. (Doesn't seem to be the issue in the specific data quoted to be fair, but the fully scientific way of doing it would not mix things like this up.)

I added the AO per some people's request. Yes teh AO is bloody slow but that is only half of the story. Sliced BH don;t help speeding the game up. But again, This is for info only.

4

. Your stats will mix speed and court position. I bet Federer and Blake were standing nearer to the baseline than Nadal. If your speed shows a 20% difference but Nadal are Djokovic are standing 20% further back (for example, in reality it's probably 10%), then there is no difference in speed at all (note: in reality it's not as simple as that as the ball is slowing nearer the back of the court, so 10% further back would make the time be >10% more!).

Of course I m mixing diagonales and this is why I take more than one point but a few. I haven't got HE unfortunately. And yes Federer and Blake standing closer to line make the pace of which they play faster. That is teh very purpose of that thread. Standing further back would mean, in that era, having to cover much more ground and that is something no player coudl afford. Essentially because teh conds were fast. This is probably why Nadal was struggling getting far in this tournament. Remember he had never beaten a seed at the USO till 08 or 09even! The courts were exposing those players standing far back. This is teh very purpose of this thread again, and there is nothing biased about it.

For sure, the courts are slower now. But this article is merely a little anecdote in support of that already known fact. It doesn't really have any statistical value in terms of genuinely advancing that argument.

Wrong. It shows that on fast surfaces different players reach different stages. Nadal was good enough to win slams on slow courts but not good enough to win a seed on faster surfaces.

For me the 2000-2007 period was a little bit weaker than average and 2008-2011 a little stronger period than average, certainly in terms of the #2-#4 ranked players.

That is what I call a biased view. And this threads very much proves it.

Finally, I think Amritia made many great intelligent points on this article.

lydian wrote:Agree, there is no reason for anyone to really use the foe button under what Ive seen on the tennis forum so far. Just ignore the comments and move on. I think it also reflects a closed mind to other opinions...just because amritia and S_A dont agree with Tenez (and I do rarely either) doesnt mean they should be foe'ed.

I'm still not buying the argument built on flimsy, not statistically signifcant data. And Nore Straat has shown the debunker can also be debunked using his own data!

People perenially try to paint Nadal as some lung busting caveman. And yet the 17 yr old, less fit, less strong Nadal pretty much wiped the floor with Federer on a fairly fast HC in 2004 (why not do the stats on that match also?). Are we to now be told that the courts were as slow in 2004 as they as today? Nadal pushed Federer harder than anyone had before...even getting to the final of Wimbledo 2006 when he was hardly versed on the surface - hadnt even played that many matches on grass. And yet we are told the guy has no talent. Its almost farsical to deny the obvious tennis ability Nadal has - just because he doesnt hit flat shots all the time! Certainly since 2008 he's developed an all-surface game and that took talent to be able to do that alone. Nadal is no 'claycourter' from the 90s - but then his complete domination of clay demonstrates talent in itself anyway. And yes Nadal got completely inside Federer's head...everyone knew it. Anyone remember AO09 and Federer's reaction at losing perchance?

Yes the conditions have been slowing down for some time. My belief is that they slowed down to around 2006 but havent changed nowhere near as much between say 99-06 as 07-11. If you watch Nadal play Federer at Miami 2004 (go on, watch the actual match!!!!!) you'll see Nadal played fast ralleys, flat FHs, flat BHs, loads of variety and moved Federer all over the place. It was a hard paced game they played. Its no coincidence that Nadal won Queens which is still very very quick vs Wimbledon. My own belief is that Nadal actually had to adapt his game further as the courts continued to slow...I firmly believe that Nadal actually likes good paced courts, not stodgy slow ones. I also dont agree that Djokovic is a different type of player to Nadal. The essential basics of his game are very similar. Plus people forget that Federer grew up learning his tennis on clay not fast courts, slower courts were never going to harm him.

Stating that Blake beat Nadal when he was young doesnt really mean anything. Look at Henman's record against Federer early on...6-1...does that mean Henman was a better player? Nadal has always struggled mor against guys like Fed, Nalby and davydenko...but OVERALL he's the better player because he uses his better OVERALL talent to win. The results speak for themselves and are not due to "lungs". Tenez, I have many times broken down the 17-9 H2H versus Federer to prove that lungs were not the factor. You keep thrusting this argument forward but it is not based on substance and as Nore Straat has shown this article can be deconstructed.

Again I say...where are the slams finals or semis, etc, for Blake, Luber, Robredo, etc. Where are they? This so called uber-talented group never arose to much at all in the game - why are we trying to exalt them as something special, they are but footnotes in tennis history. Even in the prime of their own era. I personally believe tennis went through a weaker period of player between 04-07...guys like Nalby, Safin and Hewitt went off the boil after early success, the older guys from the 90s were phasing out (but yet a mid-30s Agassi, and approx. 30 yr old Henman could still hold a candle to them). It was left to Luber, Robredo, Gonzalez, Haas, Blake to take the challenge to Federer. Some challenge! They could hardly get to slam semis or quarters...let's look!

AO'04 semis: Agassi, Ferrer, Federer, Safin
FO'04 semis: Nalby, Henman(!), Coria, Gaudio
W'04 semis: Federer, Grosjean(!), Ancic, Roddick
US'04 semis: Federer, Hewitt, Henman, Johannson

AO'05 semis: Hewitt, Federer, Safin, Roddick
FO'05 semis: Nadal, Puerta, Davydenko, Federer
W'05 semis: Federer, Hewitt, T.Johansson, Roddick
US'05 semis: Federer, Hewitt, Ginepri(!), Agassi

AO'06 semis: Federer, Kiefer(!), Nalby, Baghdatis
FO'06 semis: Luber(!), Federer, Nadal, Nalby
W'06 semis: Bjorkman(!), Federer, Nadal, Baghdatis
US'06 semis: Federer, Roddick, Davydenko, Youhzny(!)

AO'07 semis: Federer, Roddick, Haas, Gonzalez
FO'07 semis: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko
W'07 semis: Gasquet, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
US'07 semis: Federer, Davydenko, Ferrer, Djokovic

Besides Federer, only Roddick and Hewitt stuck out in any way and then not massively so.
Beyond them only Safin, Davydenko and Nalby got to a few semis (got to 9 semis between them out of 48 possibles!).

But Haas, Luber, Blake, Robredo....2 total semis out of a possible 64!
Yeah that's great talent on display.

The generation of Federer's same age were not exactly taking it to him were they?
And yet 04-07 is Federer's peak period...so it should have been his similar age challengers.
But they werent even getting to semis with any regularity.
The semi's for every year from 04-07 was a real mixed bag as there were no really consistently strong players across that period other than Federer himself to challenge the slams!

A nice attempt by Tenez to bolster his already firmly held construct that those 'illuminaries' he mentions are great players.
There's no way in my opinion that 04-07 is stronger or mor talented as a whole than 08-11 where you have more consistent challengers from the top 6-8 pushing for the slams all the time.

Stunning unbiased analysis from Lydian

But don't worry we can all safely assume Tenez has covered this up by putting Lydian on her 'foe' list.

Would just like to take this opportunity to say although I am a Nadal fan I am a great admirer of Federer. Just because I correctly point out flaws in Tenez's argument does not mean I dislike Federer.

They're actually overall slower now than in 2006/2007, execpt at Wimby, which is more or less the same. The increase was between 2001 - 2006.
I can only put the increase in serve speed down to the poor players in that weak era.

I don't for one second believe that all four surfaces are faster now than in 2001. Isn't it more likely that players are simply hitting their serves harder now on average? In fact, isn't that what the radar gun actually measures - the speed off the racket?

amritia3ee wrote:First Aus could have got slightly faster. Secondly how comes the raw data- the serve speeds are faster now.

Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days. However, the speed serve is measured before the ball bounces so you can't judge upon the speed of the court by looking at the serve speed stats.

amritia,
admit it, you left MTL for Tenez!

gallery play wrote:

Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days.

Doesn't this also mean they can now hit faster ground strokes as well...

Or do their muscles deflate mid-rally.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't for one second believe that all four surfaces are faster now than in 2001. Isn't it more likely that players are simply hitting their serves harder now on average? In fact, isn't that what the radar gun actually measures - the speed off the racket?

Yes. Let's remember that serves speed are worked out as soon as they leave the racquet and almost instantaneously. Meaning we don't have a clue how the ball slows down due to it's size and court friction. Serve speed are quite irrelevant to gauge teh pace of a court. One thing is sure is that everything was done to prevent big servers to win like they were in the 90s.

amritia3ee wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days.

Doesn't this also mean they can now hit faster ground strokes as well...

Or do their muscles deflate mid-rally.

Yes, that's what big muscles do actually, well under normal circumstances

Anyway, back to the main topic...I'm more interested in the NEXT era.


Regarding the comparison between this and the previous one, I wonder if anyone knows or remembers when exactly did the slowing down start. Which tournament, which tournament director.
We are at the potential crossroads with the appointment of the new ATP CEO.
There has been significant change during Hefner's reign, tournaments shake-up, points system changed to the point that nobody can follow it due to its opaque transparency...new "image" gearing towards the computer games generation...
I mean, where is this all going
And don't even start me on the 2 year ranking "revamp"...

Not surprised to see Lydian falling in the NS stat traps! Just shows that he wants to believe the stats that contradict my point at all cost. Even If it's completely off the mark.

What does it say about your approach to sensible discussions? b i a s e d! in B&W here!

Tenez I take your point about the difference between rhythm and court speed. Yes I was a little bit too focused on the court speed and the focus wasn't really on that in the original article although you have to admit these two things are going to be related.

Also, if it's more about rhythm than court speed then that is just a different style of play being used and I don't see that it's going to to be very easy to use that argument in favour of one or more era. The faster rhythm is going to be more technically challenging to execute but that doesn't make the players doing it fundamentally better at winning matches just because they choose that tactic.

Posts coming thick and fast here considering it's the off season (5 posts while I wrote that). What is this forum like during the final weekend of a slam?

amritia3ee wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days.

Doesn't this also mean they can now hit faster ground strokes as well...

Or do their muscles deflate mid-rally.

I'm sure they can, if they choose to as a style/tactic of play - Tsonga, JMDP, for example. Of course, if the surfaces are slower, those shots will have less effect. Especially against players with the speed and stamina to keep retrieving the ball.
Other players choose to hit less hard for the most part, such as Murray and Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:Anyway, back to the main topic...I'm more interested in the NEXT era.


Regarding the comparison between this and the previous one, I wonder if anyone knows or remembers when exactly did the slowing down start. Which tournament, which tournament director.
We are at the potential crossroads with the appointment of the new ATP CEO.
There has been significant change during Hefner's reign, tournaments shake-up, points system changed to the point that nobody can follow it due to its opaque transparency...new "image" gearing towards the computer games generation...
I mean, where is this all going
And don't even start me on the 2 year ranking "revamp"...

It's very complicated cause they do not want to give any clue about it. Look at ball size for instance. No manufacturer will tell you what is actually the size of the balls...not even the weight. They all claim to be type 2 balls.

At Wimbledon for instance, they slowed it dramatically in 2002 and because many players complained, Because Henman was made look completely useless in front of Hewitt plus a terrible final, they IMO, decided to speed it up again in 2003. This is why Phillipousis, Rodick and Federer went all far in the tournament. What happens after that is difficult to say but some HE graphics show that the bounce got higher and the court got slower. But all in all almost impossible to prove cause they do not want us to know they are playing like mad with teh conds.

Tenez wrote: Blake was certainly doing better than Hewitt did 2 years before.

Where's the proof of this? Across 04-07 Blake got to 0 slam semis, Hewitt got to 4.
Hewitt's slam record is better for just about every year from 2000-2010.
Blake only beat Federer once, Hewitt beat him 8 times.
And then there's the H2H between them...8-1 to Hewitt!
On what planet is Blake a better player than Hewitt?

Nole is the best, Wimbledon 2001 (or just after 2001 in general) is often cited as the year that this slam slowed (vs 90s). In 2002, Hewitt won it with a more baseline game. Having said that, it was appeared to be significantly slower still than 2001 by the Fedal finals of 2006-2008.

The US Open and Australian Open also appeared to get a little slower to me, but I am less sure about that, or at least it wasn't a large amount.

Don't know about the French Open.

Apart from Wimbledon, there is not much consensus about when and how much they've slowed other than perhaps to acknowledge that they have.

Henman Bill wrote:Tenez I take your point about the difference between rhythm and court speed. Yes I was a little bit too focused on the court speed and the focus wasn't really on that in the original article although you have to admit these two things are going to be related.

No worries.

Also, if it's more about rhythm than court speed then that is just a different style of play being used and I don't see that it's going to to be very easy to use that argument in favour of one or more era. The faster rhythm is going to be more technically challenging to execute but that doesn't make the players doing it fundamentally better at winning matches just because they choose that tactic.

When you say it's just a different style of play...I 'd like to add it's a different style of play that makes you successful or not. Wilander's style was not successful at Wimbledon and likewise the 14 slams of Pete were not very helping his quest for the FO. Style of play is everything when it comes to surfaces.

Posts coming thick and fast here considering it's the off season (5 posts while I wrote that). What is this forum like during the final weekend of a slam?

That's why v2 is good. lots of good views here if we keep discussing teh subject and not the poster.

gallery play wrote: Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days.

Show me the theory that muscle is linked to service speed in men's professional tennis?
Remember Karlovic, Sampras, Stich and Krajicek? Hardly iron pumpers were they...
Even "Popeye" Henman could serve 130+ before his shoulder went.
Its all about timing, not muscle, modern coaching techniques harness timing better.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: Blake was certainly doing better than Hewitt did 2 years before.

Where's the proof of this? Across 04-07 Blake got to 0 slam semis, Hewitt got to 4.
Hewitt's slam record is better for just about every year from 2000-2010.
Blake only beat Federer once, Hewitt beat him 8 times.
And then there's the H2H between them...8-1 to Hewitt!
On what planet is Blake a better player than Hewitt?

Sure Hewitt got further than Blake in 2004 but I guess he wished he hadn't!
60 76 60! Blake at least got a set of Federer in 2006.

I love this article. Seems the places themselves struggle with opinions on court.

www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2010-08-31-us-open-arthur-ashe-stadium_N.htm

Hilarious to see sore loser Federer's athem holding onto his last desperate attempt to discredit Nadal that the court was fast so Nadal could't win on it
A year later, he nows says th USO court is slow. Which is which Federer?

Tenez and HB,

thanks or the reply. You both mentioned Wimbledon, HB added AO. Well, they are ruled by ITF, not ATP.
I can perfectly understand Wimbledon, nobodoy wanted to watch bomb-serving fests, but why hard courts?

Tenez wrote: But all in all almost impossible to prove cause they do not want us to know they are playing like mad with teh conds.

And the strange part is the unpredictability of it. This year Babolat (Rafa's brand!) introduced balls which made the FO almost the fastest slam, Bercy came with a radical change, London was different, US open slowed down ect. What's the motive? Usually changes are sales driven (like the tango ball in football or the product development in Golf) but in tennis it seems to be done at random. Which isn't the case of course as i remember very well how Richard Krajicek seduced Nadal to come to Rotterdam a few years ago ("Tell me Rafa, which ball would you like to play with?")

Poor Hewitt, that was the worst performance ever in a slam final, only 6 games won. Couldn't possibly have seen a worst slam final result...Oh wait!

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez and HB,

thanks or the reply. You both mentioned Wimbledon, HB added AO. Well, they are ruled by ITF, not ATP.
I can perfectly understand Wimbledon, nobodoy wanted to watch bomb-serving fests, but why hard courts?

It became clear that Fedal finals was what "everybody" wanted to watch. The USO slowed it down to allow Nadal to get further in the tournament. As much as they woudl have loved to see an american win, they knew they would not get past Federer so they might as well have a final with the 2 biggest names of the time so they could have their big final like FO, Wimby and AO got.

In 2010 they even made Federer teh defending player play the second semi after Nadal to give Nadal max chance to get the title and have the career slam. It's all set up...certainly pushed.

Djoko unfortunately will struggle getting this kind of help. You remember my thread about the X factor. Nike and Adidas shoudl be so keen to have him but they even dropped him for Murray. Not good.

Tenez wrote: It's all set up...certainly pushed.

Djoko unfortunately will struggle getting this kind of help. Not good.

You're right.. if Nadal managed to win it must be rigged in some way

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote: But all in all almost impossible to prove cause they do not want us to know they are playing like mad with teh conds.

Which isn't the case of course as i remember very well how Richard Krajicek seduced Nadal to come to Rotterdam a few years ago ("Tell me Rafa, which ball would you like to play with?")

Yes I remember that one.

From what I read, the Babolat was the result of a very unpredicted outcome. RG ordered Babolat to reproduce exactly the same balls as the Dunlops which were used until then. And in fact they had the same weight and same size...but they got the rubber mix wrong cause this is something they coudl not quite reproduce which means the balls were harder and flying off the racquet faster. In that case a slght difference in rubber composition was enough to make a very different ball. But it certainly was not intentional....from what I read. Dunlop said they have many recipe for rubber and Babolat coudl not make one fo the same weight with same characteristics. Next year might be different.

lydian wrote:

gallery play wrote: Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days.

Show me the theory that muscle is linked to service speed in men's professional tennis?
Remember Karlovic, Sampras, Stich and Krajicek? Hardly iron pumpers were they...
Even "Popeye" Henman could serve 130+ before his shoulder went.
Its all about timing, not muscle, modern coaching techniques harness timing better.

Karlo, Stich, Krajicek are tall, i don't have to explain that helps, right? You didn't mention Tsonga, Berydch, Sod, Dent, Monfils and Raonic because they're looking too strong to support your argument i guess
Sampras was a strong fellow, popeye forearms
Remember how Murrays serve speed increased? His muscles increased too that period, no? Same goes for Djoko, not as significantly though.
And what happened with Agassi's serve when he started to train with Jose?
And of course you'll remember guys like Slobodan Zivojinovic and the Scud?

Henman's shoulder went (just like Krajicek) because his tiny shoulders couldn't handle the increasing size of the balls, not muscular enough i guess....

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote: But all in all almost impossible to prove cause they do not want us to know they are playing like mad with teh conds.

Which isn't the case of course as i remember very well how Richard Krajicek seduced Nadal to come to Rotterdam a few years ago ("Tell me Rafa, which ball would you like to play with?")

Yes I remember that one.

From what I read, the Babolat was the result of a very unpredicted outcome. RG ordered Babolat to reproduce exactly the same balls as the Dunlops which were used until then. And in fact they had the same weight and same size...but they got the rubber mix wrong cause this is something they coudl not quite reproduce which means the balls were harder and flying off the racquet faster. In that case a slght difference in rubber composition was enough to make a very different ball. But it certainly was not intentional....from what I read. Dunlop said they have many recipe for rubber and Babolat coudl not make one fo the same weight with same characteristics. Next year might be different.

yes, the French seem to be messing it up a bit, They did the same with Bercy last and this year.
Tenez, do you think it's a mere coincidence ( fiddling with the balls for this year's FO) and having a faster Bercy last year, only to slow it down this year.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Poor Hewitt, that was the worst performance ever in a slam final, only 6 games won. Couldn't possibly have seen a worst slam final result...Oh wait!

S_A I don't like it when you laugh at Ken Rosewall.

Henman Bill wrote:I guess the first thing to realise here is that Tenez has an inherent bias and as such is trying to make a case for what he has already decided is correct, rather than seeking information and then using it to make a decision. In other words, he is using statistics as a drunk would use a lamp post - more for support than illumination (credit Winston Churchill for that one). In other words, if you had checked the matches and found to your surprise that there was negligible difference in speed, might you have just found other matches, or not posted the article? I wonder. Maybe.

The time seems a lot for one shot, or is it a round trip back to the same player? Also, when you say "rally" you mean shot. A "rally" refers to the entire point or at least numerous shots (at least 3 or 4) within a point.

So you mention a 20% difference in speed here. OK. There are a number of reason why the data you present is only anecdotal and no-one should take it too seriously in terms of an assessment of eras. These are:

1. Only one match (for 2006) - insufficent sample size.
2. You happen to pick 2 fast players - a better comparison would be the same players as previously mentioned.
3. You are mixing AO - recognised as a slower surface - versus USO - a faster surface. The compared sample size from each year should show the same number of matches from each of these tournaments in each era. (Doesn't seem to be the issue in the specific data quoted to be fair, but the fully scientific way of doing it would not mix things like this up.)
4. Your stats will mix speed and court position. I bet Federer and Blake were standing nearer to the baseline than Nadal. If your speed shows a 20% difference but Nadal are Djokovic are standing 20% further back (for example, in reality it's probably 10%), then there is no difference in speed at all (note: in reality it's not as simple as that as the ball is slowing nearer the back of the court, so 10% further back would make the time be >10% more!).

I think comparing matches between the same players at the same tournament makes more sense. But even then, I have my doubts about it. What's really needed is to measure the speed of the ball 0.01 seconds before it hits the ground and to measure that speed again 0.01 seconds after it hits the ground, and to measure the angle of the ball 0.01 seconds before it hits the ground and the angle 0.01 seconds after it hits the ground. And then produce a table showing these results by tournament and by year. Now that would be fun. But, of couse, we'll never get to see that. (Even if we did, that would tell us only about surfaces not rackets, and ball changes and spin could confuse further?). And so actually in truth it is hard to get any better info than what we already know from naked eye observation (including the lack of aces and volleying) and player interviews.

For sure, the courts are slower now. But this article is merely a little anecdote in support of that already known fact. It doesn't really have any statistical value in terms of genuinely advancing that argument.

For me the 2000-2007 period was a little bit weaker than average and 2008-2011 a little stronger period than average, certainly in terms of the #2-#4 ranked players.

Finally, I think Amritia made many great intelligent points on this article. I can't understand why Bogbrush wrote that Amritia "nothing to come back with except demonstrations of their incredulity". Came back with all sorts!

Good points, Henman Bill. I'm surprised that Bogbrush, one of our more analytical scribers buys this.

Tenez trips up so many times that you can't count the number - but I like this line, which actually isn't in the article.....

"I would add that in 2006, having quick hands (talent/pace?) was extremely important"

But Andy Murray is well known for his "quick hands" - most would argue it's his greatest attribute, i.e. without them he becomes another challenger for a Top 10 place. Or is that NOT important anymore? If not then how is Murray a serial Top 5 occupier?

Look there's an argument to say that Nadal relies far too much on physicality - but to ignore the subtle skills of Nole and certainly Murray is as usual laughably disrespectful. They are the best returners of the hardest servers on fast courts - so I think that proves that 'quick hands' are alive an kicking and slapping in 2011

Finally, I'm trying to work out that is 2006 was so good and Fed is now as good as he was then, why on earth is he only No.3 now? Even if we agree, in the interests of balance, that Fed isn't quite as good as he was then. As he really gone from being the clear No.1, by aorund 4000 points, to No.3 by the skin of his teeth?

No. If 2006 is as good as now, then Fed would still be No.1.

But of course, how ignorant of me!! I forget that Fed is not No.1 today, because he's now having to play three 'terminators' rather than those highly skilled McEnroe type players (version 1984 of course!!) that we fondly rememeber from 5 years ago

Right, thats banbrotam added to Tenez's ever-growing list of people who talk sense (aka his foes list).

Tenez wrote: Sure Hewitt got further than Blake in 2004 but I guess he wished he hadn't!
60 76 60! Blake at least got a set of Federer in 2006.

Yes and Hewitt got 2 sets off Federer in 2004. They didnt face each other in 2006.
Hewitt did better in 2004 than Blake in 2006 if you look at overall records.
Finished 3rd in world (Blake 4th), reached a slam final and 2 Quarters (Blake just 2 quarters), final and semis in masters (Blake just a final, and v. poor elsehwere), 68-18 W:L (Blake 57-22). Both reached WTFs.
Ok, they're close'ish but Hewitt still edges it.
Plus if you look at their career rankings...Hewitt ended the year in top10 5 times, Blake twice (and one of those was as #10).
Overall career of Hewitt far excels Blake, its not even a talking point.
Why focus on the only season Blake excelled?

"But Andy Murray is well known for his "quick hands" - most would argue it's his greatest attribute, i.e. without them he becomes another challenger for a Top 10 place. Or is that NOT important anymore? If not then how is Murray a serial Top 5 occupier? "

Banbro, compared with Fed, everyone has slow hands, and in Murray's case his legs also let him down, although he moves well. The final nail in the coffin is his forehand, that is his single biggest drawback.
He has changed his game from the excellent counter-puncher of 2009, fast and light to this Nole hybrid minus Nole's athleticism.
It will be interesting to see what he has done during this off-season, as he seem to be very hard-working and does change things most of all top 4 players.

amritia3ee wrote:Right, thats banbrotam added to Tenez's ever-growing list of people who talk sense (aka his foes list).

I'm already on it. Thank goodness for small mercies

noleisthebest wrote:"But Andy Murray is well known for his "quick hands" - most would argue it's his greatest attribute, i.e. without them he becomes another challenger for a Top 10 place. Or is that NOT important anymore? If not then how is Murray a serial Top 5 occupier? "

Banbro, compared with Fed, everyone has slow hands, and in Murray's case his legs also let him down, although he moves well. The final nail in the coffin is his forehand, that is his single biggest drawback.
He has changed his game from the excellent counter-puncher of 2009, fast and light to this Nole hybrid minus Nole's athleticism.
It will be interesting to see what he has done during this off-season, as he seem to be very hard-working and does change things most of all top 4 players.

Agreed, NITB. However, I think both our guys handskills are almost light yeats better than at least two of the Top 4 from 2006.

They say they slowed Bercy to make the transition to WTF easier as London is slower also (but with a very low bounce, hence why it suits Federer's semi-western grips much better than Nadal/Nole's western grips). I think there must be some unofficial agreement between TDs to get the best players through to the finals to help gate receipts so they've been homogenising (not necessarily slowing) the courts down for years now as they know, a more consistent top 4 will get to the finals every time. Helps gate receipts. I personally believe the much quicker Babolat balls at the French (ie. speeding the French up) helped Federer get to the final...his only slam final since AO'10 (and one of the reasons Isner did so well against Nadal).

Yh and Nadal still won the FO.

GP - being tall doesnt matter. They can still crack the ball hard off wiry frames.
If you dont think timing doesnt split the guys at the top in terms of service speeds rather than muscles then I'm surprised.

So by your argument is Venus Williams stronger than Djokovic?

banbrotam wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"But Andy Murray is well known for his "quick hands" - most would argue it's his greatest attribute, i.e. without them he becomes another challenger for a Top 10 place. Or is that NOT important anymore? If not then how is Murray a serial Top 5 occupier? "

Banbro, compared with Fed, everyone has slow hands, and in Murray's case his legs also let him down, although he moves well. The final nail in the coffin is his forehand, that is his single biggest drawback.
He has changed his game from the excellent counter-puncher of 2009, fast and light to this Nole hybrid minus Nole's athleticism.
It will be interesting to see what he has done during this off-season, as he seem to be very hard-working and does change things most of all top 4 players.

Agreed, NITB. However, I think both our guys handskills are almost light yeats better than at least two of the Top 4 from 2006.

definitely.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I love this article. Seems the places themselves struggle with opinions on court.

www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2010-08-31-us-open-arthur-ashe-stadium_N.htm

Hilarious to see sore loser Federer's athem holding onto his last desperate attempt to discredit Nadal that the court was fast so Nadal could't win on it
A year later, he nows says th USO court is slow. Which is which Federer?

The problem is when you like to talk too much, like Fed, you tend to contradict yourself

It's like at the O2 when he was busy laughing at the misfortune of his rivals injury woes and pointing out how his body "even if it’s injured, it can still play really well,”

He's obviously forgotten his rather forgettable Autumn and Winter of 2008/9 when his losess were put down to his bad back


Tenez, needs to learn as well, that if you're going to shout from the roof top, you'd better be certain that nobody has a good memory

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez, needs to learn as well, that if you're going to shout from the roof top, you'd better be certain that nobody has a good memory

Or that everyone with a good memory has put him in their foes list.

gallery play wrote:

lydian wrote:

gallery play wrote: Because players get more muscular, any player can hit a 130 m/ph serve these days.

Show me the theory that muscle is linked to service speed in men's professional tennis?
Remember Karlovic, Sampras, Stich and Krajicek? Hardly iron pumpers were they...
Even "Popeye" Henman could serve 130+ before his shoulder went.
Its all about timing, not muscle, modern coaching techniques harness timing better.

Karlo, Stich, Krajicek are tall, i don't have to explain that helps, right? You didn't mention Tsonga, Berydch, Sod, Dent, Monfils and Raonic because they're looking too strong to support your argument i guess
Sampras was a strong fellow, popeye forearms
Remember how Murrays serve speed increased? His muscles increased too that period, no? Same goes for Djoko, not as significantly though.
And what happened with Agassi's serve when he started to train with Jose?
And of course you'll remember guys like Slobodan Zivojinovic and the Scud?

Henman's shoulder went (just like Krajicek) because his tiny shoulders couldn't handle the increasing size of the balls, not muscular enough i guess....

Of course! A little girl with great timing could not serve bombs. I am not sure what Lydian is on about there. There are ways to compensate for less muscles (essentially great timing) but having muscles helps a lot.

Are people still being so stupid as to use Slam success by the player population to infer field quality?

Hasn't the penny dropped that as achievement is made relative to the competitive set you can't draw any conclusion at all about the quality of the field by their achievements against each other? I mean, it's such a fundamentally illogical position to take that it amazes me that anyone could ever hold it for more than 5 minutes.

Some of you really should be a level or two above that.