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.

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!

Congrats on some brilliant stats. It's a terrific argument about eras and various strengths of the top players.
What I would say is that, in some ways, the current situation is more stimulating to fans in that you have the top guys having these tremendous Greek-meets-Greek-with-no-holds-barred matches.
Surely it's better to see a tremendous Rafa-Rog, or Nole-Rafa final than Fed winning fairly easily against, say, Baggy or Gonzo.
You've also got three multi-Slam winners in the top three places - something that has not happened for some years - with a number four who has won more than 20 titles including a goodly number of 1,000pt events. And nobody REALLY knows what's gonna happen in 21012.What's not to like?

hawkeye wrote:Its shocking what some players try and get away with!

I think the scoring system should be changed to rid tennis of this sneaky way of trying to win points without hitting the ball hard and flat.

Having viewed the well researched data on the average time taken for the ball to travel the length of the court IMO a fair cut off point would be about 1.20 secs. Only when players use their natural skill and talent to play faster than this can points be scored. Anything slower and a large buzzer situated at the side of the court would sound. Play would stop and the point would have to be replayed. It would be entertaining for the audience as they could be encouraged to boo and jeer the poor skills of the players involved.

That should teach them...

Its funny how people like Tenez try to claim having a more defensive gamestyle/ playing on slower courts is morally worse in some way. It just your point of view at the end of the day.

Henman Bill wrote:

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!

Henman Bill
I know you prefer Federer to Nadal but you still remain completely unbiased! Very impressive contribution as always

Well good point Laver fan, a case could be make for Miami 2005 been the revival point when the then 18 year old Nadal was mercilessly thrashing the World No.1 Federer in the first 2 sets before tiring against the more fitter Federer who stormed back to win 5 sets.

To be honest though, i don't particularly respect any slam won in 2006. That has to be singly, the weakest ever year in the history of tennis and that is irrefutable.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well good point Laver fan, a case could be make for Miami 2005 been the revival point when the then 18 year old Nadal was mercilessly thrashing the World No.1 Federer in the first 2 sets before tiring against the more fitter Federer who stormed back to win 5 sets.

To be honest though, i don't particularly respect any slam won in 2006. That has to be singly, the weakest ever year in the history of tennis and that is irrefutable.

Wouldn't it be more interesting for all of us to discuss various topics seriously rather than to write this kind of nonsense?!

Very disappointing from you HB I must say. I even thought at some point that the wums had hijacked your pseudo.

prostaff85 : obviously it would. We all know this.

But SA's meaningless use of the word 'irrefutable' is, sadly, embedded deep within his DNA, and as such it's invariably not worth engaging with such nonsensical posts

Tenez wrote:
It is actually linked to that "Fed better in 06?" debate. Those slower conditions, and more physical game has seriously contributed to Federer's decline or rather scarcer titles. Give him a low bounce like in London, even on a slow surface, and he is unbeaten in 2 years at 30! Beating Murray, Djoko and Nadal. Frankly, it's not even close. Imagine if it was fast and lower bounce like in 2003-6.

yeah it is, and that's where i agree on your view in that debate: Fed 2011 has to hit it even earlier and swing faster to get the 2006 result. In other words: more risk, hence the inconsistency (compared with 2006).

Good thread again T!

[quote="amritia3ee"]

hawkeye wrote:
Its funny how people like Tenez try to claim having a more defensive gamestyle/ playing on slower courts is morally worse in some way. It just your point of view at the end of the day.

Well, they never use the expression "moral winner" for the one who plays defensive, how come?

lags72 wrote:prostaff85 : obviously it would. We all know this.

But SA's meaningless use of the word 'irrefutable' is, sadly, embedded deep within his DNA, and as such it's invariably not worth engaging with such nonsensical posts

Lol some facts are just irrefutable. Federer himself was sensible enough to admit the competion is much better.

[quote="gallery play"]

amritia3ee wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
Its funny how people like Tenez try to claim having a more defensive gamestyle/ playing on slower courts is morally worse in some way. It just your point of view at the end of the day.

Well, they never use the expression "moral winner" for the one who plays defensive, how come?

I dunno.. maybe they're not idiotic. Why would one gamestyle be 'morally better.' Firstly this is a game of tennis, secondly everyone has their preferences over which style they like. I prefer to watch Murray, Djokovic and Nadal over Federer. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge Federer is a great player, which he is, in my opinion.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

lags72 wrote:prostaff85 : obviously it would. We all know this.

But SA's meaningless use of the word 'irrefutable' is, sadly, embedded deep within his DNA, and as such it's invariably not worth engaging with such nonsensical posts

Lol some facts are just irrefutable. Federer himself was sensible enough to admit the competion is much better.

Well I'm not sure Federer said any Grand Slams in 2006 shouldn't count- he did say that competition now is much harder irrelevant of the conditions. The likes of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic are better than the likes of Ljubicic and Blake. That's a fact.

[quote="amritia3ee"]

gallery play wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
Its funny how people like Tenez try to claim having a more defensive gamestyle/ playing on slower courts is morally worse in some way. It just your point of view at the end of the day.

Well, they never use the expression "moral winner" for the one who plays defensive, how come?

I dunno.. maybe they're not idiotic. Why would one gamestyle be 'morally better.' Firstly this is a game of tennis, secondly everyone has their preferences over which style they like. I prefer to watch Murray, Djokovic and Nadal over Federer. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge Federer is a great player, which he is, in my opinion.

There's your answer

gallery play wrote:

There's your answer

Yes, but that doesn't mean its morally better to play attack does it..

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I know, but Nadal against anybody takes ages. It's the trajectory of his moonball that does it. I hate it, but it legal.

Certainly that helps but that's exactly what I am exposing here. And Djoko does very well v Nadal cause he can do the running with Nadal. Djoko is not trying to speed up the game. He is taking the bull by the horns and does the running as well instead of shortening the points.

Of course I am stressing on the physical players, in particular Nadal. But my point in this thread is to show what is needed nowadays to win teh USO as opposed to 5 years ago. There is no point of me comparing Djoko/Nadal with Thierry Champion/Clement on clay.


What woudl be relevant is work out the time between 2 shots in that Murray/Djoko AO 2011 final and see how it compares with Blake/Federer.

"Djoko is not trying to speed up the game", the ultimate among those who used to is Federer. We know how his efforts fared: his game moved back to baseline, which is not his natural, original position.
It's Nadal who pushed him there,thus finding the key to beating him.
Why did Federer cower back to the baseline? Why did he stop playing his 2004,5,6 game...because there was a guy across the net who could move better than any other opposition at the time, and one of the first to break through to the top with average serve.
So, no serve, no moving forward.
I'm beginning to believe Federer cracked mentally under Nadal as he couldn't cope with the transition in the game before he hired Anacone.
Anacone seems to have gradualy, still, thoroughly rebuilt both Federer's game and confidence.
That is why Federer of today is better than the one of 2006.
In 2006 his original , deadly attacking game was enough. When Nadal came, it was not.
Now I don't know how much technology has contributed to it all, my gut feeling is that the strings have done the most damage, more than the speed of courts.
Personally , I don't mind longer rallies, so long are not physically exhausting. I hate tennis played this and last year's USO final.
Back to Nole and why he is not speeding his game:he is playing to win, and at the moment the game is where it is. I think the older he gets, the flatter he'll be striking the ball, again. We may see his return to flat-hitting even in 2012, not exclusively, but more and more.
He has improved his volleying, and still has room for improvement there, mainly in approach shots, but is very close. His game is still work in process, and I quite like it as it is a winning game. Clever, well-balanced with plans a,b,c....z.
And as I said before, Nadal's physicality has really killed the game for everyone, which is why I hope Nole will establish his authority firmly on 2012 and somehow stop the rot.
I just know that most of the top players will work more on their fitness than game durin the off-season and that makes me sad

[quote="gallery play"]

amritia3ee wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
Its funny how people like Tenez try to claim having a more defensive gamestyle/ playing on slower courts is morally worse in some way. It just your point of view at the end of the day.

Well, they never use the expression "moral winner" for the one who plays defensive, how come?

Huh! Words are being put in my mouth I never said that!

Thanks SFP and GP for the feedback.

amritia3ee wrote:

gallery play wrote:

There's your answer

Yes, but that doesn't mean its morally better to play attack does it..

If people in general think that the attacking player is the moral winner even if he loses, there might be a case for it.
It's just like sports in ancient history, when the thumbs went down in the arena's for the not so brave gladiators.

gallery play wrote:

If people in general think that the attacking player is the moral winner even if he loses,

:facepalm:
You're going on about some 'morality'- this is tennis FFS.

I don;t know NTIB. I think SFP has a point when he says he prefers to see Fed v Nadal than Fed v Blake.

I think both are enjoyable but at least Nadal and his team presented a real challenge that Blake could not despite being, imo more talented. The problem in my view is that they slowed it down too much. And as much as Djoko v Nadal was fun to watch for a particular reason, I don;t think we would want to see too many of those.

But for me Federer had become the ultimate player and the only tournaments which I found really interesting were on clay and sadly later on slow grass cause that was only where Federer had a challenge.

The game had to move on from Federer's hands (I wished it had done so a bit later) but they gave the physical players a great help and made it more balanced for the partisan crowd onwards. By slowing the game down we ended up having great epics in AO and Wimbledon whereas on faster surfaces Nadal would have most likely crashed earlier against lower ranked players.

I disagree about Federer cracking mentally. Or yes he did but only because there was too much pressure on him to execute early knowing that the more the match last the less likely he was to win. No different than all those close matches that Djoko lost to Nadal before he became physically stronger. On faster surfaces Federer almost always beat Nadal convincingly and there was no "psychological craks" there.

I still can's understand how this has anything to do with morality. If you prefer a certain playing style over another you can say so; for example I prefer Nadal's style over Federers- that my personal preference and I recognise other people will have different views.
But I still can's understand how playing a particular style is more moral- in tennis. It's a sport.

gallery play wrote:It's just like sports in ancient history, when the thumbs went down in the arena's for the not so brave gladiators.

I love this analogy!

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

Tenez wrote:

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

Foe!
Tenez needs a
Don't take what I say personally, its not your fault you make mistakes.

Funnily i brush through Tenez' post like knife through butter. A few blah blah blahs and nothing of any substance. Why waste time on a deluded Federer fan who can't get over the fact that Nadal has been thrashing Federer from Dubai to Paris since he was 17

When someone is far better than his rivals, weak era theories abound. Mike Tyson's reputation suffered because of this as well.

Happy Christmas

I'd never use the foe button.

Watching Simplistic make a fool of himself again and again is too much fun. He's basically the gift that doesn't stop giving.

Fedal should retire now. Then the debate of who is better can be had till the cows come home.

This is now not-around-the-mulberry-bush anymore, but round-the-banyan-tree (everyone now has a root to cling on to).

Something about nine blind people describing the pachyderm in its enormous glory.

laverfan wrote:Fedal should retire now. Then the debate of who is better can be had till the cows come home.

This is now not-around-the-mulberry-bush anymore, but round-the-banyan-tree (everyone now has a root to cling on to).

Something about nine blind people describing the pachyderm in its enormous glory.

tell me about it.....I hope I age gracefully as Nole's career draws near to the end; oh no, the thought of it it's killing me already !!!

amritia3ee wrote:I still can's understand how this has anything to do with morality. If you prefer a certain playing style over another you can say so; for example I prefer Nadal's style over Federers- that my personal preference and I recognise other people will have different views.
But I still can's understand how playing a particular style is more moral- in tennis. It's a sport.

Hmm, six minutes before you wrote this you complained about me going on about morality....

Anyway, now you came up with it for the second time: personal preference is something else. I just told you that the phenomenon 'moral winner' does exist in sport, whether you like it or not. And this label usually goes to the attacking brave player. Again, whether you like it or not.

gallery play wrote: I just told you that the phenomenon 'moral winner' does exist in sport, whether you like it or not.

:facepalm:

amritia3ee wrote:

gallery play wrote: I just told you that the phenomenon 'moral winner' does exist in sport, whether you like it or not.

:facepalm:

Question, for someone who has only made their first comments on here within the last week or so, how do you know about the :facepalm: coding, and that the smiley doesn't exist anymore?

Y I Man wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

gallery play wrote: I just told you that the phenomenon 'moral winner' does exist in sport, whether you like it or not.

:facepalm:

Question, for someone who has only made their first comments on here within the last week or so, how do you know about the :facepalm: coding, and that the smiley doesn't exist anymore?

It's my favourite smiley on mytennislounge.

:hatoff:

"only real test" is a bit harsh!

Tenez, I am sorry if I was insensitive or rude in the way I am described what I see as your bias. I could have handled that better. Nontheless, that is how I feel.

Or was it more that you were unimpressed by some of the specific arguments?

Tenez wrote: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

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

Nadal v Djoko USO 11
a) total points ..................268
b) match duration ..............4 hrs 10 mins = 250 mins
c) points / min ..................1.072
d) strikes / rally .................22.25 (taken from Tenez data = 89 / 4)
e) strikes / min ..................23.85 (match average = c x d)
f) Average .......................2.52s per length of court (match average) Where a ball strike corresponds to the ball traversing the length of the court

Federer v Blake USO 06
a) total points ..................291
b) match duration ..............2 hrs 47 mins = 167 mins
c) points / min ..................1.743
d) strikes / rally .................12.00 (taken from Tenez data = 84 / 7)
e) strikes / min ..................20.91 (match average = c x d)
f) Average .......................2.87s per length of court (match average)

Hence considering the average time taken for the ball to cross the tennis court as an overall match average, the speed of the court has increased from 2006 (2.87 s/court length) to 2011 (2.52 s/court length). That is using Tenez' data (average ball strikes per rally point) we may safely conclude that the US Open court has speeded up in recent years. Thus we have debunked the debunker.

Stunning analysis Nore Staat.
Poor Tenez has probably added you to his foes list by now

Henman Bill wrote:"only real test" is a bit harsh!

Yes, you are right, I apologise. 'Only sustained dangerous threat' shall we say.

What's this foes list?

I thought this is a forum for adults....

noleisthebest wrote:What's this foes list?

I thought this is a forum for adults....

Tenez put me and Simple Analyst in his foes list for arguing that there is more competition now than there was in 2006. And now probably Nore Staat as well, for his rather revealing post

Er, Nore, you've used the total match time, but then extrapolated from the small sample of points Tenez provided, to the whole match. I.e. you've assumed d) as the average rally length of the whole match, which isn't correct.
Which kind of completely invalidates you're whole assumption.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your figures.

amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:What's this foes list?

I thought this is a forum for adults....

Tenez put me and Simple Analyst in his foes list for arguing that there is more competition now than there was in 2006. And now probably Nore Staat as well, for his rather revealing post

no way did Tenez do that....I know.

noleisthebest wrote:What's this foes list?

I thought this is a forum for adults....

I thought so at first until Bogbrush showed me how much he loves Dr Seuss last week.

Amritia

Any way for the more matured posters not wearing Federer tinted glasses, here is good read of the court thing.

www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/GrandSlamStatistics.htm

I wouldn't normally waste time on pointless discussions like these but various stats could be used . A point in case was the USO last year stastically been the fastest condition in years. A conflict though was at this years USO, we had Federer saying courts are slow yet Djokovic saying he doesn't see the difference to other years. Hmmm scratching my head as to who to believe.

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

Nore Staat wrote:

Tenez wrote: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

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

Nadal v Djoko USO 11
a) total points ..................268
b) match duration ..............4 hrs 10 mins = 250 mins
c) points / min ..................1.072
d) strikes / rally .................22.25 (taken from Tenez data = 89 / 4)
e) strikes / min ..................23.85 (match average = c x d)
f) Average .......................2.52s per length of court (match average) Where a ball strike corresponds to the ball traversing the length of the court

Federer v Blake USO 06
a) total points ..................291
b) match duration ..............2 hrs 47 mins = 167 mins
c) points / min ..................1.743
d) strikes / rally .................12.00 (taken from Tenez data = 84 / 7)
e) strikes / min ..................20.91 (match average = c x d)
f) Average .......................2.87s per length of court (match average)

Hence considering the average time taken for the ball to cross the tennis court as an overall match average, the speed of the court has increased from 2006 (2.87 s/court length) to 2011 (2.52 s/court length). That is using Tenez' data (average ball strikes per rally point) we may safely conclude that the US Open court has speeded up in recent years. Thus we have debunked the debunker.

This is spot on

This great article provided by S_A also proves that aces and serve speed have gone up- which also further proves the theory of Tenez wrong. You can't argue against the facts: http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/GrandSlamStatistics.htm

Henman Bill wrote:"only real test" is a bit harsh!

Tenez, I am sorry if I was insensitive or rude in the way I am described what I see as your bias. I could have handled that better. Nontheless, that is how I feel.

Or was it more that you were unimpressed by some of the specific arguments?

A bit of both. I am not biased. The very purpose of this thread is to show that back in 2006 the skills needed to reach the later stages of slams were different than now. IMO, the fans of Nadal, Murray and Djoko who think it's now a string era are the biased ones and completely obliviant of teh talent needed to win or contend in slams. I have not picked the stats to prove a point. I watched a few clips and I thought it was obvious the game was much faster then.


I'll answer a few points of your post later.

amritia3ee wrote:This is spot on

Except that it isn't - the maths is wrong. See my post above.

S_A, it was me who professed a liking of Dr Seuss, not BB. IIRC BB was simply aware of who he was.

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.

NS - You are completely off the mark! 3 sec for the ball to travel the length of the court?????

Teh way I worked out those stats can be done by every body. because it's youtube you can see what time a rally starts and what time it ends. Then it;s easy to count the number of shots per rally (length of court). beacuae youtube only gives you precision to the second, I chose longer rallies where I woudl get a more precise time per length. Doing it over 3 shot rallies woudl be very inaccurate. I also used multiple rallies to get an average and they were not picked to suit a purpose as some might think. I just added a few shorter rallies from Blake and Federer to show that they coudl actually play at an even faster rate than teh longer rallies where they tended to wait for opportunities to attack.

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.

You can't argue the facts : http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/GrandSlamStatistics.htm