The death of tennis RIP

Some of the recent threads about the sheer physicality of the game nowadays makes me want to ponder the following question:

Is the game of tennis at the men's top level dead and buried from the viewpoint of a purist?

Lots of quotes from ex-players about the match between Rafa and Novak resembling a war-zone. In fact it was so absorbing that a legend like Laver couldn't take his eyes off it but I just wonder how much of a resemblance it had to Rod and his tennis memories in those far off days when he was winning slams.

Tennis is advanced, now you have to be physically fit and also be able to pull off supreme shots.

Tennis is evolving from dominance of the serve to dominance of the return.

What do you mean "Tennis has evolved"?

Hewitt won his 2 slams in 2001/2002 and he was the epitome of a top returner. Nadal is just a better defensive version of Lleyton, well done lol.

<BLOCKQUOTE sizset="7" sizcache04569077443907653="1">Relevant here too:

Well it does prove that the physical side is so important nowadays that it doesn;t allow a talented player in form to cut through the draw. I see the tour as being asphyxiated by 3 players able to play a kind of tennis on uniform slow conds which is actually killing variety and talent with long and gruelling rallies. Their average shot is actually very average.

It's a bit like when Borg arrived and was able to outlast all the talented players like Nastase, Guerulatis, Pecci, and so on cause Borg SIMPLY had better legs and lungs (I loved Borg BTW) but his game was rather 1D. Only when McEnroe arrived with a small wooden racquet did we realise how much (talent) we had been missing (well not me cause I was a teenager then with a passion for the swede's game).

I am in no illusion that the stroy will happen again soon...and we are already seeing how 1D Nadal is when faced against another physical player. While at the time we could admire Borg's natural athletism, we are now a bit more cautious in giving Nadal and this new generation teh same admiration as we know a team is now required to achieve higher physical prowess.

So I am sorry, teh variety is not there for me to call this a particularly strong era. There is certainly a small group ahead physically at the top asphyxiating everybody else, including themselves.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Tenez there is also the concern that players will have ever shorter careers and be more prone to certain types of injury from the sheer physical nature of the game e.g. both Hewitt and Nalbandian requiring hip surgery.

Another question is this - how many young players will be put off by knowing how much gym work/stamina is required to get to the top. There will be young players out there who have huge natural talent, but no natural physique to get anywhere near the top 10 in say 2017, regardless of how much training they do.
If they decide it's not worth it, it will let the door open even more for those who simply a) are willing to work for and b) have the natural body for, extreme levels of fitness/stamina.

I don't think tennis is dead yet, but a vicious circle like that could kill it off.

newballs wrote:Tenez there is also the concern that players will have ever shorter careers and be more prone to certain types of injury from the sheer physical nature of the game e.g. both Hewitt and Nalbandian requiring hip surgery.

Well yes but as mentioned, those top new players have teams of doctors working on them so they can actually last longer. I woudl have never thought Nadal would be still going strong now...but he is improving at 25, nearly 26! Absurd with such a game.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another question is this - how many young players will be put off by knowing how much gym work/stamina is required to get to the top.

I agree. That often crossed my mind.

Even if we give current players the benefit of any doubt, what is also obvious is that the incentive to dope to success is now far greater than at any time in the history of the game.

Not really sure how good that is.

There will be no 5 year leader on tennis any more. Max 2 year peak performance and then rapid decline.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another question is this - how many young players will be put off by knowing how much gym work/stamina is required to get to the top. There will be young players out there who have huge natural talent, but no natural physique to get anywhere near the top 10 in say 2017, regardless of how much training they do.
If they decide it's not worth it, it will let the door open even more for those who simply a) are willing to work for and b) have the natural body for, extreme levels of fitness/stamina.

I don't think tennis is dead yet, but a vicious circle like that could kill it off.

Working in the gym is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than actually being able to play tennis. Fitness is there only to help the talent. Nothing else.

Current WTA is a living proof: talentless fit ball-bashers that can't string half a season of form.

But can a talented girl who CAN'T run and retrieve endlessly compete?

No, and that's the threat to the men's game over the next 10 years.

noleisthebest wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another question is this - how many young players will be put off by knowing how much gym work/stamina is required to get to the top. There will be young players out there who have huge natural talent, but no natural physique to get anywhere near the top 10 in say 2017, regardless of how much training they do.
If they decide it's not worth it, it will let the door open even more for those who simply a) are willing to work for and b) have the natural body for, extreme levels of fitness/stamina.

I don't think tennis is dead yet, but a vicious circle like that could kill it off.

Working in the gym is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than actually being able to play tennis. Fitness is there only to help the talent. Nothing else.

Current WTA is a living proof: talentless fit ball-bashers that can't string half a season of form.

I think you've underlined my point - I fear the ATP going the way of the WTA once the present players have faded away.

That's normal. Enjoy it while you can....

noleisthebest wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another question is this - how many young players will be put off by knowing how much gym work/stamina is required to get to the top. There will be young players out there who have huge natural talent, but no natural physique to get anywhere near the top 10 in say 2017, regardless of how much training they do.
If they decide it's not worth it, it will let the door open even more for those who simply a) are willing to work for and b) have the natural body for, extreme levels of fitness/stamina.

I don't think tennis is dead yet, but a vicious circle like that could kill it off.

Working in the gym is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than actually being able to play tennis. Fitness is there only to help the talent. Nothing else.

Current WTA is a living proof: talentless fit ball-bashers that can't string half a season of form.

Unfortunately NITB that's not quite true. It's not so difficult to take game away from the talent side and make it essentially a physcal battle. Especially on slow courts. Wilander and Chang have 17 have managed just that. Wilander on clay for instance got badly beaten in the first set of his matches v Clerc and Vilas and then ended winning the 4th or 5th very convincingly after those players simply gave up going for lines and ended up competing purely on the physical side v Wilander. Chang did the same.

On grass however talent almost always prevailed versus the physical players.

A lot of doom and gloom here. Every sport is getting more physical, look at football and all the other team sports. Even golfers are getting more into physical fitness and strength training. It is a natural evolution of sports to push the limits of the game. The media reviews and the ratings of the AO didn't seem to indicate that people were losing interest in anyway. The fans were on their feet, legends of the past have come out and praised these new generation of players. I find the modern game with longer points and a bigger emphasis on defense, while retaining the need for weapons and a good offense to be a gripping style of tennis. It isn't just speed and lungs that determine the winners, unless you are an incredible ball striker you have no chance at the top of the game.

The difference, socal, is that in an earlier era, players needed a minimum level of fitness to compete, after which talent was the most significant factor. Nowadays, we are going towards a minimum level of talent required to compete, with fitness being the most significant factor after that.

Wrong Tennisanorak, fitness and athleticism are in no ways the defining characteristic. If that was the case why don't we just go and find the last guy to win the ironman contest and send him to tennis camp for a year and then manage him to millions of dollars. Fitness is a base, any idiot can get fit enough he doesn't have a medical condition. Have you seen the thousands of people who turn out for triathalons and marathons they are fitter than Novak and Nadal. None of them have a snowball's chance in hell of hitting a forehand like either of them.

The same argument was being made about football that physical fitness and strength had replaced technique as the main determination of footballing success. Then along came players like Messi and Ronaldo, and before them Zidane. The very best need both technique/talent, and fitness. And that is exactly how it should be

socal1976 wrote:.....the very best need both technique/talent, and fitness. And that is exactly how it should be

At least there's no room in that argument for any weak eras. In the early 2000s the very best were "One shot Roddick" and "No Shot Hewitt", who apparently possessed enough talent to have a decent serve between them and nothing else.

Oddly, nearly everyone is amazed at Djoko's and Nadal's levels of fitness, yet you think any amateur who runs a marathon is fitter than they are. Nearly everyone says they are the 2 two fittest players on the tour - it would be odd if the 2 fittest were also the 2 most talented, but I guess it's possible.

Can I assume you're a big fan of the WTA as well and would mount a similar defence of it's current state?

Julius, Roddick and Hewitt are great players, but they are weak world #1s. that is obvious if you compare their success and their runs at the top to the average of what other #1s have done. It doesn't mean they aren't great players just that they are weaker than other #1s. And the late 90s till mid 2000s era wasn't weak as in total garbage, it was weaker however than what came immediately before and what came immediately after. We are speaking about thin margins at the top of the game. Additionally, it is never easy to dominate the ATP tour in any era.

As for the WTA tour I can't watch it for more than 5 tortuous minutes at a time. I don't see what that has to do with my affection for the modern game. I don't like shrieking and I prefer the higher level of power and athleticism of the men. It doesn't have anything to do with the perceived style of play.

Tennisanorak wrote:The difference, socal, is that in an earlier era, players needed a minimum level of fitness to compete, after which talent was the most significant factor. Nowadays, we are going towards a minimum level of talent required to compete, with fitness being the most significant factor after that.

Exactly. Once you have a couple of 20 shot rallies in your legs ran like a 400m race, the talent is blunt. That's what most people don't understand. Federer crushes Nadal in most of his first set matches. Either taking the first set or getting to set point but then the edge goes meaning he has to hit safer shots which in turn gives Nadal more opportunities to make him run.

Sport is a challenge is it not? In tennis in all areas as well be it serve, volley, return of serve, forehand, backhand and yes even fitness. If you can't compete at those levels then tough. It is up to Federer (if you claim he doesn't have the same fitness) to do something about that but with me that argument doesn't wash. Djokovic is king of fitness and yet Federer beat him on clay (the ultimate fitness test and slowest court to boot) last year and had match points against him in the US Open.

socal1976 wrote:Julius, Roddick and Hewitt are great players

So why do you constantly refer to them in disrespectful tones? Good old "No shot Hewitt", he was a great player.

I stand by my statements about Djoko's and Rafa's fitness.
What I'm worried about is 2 things :-
1. 30 players, with varied levels of talent, all being super-fit, because they know they have to be, leading to endless 5, 6 hour matches in most 1/4s, semis and finals. I see that as a real possibility. If it starts to happen, 2 things would have to change - the conditions, make them faster again, which would be a good thing, or the TV companies force slams to be best of 3 sets, which would be a very bad thing.

2. Very talented players, who are either simply unable to get as fit as those other 30 players, or who have no desire to get as fit as those 30 players will just not choose tennis as a profession and the overall level of talent will decrease.

Those are my genuine fears for the game in 5 - 10 years time, as fitness become the most important factor. It may not be the case now, maybe it's about equal with fitness vs talent, but that's the way the game seems to be heading.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sport is a challenge is it not?

Easy catch phrases that don't really explain anything. McEnroe learnt his tennis with a wooden racquet, is it fair to ask him to challenge the youngsters that learnt the game with graphite and medium frame racquets?

Federer learnt the game and developed his reflexes on fast surfaces, is it fair to ask him to play a clay game on all tournaments? Maybe had he known that allsurfaces woudl be slowed down, he coudl have been better prepared. His first opponents were Rafter, Kraji, Goran and Pete. Not moonballing macaques as JM says.

Sorry I don't see your point. Greats adapt I mean if you want to use that argument then Nadal was brought up on clay but has diversified onto other surfaces and Murray was brought up on clay in Spain but that is now seen as his weaker surface. And on fast surface Federer had match points against Djokovic last year at the US Open. How so?

Also do you not therefore think that Federer himself gained a massive advantage in having court conditions that suited him down to a tee when he won his slams and that negated chances of other players whose court conditions didn't suit them? I mean, who knows, if slower courts had been in place from the early 2000's he would never have won a slam. Not that I agree with that for one minute that it has a great deal to do with court conditions. Federer's problems began when great returners of serve developed ie Nadal and Djokovic and that developed his matches into extended rallies which he never had to deal with in the 2000's as the quality of return was not in the same class as today.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry I don't see your point. Greats adapt I mean if you want to use that argument then Nadal was brought up on clay but has diversified onto other surfaces and Murray was brought up on clay in Spain but that is now seen as his weaker surface. And on fast surface Federer had match points against Djokovic last year at the US Open. How so?

More laughable.

1 - The courts adapted to Nadal....not the other way around.

2 - How great is Nadal then as he seems to have some difficulty adapting to Djoko? Unlike McEnroe and Federer who were fighting against change of technology and conditions, Nadal get creamed by a player of the same age.

3 - Socal and yourself complimenting each other on how great your respective arguments are doesn't quite cut it for the rest of us. Ok...you might have SA and Amri on your side too.

The beauty of tennis used to be that different type of players could be successful because the Slams were all different.

While Sampras was dominating on grass and to lesser extent on hardcourt in the 90s, players like Bruguera and Kuerten were almost unbeatable on clay.

Similarly in the 80s, Wilander and Lendl dominated on clay, whereas Becker and Edberg were superior on grass. Hardcourt was nicely in between giving everyone 'fair' chances.

It took truly amazing performances to win the Slams that favoured the style of play of others: Agassi winning Wimbledon from the baseline, Edberg almost winning Roland Garros with serve-volley.

My point is that we need this diversity to keep it interesting. While I am a Federer fan, I don't wish that the conditions at the French Open are made faster to give him better chances to win it.
If we keep seeing Djoko and Nadal fighting it out from the baseline and the only difference is whether the court is blue, red or green, I'm afraid it'll get boring rather soon (except for those only interested in Slam count and GOAT debates)...

Players adapt to conditions and physicality or at least they have to or they cease to be competitive. Now if you are saying Federer can't adapt then why not? Murray arrived in tennis as a scrawny teenager and was told he had to get fitter and did. However, I still re-iterate this has nothing to do with physicality or else how come Federer came within a point of beating Djokovic (that great physically fit super-human you paint him to be) on a FAST court and actually did beat him on a SLOW court which you claim is the reason for the death of Federer as a slam winner.

Julius, never been a fan of either player but i won't deny that they are top pros (hewitt and roddick) but still unworthy world #1s when compared to that category as a whole. Roddick especially.

Everyone keeps talking about the day when every talentless grinder will just get fit and whoever is the fittest will win the next grandslam. Well obviously that day isn't here yet because the same 2 guys (talentless lung merchants according to some) have played in the last 3 consecutive grandslam finals and 7 finals in the last 11 months.

Another fear that you talked about was how very talented players will choose not to work hard enough to get fit enough to compete. Really your big worry is that a lazy ball striking genius won't work hard enough and leave the sport? If being a champion and multi-millionaire means so little to said lazy genius then he shouldn't be a champion anyway. I use my analogy of the guy with 140 iq working at Starbucks. In sports, as in life results and hardwork trump mere talent. The true greats will be those that combine the hardwork and the talent. And that is what we have right now. I have little or no sympathy for the lazy genius.

Do you think Nadal and Djoko are lacking ballstriking talent? Have you become Tenez junior? Do you think it easy to hit a passing shot cross court on the dead run from 4 meters behind the baseline? Or return 140 mile per hour serve?

Pro-staff i can respect what you are saying but it isn't just the courts and conditions that have killed S and V. The strings and racquets have played a huge part as well. In fact, I would posit the strings maybe the most of anything. If you watch a typical tennis match you are still going to see quite a bit of volleying. It is just players can't do it off of their serve any more the returns come back too often and too hard. I think it is a bit of an overgeneralization to say that the modern game lacks variety. I think over the course of the match you see good volleys, good serves, drop shots, lobs, slices mixed in all throught out the point. I just was never enamored by S and V. Running up behind a big serve and ending the point in 1 or 2 shots.

There are players who try S and V. Isner, Stepanek and Llodra. While Stepanek and Llodra are weaker on serve compared to Isner, they make up for it with sublime touch at the net. There are some that will try and others that won't. There is a reason why they can't defeat the top 10/12 players because of the passing shots they are able to play due to the slow nature of the surfaces.

Ball bashing is not the most attractive form of tennis at all. I want to see winners hit with sheer precision and not because the other guy is run off his feet and unable to retrieve.

As Prostaff rightly mentioned, there is no longer diversity in the game.

socal, no, that day isn't here yet, but it is true to say, I think, that the two fittest guys on the tour are the top 2 in the rankings, and that Murray, after the AO said yet again that he will try to get fitter.

The trend over recent years has been to make fitness more and more important in the game. Maybe that trend won't continue, but if it does, then fitness will end up being the most important factor in who is at the top of the rankings and who wins the slams. Not the only factor, but it could very well become the single most important factor.

That's OK in, say, athletics or endurance sports, but tennis isn't and shouldn't be primarily an endurance sport. Obviously not all tennis players can reach the same level of fitness, no matter how hard they train. By 2020, fitness could be so important in tennis that the top 30 is occupied mainly by the fittest, not the most talented players. And there's a difference between being lazy and not being prepared to push your body so far that you have constant niggling injuries and run the risk, as Rafa is already saying, of not being able to 'play football' after you've retired i.e. long-term effects.

Also the majority of matches could last an hour longer than they did 5 years ago. There will always be the stand out players, and maybe regualr 5+ hour slam finals will be great, but 5 hour semis and 1/4's on a regular basis?

I'm try to keep current players out of the argument, because for me, I'm looking at a very possible and worrying future, but for the record I don't think Djoko or Nadal lack ball-striking talent. But I do think they rely more on fitness for success than, say McEnroe or Sampras did. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and it doesn't lessen their actual achievements in any way, in my view. But less talented players will see that fitness is the way to success, to overcome their own lack of technique, and we could well end up with a whole truck load of less talented, super-fit players dominating the tour in a few years, as fitness becomes more important than anything else. (Not Djoko's or Nadal's fault - they are not responsible for anything other than their own careers.)

That wouldn't be the kind of tennis I would want to watch every match.

......and the incentive/need to dope grows larger and larger.

Socal
Agree quite strongly with your first paragraph - Roddick in particular benefitted from coming through in the gap between the decline of Sampras and the emergence of Federer. Hewitt probably deserves a bit more respect than he gets on here though - he was really the prototype for Djokovic, with slightly less shotmaking talent (i would say that Courier was really the pre-cursor to Nadal's early incarnation).

Clearly, fitness and court coverage are becoming ever more important, and I would like to see some courts (Wimbledon and the US hard courts) sped up slightly to get back to the diversity that ProStaff mentions - the French should favour the consistent grinders, Wimbledon the more instinctive players with the AO and USO fitting in the middle.

The idea though that someone can win simply by running after everything and pushing the ball back is an absurdity invented solely to denigrate the achievements of certain players - to be a top player you have to have the ability to win the points, not just to hang in there for a time. Nadal has that ability because he has an absolute thunderbolt of a forehand backed up by several other solid shots, so he can kill the point off when he gets the short ball he's after.

Your referernce to a 'lazy ball striking genius' did make me immediately think of the name Gasquet - wonder why?

It's a valid point that some will become good because of inate talent, others will be good because of their work ethic, but the really great players get there because they have both. Your analogy of the genius working for Starbucks is reasonable though - it is perhaps less common for the absolute genius to have the work ethic sufficiently to get the better of someone less blessed with natural ability who has worked hard to maximise what they have. This would be the comparison of MacEnroe with Borg or Edberg with Lendl (and arguably Agassi with Sampras) - ultimatley the perhaps slightly less gifted player actually achieved more in the game.

JuliusHMarx wrote:By 2020, fitness could be so important in tennis that the top 30 is occupied mainly by the fittest, not the most talented players.

It's already the case actually...bar a few exceptions.

Look at Leander Paes, younger he beat Pete Sampras...then physically he was never able to make it to the top cause already then it was too physical. At nearly 40 (39) he just won another slam at doubles. His talent is amazing but we have little or no occasion to see it unless we watch a bit of double.

This is an extreme case but it summarises pretty well the situation that unless you are built like spartan, there is no chance, regardless how talented one can be.

Hmmm must have been dreaming then when Djokovic was beaten by Federer at the French Open last year.

Julius, it really is much easier to get fit as long as you work hard. Like I said look at the thousands of people who show up for marathons and triathlons. Unless you have a physcial problem that precludes you from top level sports to begin with, with hardwork you can become as fit or fitter than Nadal. Djokovic is a perfect example the guy had respiratory problems that saw him get nasal surgery as a child and has allergies as well, he got that fit.

Fitness is the base. In a hypothetical world where are the top players are super fit, guess what will still seperate them Julius? That is right ball striking ability, how well you hit a tennis ball. Look at the top two right now. Nadal has a top 5 forehand and one of the best returns in the world, and incredible passing shots off both wings. Djokovic is the best returner in the game, and has maybe the best backhand in the game if not top 5, and one of the 10 best forehands as well. Murray as well has remarkable feel and ball striking instincts. Maybe in the future we will get to that day but i doubt it. Talent combined with hardwork; will beat talent without hardwork, and will trump hardwork without talent as well. That is how it is in every endeavor.

dummy_half wrote:Socal
Agree quite strongly with your first paragraph - Roddick in particular benefitted from coming through in the gap between the decline of Sampras and the emergence of Federer. Hewitt probably deserves a bit more respect than he gets on here though - he was really the prototype for Djokovic, with slightly less shotmaking talent (i would say that Courier was really the pre-cursor to Nadal's early incarnation).

Clearly, fitness and court coverage are becoming ever more important, and I would like to see some courts (Wimbledon and the US hard courts) sped up slightly to get back to the diversity that ProStaff mentions - the French should favour the consistent grinders, Wimbledon the more instinctive players with the AO and USO fitting in the middle.

The idea though that someone can win simply by running after everything and pushing the ball back is an absurdity invented solely to denigrate the achievements of certain players - to be a top player you have to have the ability to win the points, not just to hang in there for a time. Nadal has that ability because he has an absolute thunderbolt of a forehand backed up by several other solid shots, so he can kill the point off when he gets the short ball he's after.

Your referernce to a 'lazy ball striking genius' did make me immediately think of the name Gasquet - wonder why?

It's a valid point that some will become good because of inate talent, others will be good because of their work ethic, but the really great players get there because they have both. Your analogy of the genius working for Starbucks is reasonable though - it is perhaps less common for the absolute genius to have the work ethic sufficiently to get the better of someone less blessed with natural ability who has worked hard to maximise what they have. This would be the comparison of MacEnroe with Borg or Edberg with Lendl (and arguably Agassi with Sampras) - ultimatley the perhaps slightly less gifted player actually achieved more in the game.

Here, here dummy. I wouldn't be opposed to slight changes here and there. But really wimbeldon was darn near unwatchable in the late 90s in the era of the power servers. Maybe that is just my opinion. Slight changes and tinkering is ok. Wholesale changes that some are calling for like banning types of equipment and drastically changing the courts I would not support. And the talented ball striker who is lazy, great call on Gasquet. The guy just hasn't put in the hard yards, why reward it. By the way after Novak, Gazza is my second favorite player but unless he puts in the hard yards he shouldn't be a grandslam champion. Also agree on hewitt, if you look at my Goat list after the top 15 of the open era I gave hewitt an honorable mention. Probably the best of the two slam champions. Still I would say he is a somewhat inferior world #1 on average.

Oh please...unwatchable seeing players go for WINNERS as opposed to best defender absorbing the skills of the attacking player?

What a fanboy you are...most Djokovic fans I know are not so deluded.

dummy_half and socal have it spot on for me.

Tennis is in its best ever shape for my taste. Long may it continue like this.

legendkillar wrote:There are players who try S and V. Isner, Stepanek and Llodra. While Stepanek and Llodra are weaker on serve compared to Isner, they make up for it with sublime touch at the net. There are some that will try and others that won't. There is a reason why they can't defeat the top 10/12 players because of the passing shots they are able to play due to the slow nature of the surfaces.

Ball bashing is not the most attractive form of tennis at all. I want to see winners hit with sheer precision and not because the other guy is run off his feet and unable to retrieve.

As Prostaff rightly mentioned, there is no longer diversity in the game.

But there has been no diversity in the game since when the USO was made slower in 2003. Show me one single slam Federer won for example by playing anywhere besides on the baseline. Infact show me one big trophy any player has won since 2002 playing S&V. The guys just became a decent volleyer after he hired Annacone in 2010. Pete Sampras won USO 200 using Serve and Volley. Who has managed that 10 years to this day? No one! I in particular don't care about this fitness thing. Tennis is a a physical sport which requires as professionals to be fit and push the boundaries in physical endurance and mental strength. Since 2002, no S&V player has won a big tournament because the game change then. It's not changing now. The only reason it's even clearer today is because we have players who are better than anything ever produced in the weaker periods of the early to mid 2000s. Roddick, Henman, Stephanek, Karlovic should be the ones rueing their chances because either their serve was negated by the slower conditions or their Serve and Volley was affected. Baseliners like Federer shouldn't complain. We saw how hopeless he was on 90s type fast conditions, Winning nothing to write home about.

I couldn't care less how conditions are for tennis. Players should be able to adapt. The sport is at an all time high with memorable matches on display at a rapid rate. TV ratings etc are high so no matter how hard Federer worshippers convince themselves, the sport is in a good state as it has ever been.

Yes danny.. long may the tour be decided by who gets more balls back rather than who can take the initiative. Let's continue having the top 4 players reach every semi finals too... not predictable at all.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:There are players who try S and V. Isner, Stepanek and Llodra. While Stepanek and Llodra are weaker on serve compared to Isner, they make up for it with sublime touch at the net. There are some that will try and others that won't. There is a reason why they can't defeat the top 10/12 players because of the passing shots they are able to play due to the slow nature of the surfaces.

Ball bashing is not the most attractive form of tennis at all. I want to see winners hit with sheer precision and not because the other guy is run off his feet and unable to retrieve.

As Prostaff rightly mentioned, there is no longer diversity in the game.

But there has been no diversity in the game since when the USO was made slower in 2003. Show me one single slam Federer won for example by playing anywhere besides on the baseline. Infact show me one big trophy any player has won since 2002 playing S&V. The guys just became a decent volleyer after he hired Annacone in 2010. Pete Sampras won USO 200 using Serve and Volley. Who has managed that 10 years to this day? No one! I in particular don't care about this fitness thing. Tennis is a a physical sport which requires as professionals to be fit and push the boundaries in physical endurance and mental strength. Since 2002, no S&V player has won a big tournament because the game change then. It's not changing now. The only reason it's even clearer today is because we have players who are better than anything ever produced in the weaker periods of the early to mid 2000s. Roddick, Henman, Stephanek, Karlovic should be the ones rueing their chances because either their serve was negated by the slower conditions or their Serve and Volley was affected. Baseliners like Federer shouldn't complain. We saw how hopeless he was on 90s type fast conditions, Winning nothing to write home about.

I couldn't care less how conditions are for tennis. Players should be able to adapt. The sport is at an all time high with memorable matches on display at a rapid rate. TV ratings etc are high so no matter how hard Federer worshippers convince themselves, the sport is in a good state as it has ever been.

Tim Henman Paris Masters 2003

SoCal
All I'm looking for is that you can tell by watching no more than a couple of points which are the 'fast' or 'slow' surfaces. The way the Aus courts played in the evening sessions was probably a little bit too slow for a hard court, as the best court coverers were able to run down and make an effective response to too many good and well placed attacking shots (which should be the default conditions for clay) - the playing conditions in the day sessions were just about perfect for a slower hard court.

The USO is probably not too far off where it should be in terms of playing conditions (quicker hard courts), particularly when the weather is hot - there is an advantage to the ball strikers over the grinders.

Wimbledon is the one that I think has been most neutered by the changes to conditions - yes there was a need to slow it down, as you can only watch so many Sampras v Ivanisevic serve-fests, but I think the changes to the grass mix and the balls used, at the same time as the racket and string technology moved to favour returners was one change too many all within the space of a couple of years. I'd be interested to see how it would play if they reverted to the older, quicker balls while leaving the grass as is.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I couldn't care less how conditions are for tennis. Players should be able to adapt.

Nadal 0/7 Djokovic!

You man can't adapt. Not even against a limping Djokovic! Terrible really!

Nadal 16-14 Djokovic overall
Nadal is slowly getting closer to Djokovic- good that he has time off in Feb.

How long did Fed take to adapt in their RG 2008 final. How long did that even last. 8-2 in slams now for rafa vs Fed; a continued domination over half a decade.

socal1976 wrote:Julius, it really is much easier to get fit as long as you work hard. Like I said look at the thousands of people who show up for marathons and triathlons. Unless you have a physcial problem that precludes you from top level sports to begin with, with hardwork you can become as fit or fitter than Nadal. Djokovic is a perfect example the guy had respiratory problems that saw him get nasal surgery as a child and has allergies as well, he got that fit.

Fitness is the base. In a hypothetical world where are the top players are super fit, guess what will still seperate them Julius? That is right ball striking ability, how well you hit a tennis ball. Look at the top two right now. Nadal has a top 5 forehand and one of the best returns in the world, and incredible passing shots off both wings. Djokovic is the best returner in the game, and has maybe the best backhand in the game if not top 5, and one of the 10 best forehands as well. Murray as well has remarkable feel and ball striking instincts. Maybe in the future we will get to that day but i doubt it. Talent combined with hardwork; will beat talent without hardwork, and will trump hardwork without talent as well. That is how it is in every endeavor.

Socal, you seem to assume that all humans have the same potential level of fitness. There are millions (billions?)of people who could never reach the fitness levels of top tennis player or other athletes. There will undoubtedly be differences within the top 10 tennis players on what their potential peak fitness can be, so that even if they all reach their greatest possible fitness, some will be fitter than others.

If you read back what I said, I hope you'll realise that I acknowledged (perhaps I didn't emphasize it enough) that talent will still get to, or at least near, the top. But you fail to address the issue of tennis becoming, more than ever, or more than it should be, an endurance sport. Now right now maybe, but in a few years.

Everyone (nearly everyone) agress that fitness has become hugely more important in tennis than it ever was, and is more of a factor now. What if that trend continues - why should it not continue? - so that it becomes that most important factor? It's easily possible. Some say it's already here. Maybe it is, in some matches. Maybe it's perfectly OK that it is in some matches. I'm more worried about 5 -10 years time, if it becomes the most important factor in the majority of matches. What's to stop that happening? Maybe the 2 most talented players wil still make the finals - great. But what about all the other matches that don't feature those 2 players - how many people will be interested in endless 5+ hour slam matches between players ranked 10 - 50 in the world? Or 4+ hour 3 setters in 90% of all Masters matches? Is that what tennis is to become?

dummy_half wrote:SoCal
All I'm looking for is that you can tell by watching no more than a couple of points which are the 'fast' or 'slow' surfaces. The way the Aus courts played in the evening sessions was probably a little bit too slow for a hard court, as the best court coverers were able to run down and make an effective response to too many good and well placed attacking shots (which should be the default conditions for clay) - the playing conditions in the day sessions were just about perfect for a slower hard court.

The USO is probably not too far off where it should be in terms of playing conditions (quicker hard courts), particularly when the weather is hot - there is an advantage to the ball strikers over the grinders.

Wimbledon is the one that I think has been most neutered by the changes to conditions - yes there was a need to slow it down, as you can only watch so many Sampras v Ivanisevic serve-fests, but I think the changes to the grass mix and the balls used, at the same time as the racket and string technology moved to favour returners was one change too many all within the space of a couple of years. I'd be interested to see how it would play if they reverted to the older, quicker balls while leaving the grass as is.

Why not lets give it a try but like you said I don't want the pendulum to swing back to the point of Sampras/Ivanisivic finals of wimby. I mean the french open did just that last year. Outside of wimby, I really haven't seen much evidence for slowing down of the slams. In fact, what I have heard is that the french has sped up. And wimby with the modern athletes who are taller and using the modern racquets maybe needed a little slowing down. As others have mentioned, i don't see this rapid deteroriation in the game that some people are talking about, Danny likes it, I like it, tennis if anything is making a comeback in terms of popularity after some what of a dip.

Have to agree with SAs post. Fed one every slam from the baseline and on slowed down conditions. Even in the days of Pat Rafter he was one of the last serve and volleyers in the late 1990s. The power baseline game has slowly been gaining ground on S and V since the 80s.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:There are players who try S and V. Isner, Stepanek and Llodra. While Stepanek and Llodra are weaker on serve compared to Isner, they make up for it with sublime touch at the net. There are some that will try and others that won't. There is a reason why they can't defeat the top 10/12 players because of the passing shots they are able to play due to the slow nature of the surfaces.

Ball bashing is not the most attractive form of tennis at all. I want to see winners hit with sheer precision and not because the other guy is run off his feet and unable to retrieve.

As Prostaff rightly mentioned, there is no longer diversity in the game.

But there has been no diversity in the game since when the USO was made slower in 2003. Show me one single slam Federer won for example by playing anywhere besides on the baseline. Infact show me one big trophy any player has won since 2002 playing S&V. The guys just became a decent volleyer after he hired Annacone in 2010. Pete Sampras won USO 200 using Serve and Volley. Who has managed that 10 years to this day? No one! I in particular don't care about this fitness thing. Tennis is a a physical sport which requires as professionals to be fit and push the boundaries in physical endurance and mental strength. Since 2002, no S&V player has won a big tournament because the game change then. It's not changing now. The only reason it's even clearer today is because we have players who are better than anything ever produced in the weaker periods of the early to mid 2000s. Roddick, Henman, Stephanek, Karlovic should be the ones rueing their chances because either their serve was negated by the slower conditions or their Serve and Volley was affected. Baseliners like Federer shouldn't complain. We saw how hopeless he was on 90s type fast conditions, Winning nothing to write home about.

I couldn't care less how conditions are for tennis. Players should be able to adapt. The sport is at an all time high with memorable matches on display at a rapid rate. TV ratings etc are high so no matter how hard Federer worshippers convince themselves, the sport is in a good state as it has ever been.

Tim Henman Paris Masters 2003

And i suppose you know why that is the case right? Do you also know why Llodra made the finals in 2010 when it was the fastest court in tennis and Federer lost after having 5 MPs against a flat footed baseliner like Monfils only to win it last year when it was at it's slowest?

Any other examples to show us since 2002 that there has been diversity in the game?