The death of tennis RIP

Simple_Analyst wrote:

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?

Josiah Maiestas wrote: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.

Danny_1982 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote: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.

When i was watching the Murray Djokovic match, I wasn't thinking "the one who gets most balls back wins" I was thinking "the one who out manouvres his opponent, and takes risks and goeas for his shots at the right times wins". That's what I enjoy about tennis at the moment, having players that have weapons, but also variety and great fitness. I'd watch a 15+ shot rally over a 3 shot rally every time!

In terms of the same 4 in the semis every slam, well its not the top 4's fault that the others are nowhere near as good as they are! Plus, matches between those 4 are the best matches anyway, so its swings and roundabouts.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

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?

I am not for one saying Roger would benefit from fast conds, far from it. If Roger played on faster Grass courts, big servers would eat up his BH. Whilst faster conds would take the advantage away from players as Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga it would also take away Roger's advantage too.

Mardy Fish would be the ideal S and V if he wasn't so slow on his feet to get to the net. His service motion is similar to Sampras, but lacks the speed and accuracy

Simple_Analyst wrote:These group of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc will even be better on fast court conditions as well because of the return of serve and they are very good volleyers too.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

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?

I am not for one saying Roger would benefit from fast conds, far from it. If Roger played on faster Grass courts, big servers would eat up his BH. Whilst faster conds would take the advantage away from players as Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga it would also take away Roger's advantage too.

Mardy Fish would be the ideal S and V if he wasn't so slow on his feet to get to the net. His service motion is similar to Sampras, but lacks the speed and accuracy

Well at least you are now trying to make sense of the obvious. But then again, faster conditions will not even guarantee anything. Also remember for example on the serve, the faster the serve, the faster the return as well. A perfect case of this was a match in 2004 between Nadal and Karlovic, one of the biggest servers in the game. This match was indoors hard court yet he got handed a breadstick in the finals set, how do you explain that? Anytime Nadal plays Karlovic, he comes closer to the baseline than other matches. He knows he just needs racquet on the ball to return the serve and a breadstick could be served. I think the problem of Federer against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray started because of their return of serve and rallying ground strokes. That has always put pressure on him. A pressure he never really faced in his career consistently before.
These group of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc will even be better on fast court conditions as well because of the return of serve and they are very good volleyers too.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The debate about adjusting to condition.

Simple_Analyst wrote:You seem to be taking this rather hard Tenez. The debate about adjusting to condition. 0-7. Same as 3-14 for Federer against Nadal since 07. Which means one player is just better than the other currently, has nothing to do with conditions.

After what Nadal did to Federer's Serve and Net rushing attempts, i wouldn't suggest S&V for any other player

You seem to be barking without saying anything. The facts are there, when conditions were fast for example USO 2002 as it was slowed down in 2003, Federer was losing to Max Mirnyi in straight sets.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

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?

I am not for one saying Roger would benefit from fast conds, far from it. If Roger played on faster Grass courts, big servers would eat up his BH. Whilst faster conds would take the advantage away from players as Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga it would also take away Roger's advantage too.

Mardy Fish would be the ideal S and V if he wasn't so slow on his feet to get to the net. His service motion is similar to Sampras, but lacks the speed and accuracy

Well at least you are now trying to make sense of the obvious. But then again, faster conditions will not even guarantee anything. Also remember for example on the serve, the faster the serve, the faster the return as well. A perfect case of this was a match in 2004 between Nadal and Karlovic, one of the biggest servers in the game. This match was indoors hard court yet he got handed a breadstick in the finals set, how do you explain that? Anytime Nadal plays Karlovic, he comes closer to the baseline than other matches. He knows he just needs racquet on the ball to return the serve and a breadstick could be served. I think the problem of Federer against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray started because of their return of serve and rallying ground strokes. That has always put pressure on him. A pressure he never really faced in his career consistently before.
These group of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc will even be better on fast court conditions as well because of the return of serve and they are very good volleyers too.

The Karlovic serve is very low keeping and compared to an Isner serve lacks the accuracy of up the line. I know in his early days he failed to get any slice or kick on it. Nadal plays inside because he takes the ball on it's lowest point much rather on it's highest. Take last FO against Isner Nadal was not coming in on the serve when receiving and when he did, Isner was all at sea.

Nadal, Djokovic and Murray wouldn't fair better in faster conditions. What your asking is for them to compact their game in 2-3 strokes less then they are used to. That is a tall order. Would be a big factor as to why baseliners never dominated Wimbledon as such before the courts slowed down. If courts in general were given extra zip, it would give the server much more control on any return.

If big servers attacked the Murray FH in fast conds, he would get eaten alive. If big servers attacked Nadal's BH, he would get eaten alive. Same with Djokovic. Attack after Attack from serves raning between 130mph to 145mph on a grease like surface, couldn't see any one player being dominant with a baseline game.

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:You seem to be taking this rather hard Tenez. The debate about adjusting to condition. 0-7. Same as 3-14 for Federer against Nadal since 07. Which means one player is just better than the other currently, has nothing to do with conditions.

After what Nadal did to Federer's Serve and Net rushing attempts, i wouldn't suggest S&V for any other player

You seem to be barking without saying anything. The facts are there, when conditions were fast for example USO 2002 as it was slowed down in 2003, Federer was losing to Max Mirnyi in straight sets.

Well you avoided to answer a few times so looks like the answer was not coming easy. Conditions and players are very linked as conditions influence whose player has more chance to win. teh one sided 7/0 shows that Nadal cannot adapt and that his wins on different surfaces are the result of surfaces having all teh same characteristics. Same on low bouncy surfaces v Federer 4/0. Nadal has nowhere to hide when facing Djoko. Old federer recently bagelled peak Nadal. How much do you think Nadal would pay to beat Djokovic, let alone bagel him? Nadal's ego must be so bruised. He was on top of the world....then a player of the same age comes and makes him look even more 1D than we thought. The greatest clay courter is not even the best claycourter!

Surely you are an admirer of Pete so you know a quality player when you see one. What makes you stick to Nadal? You are not one of those fans essentially attracted by his look, are you? C'mon Wyse...it's time you come to sense again.

Simple_Analyst wrote:It is actually. I get nervous laughs when Federer's head to head is pitched against Nadal, it gets that amusing

0/7 accepted. Djokovic is a great player. Infact he could win the next 20 against Nadal and wouldn't be as laughable as knowing you'll be trolling in cyber space because Nadal yet again beat Federer. Priceless!

Now let us all use our favourite players. I start, Nadal-Federer 11-3 last 14. Next......Federer-Nadal for you, 3-11 last 14. You can bark, you can quack, you call call any player in tennis against Nadal but sadly and painfully for you, you'll never call Federer against Nadal.

Simple_Analyst wrote:It is actually. I get nervous laughs when Federer's head to head is pitched against Nadal, it gets that amusing

0/7 accepted. Djokovic is a great player. Infact he could win the next 20 against Nadal and wouldn't be as laughable as knowing you'll be trolling in cyber space because Nadal yet again beat Federer. Priceless!

Now let us all use our favourite players. I start, Nadal-Federer 11-3 last 14. Next......Federer-Nadal for you, 3-11 last 14. You can bark, you can quack, you call call any player in tennis against Nadal but sadly and painfully for you, you'll never call Federer against Nadal.

legendkillar wrote:S_A the comparison with Karlovic and Isner serve is that Isner for me has greater control than Karlovic. Karlovic seems one paced for me on his serve.

The point about shortening points is that for Nadal for example who is a grinder will need to attack from the off. Whether he has ability and mental discipline to do so is in doubt. Agassi and Borg were exceptional players with the talent to read an opponents serve a seize control on points on the return. Yes Nadal has endured this, but for 7 straight matches? Again purely speculation. Same with Murray and Djokovic. Take Tsonga. Has added a superb net play. If he could tighten his game up and was playing on Grass courts, he would the ultimate Grass player.

Look at how much Nadal has struggled with Djokovic on the shorter rallies and that is on the slow stuff. On faster stuff? Can't see how he would ultimately have an advantage.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Infact in the semi finals against Federer, stats were shown in the 3rd set where Federer was winning most of the rallies above 18 strokes i think and Nadal was winning the short rallies how do you explain that in your theory?

prostaff85 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Infact in the semi finals against Federer, stats were shown in the 3rd set where Federer was winning most of the rallies above 18 strokes i think and Nadal was winning the short rallies how do you explain that in your theory?

That is in fact very logical: the reason Federer loses against Nadal is that he tries to win the points too quickly. This results in unforced errors, or coming to the net only to get passed. Nadal has great passing shots from both wings so approach shots must be perfect otherwise it's suicide to come to the net.

If he is more patient, he can actually win long rallies against Nadal, but probably can't keep it up for 4 to 5 sets.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:S_A the comparison with Karlovic and Isner serve is that Isner for me has greater control than Karlovic. Karlovic seems one paced for me on his serve.

The point about shortening points is that for Nadal for example who is a grinder will need to attack from the off. Whether he has ability and mental discipline to do so is in doubt. Agassi and Borg were exceptional players with the talent to read an opponents serve a seize control on points on the return. Yes Nadal has endured this, but for 7 straight matches? Again purely speculation. Same with Murray and Djokovic. Take Tsonga. Has added a superb net play. If he could tighten his game up and was playing on Grass courts, he would the ultimate Grass player.

Look at how much Nadal has struggled with Djokovic on the shorter rallies and that is on the slow stuff. On faster stuff? Can't see how he would ultimately have an advantage.

How exactly? Isner uses a kick serve but is also not hard to read just like Karlovic if you are a great returner. Like i said, Isners kick serve will work on clay and infact looking at the matches against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, clay has been the only surface he has troubled them on with serve. Check for yourself.
S&V as we all agree is not in the game anymore and will not win you anyting much since 2002. Djokovic is just better than Nadal and the 7 straight victories in enough proof of that. Nadal actually struggled against Djokovic in the longer rallies last year but going by AO 2012, he was equal this time around so we wait to see. Infact in the semi finals against Federer, stats were shown in the 3rd set where Federer was winning most of the rallies above 18 strokes i think and Nadal was winning the short rallies how do you explain that in your theory?

Borg and Agassi read others serve you said why they were successful? What is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray doing why they are the best 3 returners on tour?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

prostaff85 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Infact in the semi finals against Federer, stats were shown in the 3rd set where Federer was winning most of the rallies above 18 strokes i think and Nadal was winning the short rallies how do you explain that in your theory?

That is in fact very logical: the reason Federer loses against Nadal is that he tries to win the points too quickly. This results in unforced errors, or coming to the net only to get passed. Nadal has great passing shots from both wings so approach shots must be perfect otherwise it's suicide to come to the net.

If he is more patient, he can actually win long rallies against Nadal, but probably can't keep it up for 4 to 5 sets.

But then does this not then defeats Legendkillers theory now that short rallies will not favour Nadal when you have admitted Federer is better at the longer rallies? Shouldn't this then point to a possible case that Nadal, Djokovic, Murray will do well under faster conditions?

The facts are no matter how fast conditions are, a good returner of serve will always do well. A great server will take full advantage of such situations to but those who cannot volley properly or weak on the forehand and backhand will also find it hard. It only takes a couple of bad points per serve to get broken.

prostaff85 wrote:It's quite simply really, S_A: offensive players do better with fast conditions, and defensive players do better with slow conditions.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:S_A the comparison with Karlovic and Isner serve is that Isner for me has greater control than Karlovic. Karlovic seems one paced for me on his serve.

The point about shortening points is that for Nadal for example who is a grinder will need to attack from the off. Whether he has ability and mental discipline to do so is in doubt. Agassi and Borg were exceptional players with the talent to read an opponents serve a seize control on points on the return. Yes Nadal has endured this, but for 7 straight matches? Again purely speculation. Same with Murray and Djokovic. Take Tsonga. Has added a superb net play. If he could tighten his game up and was playing on Grass courts, he would the ultimate Grass player.

Look at how much Nadal has struggled with Djokovic on the shorter rallies and that is on the slow stuff. On faster stuff? Can't see how he would ultimately have an advantage.

How exactly? Isner uses a kick serve but is also not hard to read just like Karlovic if you are a great returner. Like i said, Isners kick serve will work on clay and infact looking at the matches against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, clay has been the only surface he has troubled them on with serve. Check for yourself.
S&V as we all agree is not in the game anymore and will not win you anyting much since 2002. Djokovic is just better than Nadal and the 7 straight victories in enough proof of that. Nadal actually struggled against Djokovic in the longer rallies last year but going by AO 2012, he was equal this time around so we wait to see. Infact in the semi finals against Federer, stats were shown in the 3rd set where Federer was winning most of the rallies above 18 strokes i think and Nadal was winning the short rallies how do you explain that in your theory?

Borg and Agassi read others serve you said why they were successful? What is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray doing why they are the best 3 returners on tour?

Isner's kick serve is effective on Harcourts too. See Washington 2010 where his second kick serve was landing in the stands after one bounce against Roddick!!

Again with the Nadal and Federer, how many of the shorter rallies were Federer going wide or into the net when under-pressure from Nadal? I only ask that because I didn't see the full match.

Again today's tour doesn't really have someone with a 'piercing' serve. Aisde Isner, Karlovic, you have Roddick and Raonic. The slow conds are going to affect the speed of the serve when hits off the surface. In some matches I have seen Murray return serve after serve with a FH slice, not to disimilar to Llodra. Look at how short Nadal drops return BH's off a serve up the T and how much pressure the player serving is under to put a winner away. Borg and Agassi were able to 'adjust' themselves against big servers and take control of the point after the initial return. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray on faster conds would for me beg the question. We could take the FO last year and look at when Nadal played Isner to when he thrashed Murray. Against Isner, Nadal looked all at sea and he managed to turn it around and then how comfortable he looked against Murray in a Semi. A much more clinical player may have taken Nadal out in the first round/

prostaff85 wrote:It's quite simple to analyse, really: offensive players do better with fast conditions, and defensive players do better with slow conditions.

lydian wrote:When you say he had no choice but to stick to the baseline he did so because he had that ability to take the ball ridiculously early, often returning inside the baseline on grass...if you watch him vs. Goran in 92.
Nadal's technique is borne of a different era, and he had different FH grip to Agassi (W vs SW) which makes a big difference on low bouncing surfaces too where a Western grip just cant get under the ball easily on those flat low serves. Nadal's game is built for and around slower surfaces but he adapts well to others although clearly not his speciality.

We cant compare these types of players very easily...Sampras and Nadal's games are poles apart....light/heavy racquets....low/high string tension...high/lower rpm...western/eastern grips...etc.

Tenez wrote:

Nadal doesn;t adapt his game....he simply can't.