When did the court at the Miami Masters become ... "slow" ?

I ask this question following on from the press conferences given over the weekend, and how this topic seemed to be mentioned with repeated regularity in the Sky Sports studio yesterday.

Whilst its quite often mentioned that Indian Wells is a ‘slower’ hardcourt, I can’t recall the same ever being thought of regarding the Miami Masters.

These are Roger Federer’s thoughts …

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, look, I don't know. I feel that both are pretty slow, to be quite honest. It's hard to put balls away, like you say. You have to really set it up perfectly. It reminds me slightly to clay in terms of how you can construct points. The big serve maybe has a bit more you know, on clay it just gives you a bit more and then you can do the one two punch, one two three punch at times more than on clay. Other than that, you have to really create the way you play the points. Yeah, I wish it was a bit faster, but it is what it is. It's also a surface I can play my best tennis on, so we'll see how it goes.

With Rafael Nadal having a very much opposing opposite view …

RAFAEL NADAL: Never. Never can be like clay on hard because the movements are completely different. So that's makes impossible have a similar than clay when you are playing in hard, because in clay you cannot slice and you have more time. For sure I am not agree on that. The court is not very fast, not very slow, is average court. I think is normal one like probably the rest of the normal tournaments on hard. So no, I feel that the court is like every year.

The list of recent winners of this tournament are Andy Roddick; Andy Murray; Nicolay Davydenko; Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. If you looked independently at this list of names, what bracket would you put them in? I’m very open to being enlightened on this, but indeed, when did the court become “slow”?

The slow courts conspiracy is unfortunately a theory put forward by a group of Roger apologists and Nadal haters. And Roger is looking for some justification to explain his weakening results. Frankly, it is beneath Roger. The man is a great champion with an unbeatable legacy. But it isn't a conspiracy, the competition is better and Roger is a little worse than when he was winning 3 grandslams a year. The ball is actually moving much faster as all the radar guns are indicating. Just 5 or 6 years ago it was rare to see anyone hit a forehandover 100mph a few guys nowadays get the ball humbing close to 110. And recently, Karlovic hit the fastest recorded serve in history.

A slight variation of the slow court conspiracy is the slower bigger tennis ball which has hurt the serve and volley game. Which, one study i have seen indicates the slightly bigger ball actually helping serving accuracy while not hurting serve speed.

The only tournament to slow down the court that I have seen evidence of is wimbeldon and that was because in the late 90s it was darn near unwatchable tennis with everyone hitting 30 plus aces a match.

Rafael was perhaps understandably upset with the reference that the court was playing like clay. Federer is referring to his difficulty in putting balls away. This could be associated with the increasing physical size, strength, movement and fitness of the average professional tennis player. It should be a simple matter to measure the ball speeds across the tennis court and compare it to that of the past.

In addition, Roger himself is probably getting slower in speed and in reflex. He could be describing the ageing process.

What the conspiracy theorists claim is that the ball moves faster through the air and that after the bounce it all of sudden slows down greatly, no evidence has ever been expounded to show this physics defying loss of velocity and very few players ever mention it. Roger never used to mention it until he recently started losing. If the ball is losing that much pace when it hits the ground why is it moving so much faster through the air and why is the radar gun actually showing the speed of serves and groundstrokes going up?

The reason S and V tennis has died is because the modern strings and racquets allow for better returns and passing shots. This is what the vast majority of experts state.

Exactly, nore staat, Roger is not getting to the ball like he used, his movement is just slightly worse and this actually impacts your offense a great deal. To hit winners you have to get to the ball and hit at the right time and have enough time on the ball to do that.

I for one will not disagree with you Socal.

Thanks guys. I don't understand any of the physics or technicalities of it and I'm just a plain tennis watcher. But this is a well established hardcourt tournament which has been won in recent years by players that you would put in the bracket of the best hardcourt players, those with a game suited more to hardcourts, the specialists. So when the clay court specialist seemed so vehement in his counter argument over a slow court, and TV pundits make references without seemingly backing it up, I just find it a lazy comment to be honest ...

Which is why I was wondering if our own 'specialists' could put forward a case.

Wooffie, it isn't a lazy argument, there is a wave of these people online and in the media who claim that Roger started losing because the balls are bigger and the courts are slower. Roger is a saavy guy, he is throwing these apologists red meat. As you have pointed out the clay courters have never had success at miami, so is the the court so much slower than when Roger won the tournament and none of the other players are mentioning it? I think not.

If the courts were slower than they would take pace out of rallies and would also effect the speed of the shots hit as reflected by the radar gun.

I really doubt it has been slowed down this year.

What Federer may possibly be meaning is that it is slow compared to the courts he used to be on; I don't recall him ever describing a court as 'fast' bar Paris - this may well be down to the fact that when he started his career, courts like Wimbledon really were 'fast'!

But as the man says, the slower courts suit him, I don't think he's complaining after 16 slams on the slower surfaces.

I think though that Federer's comments of the surface reminding him slightly of clay and that he wishes it was a bit faster, have transposed themselves within the media and all of a sudden, I'm hearing Sky pundits suddenly talking about the Miami surface as being slow. And I just think, well, how is it different this year from last? and when exactly did it get slowed down then? and tell me about it. I just think it sows the wrong kind of seed that your typical hardcourt players who have prevailed in this tournament over the past 6 years or so are now somehow being disadvantaged.

Titn, that is the point if the courts have been slowed down which I don't buy, then the biggest beneficiary is roger federer who has won 16 grandslams on the slower surfaces with his blazing speed. I think it is a little disengous to now claim that the courts are all of sudden slower and maybe that is why I am losing. I just don't buy it period, wimbeldon slowed down and that is because the tennis was darn near impossible, I haven't seen much evidence of the other tournaments slowing down. 14 months ago when Roger was winning a grandslam on the slow hardcourts of Austarlia we didn't hear this claim. Quite frankly this is beneath Roger.

I notice he is saying the same thing after his tussle with Monaco yesterday.

“This is as slow as it gets out on the hard court. It's a bit of clay almost except that you can't slide,” gauged Federer.

I think I'm back to where I was yesterday in that when did the court at Miami become slow? Equally, are there any other viewpoints out there from the players other than Nadal? Has anybody read anything? I think on 606 it was Lydian who knew a lot about surfaces, and don't get me wrong, its not a subject that totally enthrals me but if it can be demonstrated that its different for this year when its an event that has always seemingly been won by the hardcourt specialists then fair enough.

And speaking of specialists ...

“And all the clay court specialists have adapted very well to the hard courts nowadays.”

The thing is, from the start of the traditional clay court season at Monte Carlo till the end of Wimbledon this year which takes in grass, this covers a 12 week timeframe. So other than the natural down-times for players, the rest of the season is played on hardcourts. So a player these days doesn't have much choice but to learn how to adapt. But learning to adapt doesn't make them big winners on this surface. I've looked at the top 16 and Verdasco has won 2 titles on hardcourts; Ferrer 4; Monfils 2 and Almagro has won zero. And these are at tournamens such as New Haven, San Jose, Auckland, Montpelier, etc. They, as with the other lower ranked clay courters can give anyone a game on their day ... that's tennis, but it doesn't make them the tournament winner. There's only one clay-courter who's a big winner on hardcourts and that, of course, is Nadal, and even he "only" won 2 titles on hardcourts last year. So who exactly are these "slow" hardcourts benefiting and who are they impeding and why??

Wooffie, just because Roger and a few of his diehard fans say it is so doesn't mean that it is true. As you noted the clay courters aren't all of sudden winning large numbers of hardcourt tournaments to validate this belief. If the courts are so slow why are the readings on the radar gun so much higher nowadays especially for groundstrokes? Shouldn't a slow court that takes pace away from the rallies also show up on the radar gun? The woman play on the same exact surface and the girls are hitting the ball harder than ever before. The williams sisters and Roger federer have dominated the respective tours, and none of which can be considered a slow court player.


A group of Nadal haters claim that he only won wimbeldon and the US because it is basically green clay, Roger knows that and is feeding into it. Why should the AtP be in a conspiracy against Roger or other big servers, the ratings for federer finals are like twice as high as when he isn't in the final.

The luxlon strings and modern racquets killed serve and volley tennis not supposedly slow courts. Its just a lot easier to return and pass with the modern strings.

The courts can be slowed down, that's a fact and they do effect the flight and speed of the ball and the points played in comparison with other years.

BUT ! and its a huge, big red BUT, it makes hardly any difference to the speed of the game.

The only real area that change can be made to the speed is ball size and design. The courts can not be slowed down too much as that would require the surface to be too grippy, but even then, it only affects the ball as it hits the ground. Too much grip and the ball surface degrades very quickly.

Atmospheric conditions, including moisture content and air pressure all combine to affect play in more ways than any "court" tweaking will.

I did do some research into ball design a while back and the argument breaks down every time, because the ITF only allow three designs to be taken at any tournament, but within those three designs, there are three types to allow for different surfaces and altitudes. But they all have to come under the strict guidelines of design or they are not accepted. That does not affect the balls you play with (excuse the innuendo) at your club, but it restricts tampering with ball speed V court speed to favour a particular player.

And as socal points out, racquet design and string design have done far more damage to the game than anything a groundsman can come up with.

Thanks guys, really interesting stuff.

I don't entirely buy the argument regarding strings and racquets to be honest. I mean I can see the difference between those ones and the old style, but the general physical fitness and tactical view of the tour has changed.

Look at Hewitt, the first baseline grinding champ, compared to Sampras. Sampras was no slouch, but could you see him either having the will or the idea of chasing balls all day long? Not really. To suggest he could suddenly turn his game into a baseline one by switching racquets is a bit daft in my view.

I think people simply saw a weakness in the serve and volley tactics and decided to alter their styles and fitness to manipulate this weakness. I'm sure racquets that can belt the ball back with more spin and power will have played their part in this of course but I don't think it is the sole reason behind the death of S&V.

Hi TITN, good to see you over here.

I think its difficult to blame any particular part of the game for the demise of S&V or the way the game has changed since Borg's time, but there has to be an element of generalisation or we could go on for ages in one post.

But Racquet and string advances have certainly played a big part as has fitness and stamina. The ball has become the centre of the designers/makers universe too, but like many people have said, the court is the least part of the formula that brings any major changes, apart from the different surfaces of course.

There is a chart that illustrates the reaction to the speed of the ball, which includes friction between the ball surface and the court surface, gravity and air resistance and weight V size. I wish I could find it, but the graph shows little evidence of major changes to ball speed with regard to surfaces in use today. (I'll have to rummage around in 606 to find it)

TITN, I play tennis a great deal and the luxlon's make a huge difference. Not so much the racquet as the strings. The luxlon strings give you a great deal more control and spin. In the past I could never hit a cross court passing shot from behind the baseline. Even the pros 10 years ago wouldn't attempt that shot. Now I can hit the cross court behind the baseline pass almost as easily as going up the line. This changes everything from the volleyers point of view he is taught to cut off the down the line pass and leave the cross court pass open, well that shot is not any where as difficult as it used to be.

Plus the quality of returns are much better, you feel like you can catch a bullet and redirect it.

socal1976 wrote:TITN, I play tennis a great deal and the luxlon's make a huge difference. Not so much the racquet as the strings. The luxlon strings give you a great deal more control and spin. In the past I could never hit a cross court passing shot from behind the baseline. Even the pros 10 years ago wouldn't attempt that shot. Now I can hit the cross court behind the baseline pass almost as easily as going up the line. This changes everything from the volleyers point of view he is taught to cut off the down the line pass and leave the cross court pass open, well that shot is not any where as difficult as it used to be.

Plus the quality of returns are much better, you feel like you can catch a bullet and redirect it.

You're not the only one who plays a lot of tennis.

As I said above I appreciate the strings have played their part, put you overestimate their effect in my view. I've played with wooden racquets for fun before, and i've hit all the shots I could hit with my normal racquet (albeit lacking a bit in power), which has had luxi strings in the past (switched to Babolat donkeys ages ago, no real difference between the two bar the price of a big reel in my local shop), and like you say there is a definite difference in spin, and therefore control to an extent, but it's not absolutely game breaking. One thing I did notice though is that wooden racquets strings break like there's no tomorrow! I went through 2 sets of strings on the one day.

I also feel you slightly underestimate the pros. To suggest that the pros couldn't hit cross-court passing shots with their racquets is daft. Sure, they wouldn't be to the quality of todays more athletic lads but again it's mostly tactical; back when Serve and Volley was in there simply wasn't much opportunity or time for pulling off passing shots; in fact it's testament to the volleying ability of the players at the time that such a limited tactic succeeded for so long. Luxi strings can't help you if the ball barely bounces. 8)

Remember also that the clay courters were pulling off their passing shots and baseline power over the clay court season before luxi; Sampras never won there for a reason, and it was because there was actually an opportunity to pass the guy on clay. The likes of Brughera did just fine without those strings.

As soon as players could start getting to those volleys, that was when the power shifted. Remember that Luxi strings came in when Kuerten was playing; it was his French Open that made everyone realise there was a big technology leap, not when Hewitt, Federer and Safin started to regularly take down Sampras. The faster guys (and others changes) allowed them to reach the balls, and pull of the shots needed to overcome S&V. Like I said, i'm sure luxi strings have amplified this, i'm sure the power and spin has definetly made life easier for the baseliners, and it's definetly played it's part in stopping S&V being a consistently effective tactic, but it's not, and never was, the be all and end all of the change in tactics.

Finally, you say you noticed a huge difference; give yourself some credit. You've probably improved over time as well, you know.

Perhaps a Nadal-Federer semi-final will shed some light on this. Clearly, if Federer wins then the surface is nothing like clay...

On a more serious note, I do think it has become the fashion to describe any court that isn't out-and-out quick as being 'like clay', lazily in my view. Even if the court played as slowly as clay but you couldn't slide, that in itself makes it nothing like a clay court.

TITN, I never said it was all the strings, but I have to say if you look back on the history of the game S and V really started to die out when the Luxi's came onto the tour. Remember the margins at the top of the game are very small the difference between a player ranked 150 and struggling to pay his traveling bills and a player ranked in the top 10 and driving a Rolls or an Aston is excruciatingly small.

I watched a lot of tennis in the 80s when did you ever see a player hit the passing shots of a Nadal or even Murray or Djoko from behind the baseline outside the double's line and cross court with their backhand. Never, players wouldn't even try that shot they would throw up a lob that 95 out of hundred would get slammed back in their face.


Also lets consdier this Djokovic is leading the ATP right now with a 44 percent break percentage. The Luxlon's are wonderful for returning, I don't think in his life Jimmy Connors a brilliant returner ever thought about breaking nearly half of the time. That stat after 20 some matches is ridiculous. Novak is a talent no doubt but is he a better returner than Connors and Agassi, no way.

I don't really know much about surfaces and speeds of tennis courts but to me the courts in Miami have always been extremely slow.
The only difference that I have spotted this year is that the balls seem to be bouncing slightly higher than before. I think Goodall mentioned that the courts had been made grittier this year resulting in a higher bounce.

This is the surface used in Miami. The ITF classifies this surface as category 1 (slow pace).
http://sti-sports.com/ENG/Laykold-Tennis.htm

Murray this is simply the manufacture and this court has had the same manufacturer since 1984, I checked out their site and there was no mention of changing anything for this year's tournament.

I brought this subject up simply because I've never heard it said so much as it appears to me at this Masters about the court being slow. Only Federer amongst the players has raised it (that I know of), but its been said so many times by the Sky commies/presenters.

I have just been watching the highlights of the Novak match last night, and Barry Cowan and Leif Shiras were just having one of their little chats about this "very slow" surface. They even went on to say that this hardcourt is slower than the clay court at Madrid because of the altitude and ended by saying that it is also even slower than the clay court at Rome!

What's going on?

I don't play the game or have the technological knowledge that you guys have, but as far as far playing the game is concerned, this surface is impeding all the hardcourt players then is it? If that's the case, why is it they and not clay courters who keep on winning it?

socal1976 wrote:Murray this is simply the manufacture and this court has had the same manufacturer since 1984, I checked out their site and there was no mention of changing anything for this year's tournament.

As I said before I am not an expert on surfaces and court speeds so I don't really know whether the court has been changed this year, I was just talking about my own observations. The only reason I brought this up is because Jason Goodall was also commenting on it so I thought maybe other people had noticed a difference.

Socal1976 I may not have been clear (English is not my first language although I am trying to improve!) but the reason I mentioned the link was to point out that the courts in miami have always been classified as a very slow hardcourt (since 1984!) so I don't understand why everyone is talking as though this is something new..

Hi murrayfan...........welcome to the forum

Solerina

I think the tendency to call the "court" slow is where the confusion begins. Its a bit like a player will win a Grand Slam or a grand slam.

The word court in this sense is a description of the whole rather than just the surface. A "court" can play slow for a number of reasons and we have heard this from the players as well as commentators, but the generalisation really is just that.

If you want to talk technical, then the surface of hard courts have very little in the way of ability to change their surface layer apart from adding/subtracting sand particles to the layer when it is relayed/painted. Or even type of paint/emulsion on top of concrete or rubber etc. But there is only so much you can do before the players footing becomes dangerous. It has to be uniform over the whole surface (silica particles held in suspension) and creating too much grip increases stress to the players feet/ankles etc and you can add too much sand/silica which makes it slippery, the sand can become detached from the emulsion. {edited}(clay in comparison can change court speed by using larger grit size and how damp/compact the court is)
Too much silica and it can make the court unplayable, the balls deteriorate much quicker and the ball bounce is affected too much. The event organisers have a very thin line in which to play with the courts characteristics, apart from changing it completely, they have a far better range of change with ball type and size in conjunction with the type of surface they provide. They can play with sand content and size of particle, but there is an upper and lower limit as to how much can cause injury to a player.

Altitude and humidity play a role too, wind characteristics involving stadium design as well. Position of sun, shadows all play their part, the court surface of clay or HC is part of a minority in how the speed of a "court" plays in relation to its original surface. If a court has been slow, then it will always be comparatively slow, ergo a red clay court is inherently slower than the green clay and acrylic is faster than synthetic (I think, somebody please correct me on that).

Perversely, Wimbledon has provided the most change, by taking away the old fast and low ball trajectory to the new, not so fast (slower) higher bounce court. By changing the earth density underneath and grass type, they have managed to "rape" the grass game and given it a clay feel. Considering length, type, density and freshness of the grass blades, its the one place that organisers can affect the ball to a much higher degree than with Clay or HC. Its almost like they have changed the surface completely without changing it, its still grass.

Not enough room to go into greater detail, but google has provided me with a lot of info as did a guy who lays all weather pitches for schools.

Jubbahey, agree with your post, although Wimbeldon was to some extent forced to change the surface. Nothing in my mind more boring than watching a Sampras and ivanisivic final where the first guy to 40 aces wins. I don't know I don't want to watch 200 one and two shot rallies in a row. If wimbeldon didn't change the surface than we would have never have gotten the classic Fed Nadal finals of 07 and 08. Also it isn't that much slower, when you look at it Isner and Mahut, albeit was as long 4 or 5 matches but the two guys hit nearly 300 aces between them.

Yes socal, but the ball does bounce a bit higher which takes away the advantage of the S&V who goes wide. And with the extra fitness and racquet technology the receiver has more time to construct a return across court and makes the angles wider.

I think they could hit a middle ground and go back to the old ball design and give other players a bigger chance to compete against the big 5.

Anyway, I agree that the difference is not great, but it has had a certain affect on the grass court game with the changes they have made to the surface.

Thanks guys for the good read.

Well guys ... what do you make of this?

This article is about the guy who is making the court for the Davis Cup tie between the USA and Spain. Obviously, they are using home advantage and it seems they are going to lay a "fast" court.

The Spanish Tennis Federation, however, have aleady launched a complaint that the court they are going to use is not legal. The article is obviously in Spanish, so put it through a translation. But the gist is that the ITF are to make a visit to the court in April, where Spain hopes they will up-hold their claim of it not being legal.

Thoughts?

Interesting, that spain is protesting they have players that play well on fast courts like Lopez and Verdasco.

I wonder if the courts are so slow why is it that Andy Roddick won this tournament last year. Roger has been doing this alot the last year or so, every tournament he enters it seems the conditions are real slow. Slow as compared to what? It kind of gives him a built in cop out if he loses to Nadal, Djoko, or Murray.

If the courts are so much slower than last year why are not the other player's complaining about it?

I wish when these people release facts about the "speed" of a court, they release figures too.

Its always ambiguous to say sand "slows" the court down, but by how much would be more helpful to everyone and give an indication of how different courts and surfaces compare with each other.

So basically we're supposed to believe that Federer is so powerful that he can influence the minds of the people commentating at the event itself? That appears to be the gist of one posters argument.

Tennis is obviously converging into one game; you can see it with the relatively similar rally pattern regardless of surface, and the fact that the same group of players achieve the same success regardless.

I'm less interested in whether it's strings, surfaces or balls than in the loss to the sport of variety and specialisation.

Well bogbrush considering that he is about the only player who says the conditions are slow whenever he loses yes, I think that it would impact the media coverage.

Regardless, of whether the courts have been slowed or not, which I don't believe they have been across the board. As this Miami surface is the same surface made by the same manufacturer since 1984, I like the modern game. And if anyone has benefitted from the supposedly slower courts it is Roger federer, who is very fast, and who has won 16 grandslams on these slower conditions. Or did they just start to slow the courts down after he won the Australian in open in 2010? Now I think it is a little hypocritical of him and some of his fans to use this as an excuse for losing. The guy is great but pushing 30, which is ancient for the ATP.

The courts were slowed down at some events back in the late 90s because the big serving style was getting totally unwatchable, before Rafa, Nole, or Roger ever won a single a slam. Personally, I like the modern game, I like watching players that can defend and attack. I nearly lost my love of the sport after watching Sampras-Ivanisivic in the wimbeldon final. After that final I don't think i watched a tennis match for six months.

The trouble is, socal, that you've turned this into a Fed-argument by trying to suggest the only reason totally independent people like Barry Cowan etc. are saying it's slow is Federer. That's patently absurd. You also overlook how the AO has been messed around with into the high bouncing thing it's become.

As for who benefitted, I seem to recall a 19 year old youthful Federer getting a good win on fast grass, so I doubt he'd have had much trouble ruling there on fast grass.

The bottom line is that the game is being harmonised into one - the favourites on clay, grass and hard are the same people, in the same order. That wasn't the case before and certain seismic achievements in the past such as the RG/SW10 double are in fact no longer a tenth of the achievement they once were. Wimbledon and Roland Garros in 1978 was incredible; in 2011 it's predictable on form.

bogbrush wrote: That wasn't the case before and certain seismic achievements in the past such as the RG/SW10 double are in fact no longer a tenth of the achievement they once were. Wimbledon and Roland Garros in 1978 was incredible; in 2011 it's predictable on form.

See this exact quote is my main problem with the slow court theorists. Invariably it ends up distilling into an argument that Rafa's and other player's accomplishments are tainted because the grass at wimbeldon is green clay and all the hardcourts are slow as well. And a very sick strain of Fed apologists are the leading proponents of this theory. The funny thing is great Fed doesn't need apologists and it is beneath the man to give red meat to these slow court conspiracy theorists in order to cover for recent losses. And yes Federer with his legion of fans (some in the media and on blogs) and his huge legacy can easily feed into this slow court theory. The alternate that he is getting old and the competition is getting better is just too logical and painful for Fed and some of his apologists to accept.

The Australian open went from rebound ace, an extremely slow, and high bouncing hardcourt to the plexicushion another slow and high bouncing hard court. Was Miami slow when legendary slow court player Andy Roddick won in 2010? When did they start slowing the courts down after Fed won in Aus in 2010, or pulled off the RG-wimby double in 2009?

In short, the game has changed, mainly because of racquet and string technology which gives the advantage to the baseliner who has speed. In the 70s and 60s the S and V guys had the advantage and it was a different game. Played with wooden racquets and gut strings that did not allow for the kind of pace and whip from the back of the court. I like it, and in no way are the accomplishments of Rafa or Novak or any other modern champion less impressive than past greats. In fact, if anything their accomplishments in this globalized game are even more impressive than players who dominated tennis when it was country club affair played in relatively few nations.

See this exact quote is my main problem with the slow court theorists. Invariably it ends up distilling into an argument that Rafa's and other player's accomplishments are tainted because the grass at wimbeldon is green clay and all the hardcourts are slow as well. And a very sick strain of Fed apologists are the leading proponents of this theory. The funny thing is great Fed doesn't need apologists and it is beneath the man to give red meat to these slow court conspiracy theorists in order to cover for recent losses. And yes Federer with his legion of fans (some in the media and on blogs) and his huge legacy can easily feed into this slow court theory. The alternate that he is getting old and the competition is getting better is just too logical and painful for Fed and some of his apologists to accept.

--------------------

Socal dont burst the apologists¨bubble.. at least having a "slow court theory" as an excuse allows us to forget the "residual affects of mono" ... now there is a relief.

I guess you are right Haddie, anything is better than the Federer would have never lost #1 if not for mono argument. Personally, this is why I like Rafa more than Roger. He is so much more humble, and he never tries to take anything away from his opponents or the success of his contemporaries. And in no way are the accomplishments of today's players not every bit as amazing as past champions. In fact more so, there is more money in the game, more players from all over the world competiting, hi-tech academies turning out polished juniors left and right. If anything the modern champion has more competition to deal with and a more gruelling style of play.

Well being an avid spectator of the game since I agree with you entirely.. there came a period when I lost interest not for months but years.. that period was Sampras.. and then came Federer :yawn: enter the Matador and all things changed for me. I know living in Spain you would expect me to say that but I wouldn´t care what nationality he is. He must be pretty unique that he attracts the criticism he does (mostly from Roger´s fans) but he is respected by his fans and his fellow players a like. His style of play grinds on the serve and volley lovers of this sport (I understand that) but acknowledge please, that when he beats his oponents, its because he is simply better than them..he plays on whatever the courts are, slow, fast, indifferent he never uses any of it as an excuse for any losses. He adapts his game accordingly.

I also went through a period in the late to mid 90s that the tennis lost a lot of the entertainment value. The big server style never really did it for me. Plus this isn't a new development, the power baseline game has been gradually replacing the old classical serve and volley style since the mid 80s.

And the players today are competent in all areas of the game, especially at the top. Novak and Rafa both have worked really hard to become proficient volleyers, nowadays you have to be able to do it all. You can't just hit huge serve and serve over and over again and win major titles. You have to be able to attack and defend, to be fit and fast. And how this is not compelling I don't know, I think some people just love to look on the past with rose colored lens.

absolutely agree

Yep, the Sampras era !

My wife would say, "Oh, not him, I can't stand watching him, he's so boring"

I must admit I felt the same, but he was compelling to watch in a way that you either wanted to see him fall down or someone to beat him fair and square. Or at least Henman to actually win a match against him at Wimbledon.

Having said that, looking back, he was very clinical, almost Federer like in a sense, and he was a good ambassador for the game, but I just couldn't find anything to pique my interest in him.

Jubbahey, Sampras was awful to watch, nothing enjoyable about his game except that running forehand. Yes, probably the greatest server ever and one of the greatest of all time. But for me I was always an Andre man, Sampras was dull, dull, dull. That is what I mean about not really like the big servers, it just comes to easy or at least it seems that way.

Jubbahey... Lendl was the same for me -- I nicknamed him "the surgeon" he was so clinical, text book tennis, no carisma .. cant fault his achievements, neither can I Sampras and Federer.. but all three of them left/leave me cold. I agree totally with your wife

I think that happens a lot with players that do not show any emotion, even when they win a point, couple that with their clinical manner of play and you've got the perfect antidote for insomnia.

So why was Borg so good to watch? maybe his flair (not flares) made up for his lack of emotion.

Ohhhh jubba dont ask me that... he was magnetic (for me at least)

Borg was a really good looking and stylish guy. Plus he could do incredible things athletically. Although I don't really remember much about him I was too young.