Boring era of tennis delivers greatest matches in the history of the sport and 24 5 setters through 2 rounds

A spectacular open so far where the majority of the mens matches have been exceptionally competive and entertaining. Despite the the doom and gloom that seems only apparent among online posters this US open has been wonderful so far and lets hope it continues on this vein. We hear all that is terrible and wrong in today's game and why we can't return to the wonderful period of the early 2000s when legends like Johannson were winning slams now that was tennis. Right now we have the GOAT playing very well, two other great players one of whom has double digit slams, the best player by a light year to have never won a slam, and in the last 5 years we have seen the biggest explosion of great 5 set matches that I can ever remember in 30 years.

-Fed and Nadal wimby 07 and 08
-Djoko v. Murray Ao 2011
-Djoko v. Nadal 2011 AO
-Fed v. Nadal AO 2009
-Djoko fed and the USO semi of 11 and 10
-verdasco v. Nadal AO 09 semi

And there are many, many more matches. The boring slow court era has produced 3 best wimbeldon finals since 1980 all in a row from 07 to 09 final against Roddick. Funny can't think of too many fast court wimby finals of that quality for oh 30 f---ing years maybe that is another coincidence. Frankly you speed up the game much and you will get the most unwatchable tour in the history of the game as Milos Raonic may hold 100 percent of the time for a season and that is just one example. Is 90 percent hold percentage not enough, no we need to change everything about the game so that a style of play that has been dying since the mid to late 90s is reborn? And not to save volleying, the game can not be right unless half the tour rushes in at the first ball behind any type of garbage and still wins the point.

Tennis is doing very well in terms of great competive matches and that is particularly because it is a little bit easier to get a break in sets, breaks switch up momentum and the ability to get them allow for seesaw matches and sets. If these modern bigger male players get juiced up conditions and are forced to return those serves with limited technology we will see the most boring era in history and possibly the death of tennis as a major televised sport globally if we continue with it. Do you really want 15 or 20 guys holding at over 95 percent, is that good tennis. I call it garbage serve fests, the first ball isn't the be all to the game of tennis.

Another attempt to instal the strawman of super fast conditions as the only alternative.

I guess Djokovic is wrong. And the committee to improve competitiveness is just a cover for a freebie holiday.

Good article

Good article I just love watching top tennis, no matter the era or styles.

What makes me smile is how all the examples are Slam matches between fan favourites. Kind of exposes the breadth of vision of the author.

There are great matches played outside of Slams, between lesser players, and there have aways been great matches. Focussing on recent endless matches doesn't exactly showcase much knowledge of the history of the game.

And quantity doesn't equal quality; for instance Federer / Roddick wasn't even a particularly good match, just very long. But good to see you are enthralled by a match lasting 75 service games with only three breaks - anyone for 96% service hold tennis?

Djokovic v Murray 2011 AO?

That was one of the wankiest one siders I have seen in a long time.

If you are elluding to Djokovic v Nadal 2012 AO and not 2011 as a great match, then I would implore anyone who thinks that was great to put down those rectum tinted glasses.

Lets just look at the spectrum here. 30 years of tennis and we are looking at recent matches and the same culprits. Take this tournament you are relating to, Garcia-Lopez v Monaco is the best match I have seen throughout thus far. There is a classic brewing in the Sock and Almagro match which has seen 3 TB's!!!

Just so that I clarify classic matches during the 00's for me which I implore any fan to watch for great tennis being played by both parties.

2000 - Gustavo Kuerten v Yevgeny Kalfelnikov French Open Quarter Final
2001 - Patrick Rafter v Goran Ivanisevic Wimbledon Final
2002 - Lleyton Hewitt v Juan Carlos Ferrero ATP World Tours Final
2003 - Thomas Enqvist v Mark Philippoussis Miami 3rd round
2004 - Albert Costa v Xavier Malisse French Open 3rd round
2005 - Andre Agassi v James Blake US Open Quarter Final
2006 - Tommy Haas v Marat Safin US Open 4th round
2007 - David Nalbandian v Sebastian Grosjean AO 3rd round
2008 - Jose Acasuso v Fernando Verdasco DC final
2009 - Roger Federer v Andy Roddick Wimbledon Final
2010 - Andy Murray v Rafael Nadal WTF Semi Final
2011 - Novak Djokovic v Rafael Nadal Miami Masters Final

2009 - Roger Federer v Andy Roddick Wimbledon Final

Really? Federer couldn't hit a groundshot in that match; it was only the fact that he served like a machine which kept him in it. Federer vs Nadal at Wimbledon in either 2007 or 2008 are surely better matches, as is Federer vs Safin AO 2005.

socal1976 wrote:A spectacular open so far where the majority of the mens matches have been exceptionally competive and entertaining. Despite the the doom and gloom that seems only apparent among online posters this US open has been wonderful so far and lets hope it continues on this vein. We hear all that is terrible and wrong in today's game and why we can't return to the wonderful period of the early 2000s when legends like Johannson were winning slams now that was tennis. Right now we have the GOAT playing very well, two other great players one of whom has double digit slams, the best player by a light year to have never won a slam, and in the last 5 years we have seen the biggest explosion of great 5 set matches that I can ever remember in 30 years.

There is so much hyperbole in that paragraph that I can only assume it's a deliberate wind-up, so I don't think I'll comment further.

Chazfazzer wrote:

2009 - Roger Federer v Andy Roddick Wimbledon Final

Really? Federer couldn't hit a groundshot in that match; it was only the fact that he served like a machine which kept him in it. Federer vs Nadal at Wimbledon in either 2007 or 2008 are surely better matches, as is Federer vs Safin AO 2005.

Think you are doing a massive dis-service to Roddick and his serving in that match. The guy easily played about 100 times above his level!

The funny thing is that this deemed a wind up by julius, is it or is not a fact that through 2 rounds we have had 24 close 5 set matches? Is stating that fact a wind up?

And BB you really have audacity to say that I am creating a straw man, really you and lydian haven't been calling for banning technology and speeding up conditions wholesale at the hardcourt and grass tourneys? Because I could have sworn you were calling for limiting racquet weight, head size, and banning strings. That is what I call drastic change. In fact you yourself stated point blank we need "urgent and drastic changes" to the equipment and we needed it fast.


It so funny how so many posters claim that the game is so awful and bring while one of the best two rounds of any slam in recent memory is taking place in front of them. I think it is frankly a case of people who want to see a Federer and players who have big serves favored at the expense of the younger stars like Murray, Nadal, and Nole that are great retrievers and defenders. These conditions were good enough for federer to win 17 slams on but somehow they need to be even faster like they were in the 80s and 90s.

Proof is in the pudding name one final between 1980 till 2009 as good as wimby 09 and 08. That is the funny thing people come in here and have talked themselves into the idea that the murray v. djoko semi and djoko v. Nadal final at the AO where bad matches. They have even claimed that the fed and Roddick final of 09 was a poor match. Frankly if these three matches are bad matches I guess there has never been a great match in history.

A bunch of negative Nancy's who actually believe that 99 percent of the world who watched those matches enthralled are just idiots who don't understand what they skilled commentators understand, and that how this style of tennis is wrong.

socal1976 wrote:The funny thing is that this deemed a wind up by julius, is it or is not a fact that through 2 rounds we have had 24 close 5 set matches? Is stating that fact a wind up?

As that's directed at me, it deserves a reply.
In the 2002 Aus Open, which Johansson won, there were 19 close 5 set matches in the first 2 rounds. So what? it's a pointless fact. Does it make this a golden era and the early 2000s a hopeless one, or are you being a negative Nancy about the early 2000s?

Yes and how many top ten players did Johansson beat to the title, zero I think? And last time I checked 24 is more than 19. Is that what you guys want to see a bunch of one hit wonders and no names taking slams? Ok go for it.

I will repeat, I can't wait for BB and lydian's wish to be granted. No luxis, smaller racquet heads, heavier racquets, and then when Milos Raonic and John Isner play the first unwinable tennis match in history at wimbeldlon, I will laugh incessantly at you guys as we watch a single match hold up the entire tournament. The players are not the same as 20 years ago, if you give these players juiced balls, juiced courts, and limited tech you will get a completely unwatchable brand of tennis. The equivalent of instead watching a golf tournament having to watch a long drive contest. The entire game will be reduced to who can hit the ball 10 miles an hour harder on his serve. Tennis is not just the first ball, these proposed changes want to turn tennis into a series of ace contests. That is why the fans started leaving in the late 90s and that is why all the tournaments slowed down. They didn't do it to be fashionable. We had that style developing 15 years ago and it was god freaking awful, especially wimbeldon it was practically unwatchable at least for me.

Oh of course you guys also want to slow down the clay courts so a bunch of unknown one trick ponies can beat the greatest players in the world because they spend all season focusing their game to playing on one surface. I can't wait for the days of the fast court and clay court specialists to return, nothing as fun as seeing the world #1 lose to some hawaiian grip artist who will never win anything off of clay but spends all season training for one phase of the season. Lets reward those guys!

The tide has turned socal, more observers are seeing what's been evident to some of us for a while.

But carry on pretending that the alternative is the fiction you trot out again and again if you think it fools anyone into thinking you've got an argument.

Like I said BB, I don't oppose incremental changes to the courts or balls at a few traditionally quicker tourneys. But when it comes to banning technology wholesale across the board I am opposed. If you believe the tide is turning that is wonderful. I see pretty consistent conditions over the last 10 years and I don't think anyone has an appetite for wholesale measures like banning technology and regulating to the inch and ounce the tennis equipment.

If they make the changes you and lydian have called for I will call it now that we will see the biggest flight of fans from tennis that we have ever witnessed. The game will be unwatchable. Again there was a reason the conditions were slowed. The tournament directors didn't all do for a laugh. If they believe that the fans want fast court tennis they will give it to them. But I guarantee you that the radical proposals you have made will have massive repercussions for the quality of the game and popularity of the game. You guys do not account for how the modern player is getting bigger and stronger and taller constantly, and what impact your pro serve policies will have on those players and their opponents.

Oh the flight of fans is assured once Federer and Nadal leave the game. That's beyond retrieval now.

Anyway, what's your problem? You called Federer / Roddick one of the best Wimbedon finals ever and it had 96% service holds. But it was long, and that seems to do it for you.

Read Lydians posts properly; most of what he recommends wouldn't increase pace, it would just make it tougher to run around the backcourt all day on all surfaces to win.

socal1976 wrote:Yes and how many top ten players did Johansson beat to the title, zero I think?

Maybe it was, I don't know. The number of top 10 players you beat is irrelevant - just ask Sampras -he won 3 Wimby's without beating a top 15 player. I don't recall anyone saying he wasn't that great on grass after all.
And is 24 so much greater than 19 that one represents a golden era and the other represents a weak era? Are early round 5-set matches your yardstick of entertainment and quality?
One-hit wonders and no-names don't take slams, they earn them.

Yes to me it is relevant when talking about great players they act as the guard keepers and they make sure that if like DeL PO you win a slam you earn it the hard way. I frankly saw the parity and instability of that era in terms of number 1s and slam winners to be very boring. People watch tennis for the great players and the great stars having epic matchups. We had no real great stars except a shot Sampras and an aged Agassi, at least until fed finally asserted himself. The stars bring in the fans and bring the visibility like 100 Carlos Moyas, Roddicks, Ferreros, and hewitts can't bring that excitement and attention.

So no I don't miss the one slame wonders, I don't miss the unknown surface specialists, or watching wimbeldon of the late 90s. Of course there will be a retrenchment when Fed and Nadal go, but tennis will again find new stars that will excite the fan base. All these radical and wholesale changes are being pushed by the very people who create this climate of the game being terrible and awful. And banning equipment and strings in my mind is wholesale and radical.

Actual allowing them is the radical change. Can't you see that?

No BB, I am argueing for what has been the status quo for over a decade now, you are the one who is argueing that what we have is broken. What the game used to look 20 or 30 years ago is irrelevant. The players don't look like that anymore not physically that is for sure. From start to finish the game has advanced technologically, first with composite racquets and then the strings. S and V was actually dying frankly before they even slowed the courts down. I remember when Rafter and Pete where basically the only two guys who were out and out S and V guys winning slams. In the late 80s and early 90s the S and V guys dominated the game. But have been losing ground even before all the changes, the power baseline game has been chipping away at S and V really since the advent of the graphite racquet. So I just think it is a bit naive and nostaligic to believe that we need to keep tweaking the game until we get a large number of serve and volleyers at the top. I am not that nostalgically attached to players charging in on the first ball, even today a good percentage of points do finish at net, just that net approaches are fewer and have to be better constructed.

socal1976 wrote:No BB, I am argueing for what has been the status quo for over a decade now

Seriously? The game has changed radically compared to 10 years ago. Surfaces, strings, balls, physicality, baseline predominance, roofs, 3-set Masters finals etc.
The game is vastly different from when, say, Fed first won Wimby. I thought that was generally acknowlegded.

Fed first won wimbeldon on already slowed courts. he won his first US Open on slowed courts and with luxilon strings. Luxis are about ten years old Kuerten was the first guy I believe that really popularized them that has been the revolutionary change. So far the last decade the strings and conditions have been the same. The bigger balls people talk about also where first introduced in 2002 or 2003. So pretty much we have had very consistent tech and conditions for about 10 years. The big biting strings have been around for more than that long that has really been the biggest change.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No BB, I am argueing for what has been the status quo for over a decade now

Seriously? The game has changed radically compared to 10 years ago. Surfaces, strings, balls, physicality, baseline predominance, roofs, 3-set Masters finals etc.
The game is vastly different from when, say, Fed first won Wimby. I thought that was generally acknowlegded.

Not in socal's construction Universe.

Socal is right in saying that the big stars are what bring people into a sport- eg Nadal and Federer.
It is crucial for tennis that we have big stars at the top of the game, I don't think anyone doubts that. However for the sake of competitiveness I think the game also needs a few 'fiery underdogs' who can create an upset- if the top guys are just steam-rolling their opponents until the SF then people will lose interest in the first few rounds of a tournament.

Let me do an analysis of what how I think the popularity of tennis will fluctuate depending on whether the surfaces are homogenised or varied.

Similar Court Surfaces (Homogenised):
As I said earlier tennis needs stars at the top of the game to boost popularity. The top 30 can be all be very consistent and of good quality but if there isn't at-least 2 'superstars' at the top then the popularity of tennis will dramatically dip.
What homogenised surfaces does, or would do generally, is create these 'stars.' Why?
Because if Player A is playing better tennis than Player B in 2015, and the courts are similar, then Player A will consistently beat Player B all year. It could potentially make Player A a star.
However one big big problem with saying this is everyone assumes that the current situation will always be repeated if there is homogenised surfaces (as it is the case now). This simply isn't the case, as it relies on a specific player to be very consistent, consistently brilliant. The top 3(+1) have been consistently brilliant for a long long time, but just look at the WTA, for ages there has been no solid 'top 4.' Hence we should not just assume the current situation in the ATP will always repeat if we have homogenised surfaces.
However what it could do, is ensure one (or a group) player has a better chance of dominating the tour if he plays well in the (homogenised) conditions. A 'star' could become a 'superstar.'
At the moment in the men's game there is a problem with 'strength in depth.' People say that below the Top 4 there aren't challengers. However I believe that this is due to 3 reasons:
-The top 4 have been very consistent so far- they don't throw in terrible matches regularly (but as Rosol showed anything is possible!)
-There is a lack of talent beneath the top 4. This I think would hold true whatever the conditions. OK in faster conditions Isner, Raonic would be bigger threats but this doesn't cover up the fact their game.groundstrokes is not as good. Someone used the example of Australian cricket team earlier- and I think this holds true there will be generations with varying talent- (mental and shotmaking)- some generations will be stronger.
-As most of the surfaces are slower as Lydian has explained this will mean the average age of the top players will increase. Players can work on their fitness, which becomes more important. Hence at the moment the young players can't break through against the big guns.

So people can say: oh look, after Fedal go there will be huge popularity decline, but the lack of depth beneath the top 4 in my eyes is not due to homogenised conditions, more to do with a lack of talent. Players will emerge sooner than you think
So there are many benefits to tennis popularity with homogenised conditions.
However there are also many benefits with more varied surfaces, and some will argue it outweighs the benefits of homogenised surfaces.

Varied surfaces:
The first, and most powerful, advantage of varied surfaces over homogenised conditions is that it attracts more fans of different styles. Of course many fans will like rallies, while others will like a more fast-paced game where the serve is vital (rather than ground-strokes). Personally I find ace-fests boring, but that's just my opinion. If we have varied conditions it could accommodate different sorts of tennis fans throughout the year- and you will find that once fans are interested in one style of tennis (brought by a specific court condition), they will watch tennis throughout the year even if that specific court condition is not used throughout the year- such is the engrossing nature of sport. However with homogenised conditions we could see one set of fans completely 'turned off' tennis.
Another possible advantage is that is slightly increases the element of unpredictability throughout the year. I say 'throughout the year' as on a specific surface a player who is known to be better suited to that surface should prevail- but it results in different winners. Mental edge will also be more interesting with different conditions- for example if Player A beats Player B 2 times on clay- but then they play on grass which Player B likes more- so the mental edge is slightly shifted. This way interesting subplots can be made within rivalries rather than just 'Player A is playing better tennis and is on better form so should win.' It also means there will be a greater challenge to the big guns to the top- on each surface they will be threatened by a player who is a 'specialist' on that surface. Hence they will find it more difficult to dominate the tour. This will once again increase unpredictability- but will mean less 'superstars' and hence will have benefits and also disadvantages in terms of popularity.

So overall I am not sure whether having varied or homogenised conditions are beneficial to the popularity to the game- it is possible to argue either way. At the moment the surfaces are pretty similar, but not totally homogenised (look at Federer's record at RG compared to his Wimbledon- also Nadal has done much better at RG). We also have an accented case at the moment with such a consistent top 4, however this is so exaggerated (it really has been bar Del Potro a total domination) that I can say it is slightly misleading. The lack of depth below the top 4 is also to do more with talent than homogenised conditions too.

I will now try and get some stats to see how tennis popularity has done in recent years, looking at different forms of media and communications

Yes we really need to look IMBL at whether these changes are helping or hurting the popularity of the game. And I haven't seen any evidence of anything but that tennis is doing pretty well financially and popularity wise. While not burning it up, I mean there certainly are individual tournaments that aren't profitable and markets where tennis should do better ratings wise. But if anything the game is more global now and is one of the most global sports so that bodes well for its viability.

One of the things that successful businessmen do is see what's coming, not just what is.

Tennis is being held up by the GOAT and Nadal. Take them away and it's going to need a lifejacket.

bogbrush wrote:One of the things that successful businessmen do is see what's coming, not just what is.

Tennis is being held up by the GOAT and Nadal. Take them away and it's going to need a lifejacket.

Did you read my post?
I know it was detailed, but it covers that.
I don't think the conditions are to blame for why there is lack of depth beneath top 4.

socal1976 wrote:Fed first won wimbeldon on already slowed courts. he won his first US Open on slowed courts and with luxilon strings. Luxis are about ten years old Kuerten was the first guy I believe that really popularized them that has been the revolutionary change. So far the last decade the strings and conditions have been the same. The bigger balls people talk about also where first introduced in 2002 or 2003. So pretty much we have had very consistent tech and conditions for about 10 years. The big biting strings have been around for more than that long that has really been the biggest change.

So you're saying there have been no advances in string technology in the last 10 years?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fed first won wimbeldon on already slowed courts. he won his first US Open on slowed courts and with luxilon strings. Luxis are about ten years old Kuerten was the first guy I believe that really popularized them that has been the revolutionary change. So far the last decade the strings and conditions have been the same. The bigger balls people talk about also where first introduced in 2002 or 2003. So pretty much we have had very consistent tech and conditions for about 10 years. The big biting strings have been around for more than that long that has really been the biggest change.

So you're saying there have been no advances in string technology in the last 10 years?

Seriously Julius, you respond to Socal's comment and not my post

I swear, a percentage of this forum just wait for Socal to post and then criticise him, rather than take part in the whole debate.

No Julius I said the conditions have been relatively stable over the last decade as has technology. Many pros play with sticks that are a decade old or updated racquets with the same specs as much older racquets. While there are refinements to the technology. The luxilons I use now are serated a slight advancement on the first generation. And players go even further. So what all athletes are particular and hunt for the right equipment. But the major change that impacted the game dramatically were the luxilons in terms of advancement and that came about a decade ago.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:One of the things that successful businessmen do is see what's coming, not just what is.

Tennis is being held up by the GOAT and Nadal. Take them away and it's going to need a lifejacket.

Did you read my post?
I know it was detailed, but it covers that.
I don't think the conditions are to blame for why there is lack of depth beneath top 4.

I never read anything long winded.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:One of the things that successful businessmen do is see what's coming, not just what is.

Tennis is being held up by the GOAT and Nadal. Take them away and it's going to need a lifejacket.

Did you read my post?
I know it was detailed, but it covers that.
I don't think the conditions are to blame for why there is lack of depth beneath top 4.

I never read anything long winded.

I'll simplify it.

Homogenised= More superstars as one player can dominate the tour to a greater extent. Superstars bring more fans.

Varied= Has more variation in play across the year, so more types of fans will watch. Means more unpredictability. Big guns will be more vulnerable to surface specialists on a specific surface.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:One of the things that successful businessmen do is see what's coming, not just what is.

Tennis is being held up by the GOAT and Nadal. Take them away and it's going to need a lifejacket.

Did you read my post?
I know it was detailed, but it covers that.
I don't think the conditions are to blame for why there is lack of depth beneath top 4.

I never read anything long winded.

I'll simplify it.

Homogenised= More superstars as one player can dominate the tour to a greater extent. Superstars bring more fans.

Varied= Has more variation in play across the year, so more types of fans will watch. Means more unpredictability. Big guns will be more vulnerable to surface specialists on a specific surface.

Agree, except superstars only do that in the short term. Then people get bored. Think Formula 1 with Ferrarri / Schumacher, and how they nearly wet themselves now we have races with 7 Champions contesting it and different winners every week.

And the nature of the Superstars matters. These conditions won't produce another Federer, he's a creation of a bygone era (the 90's, funnily enough).

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fed first won wimbeldon on already slowed courts. he won his first US Open on slowed courts and with luxilon strings. Luxis are about ten years old Kuerten was the first guy I believe that really popularized them that has been the revolutionary change. So far the last decade the strings and conditions have been the same. The bigger balls people talk about also where first introduced in 2002 or 2003. So pretty much we have had very consistent tech and conditions for about 10 years. The big biting strings have been around for more than that long that has really been the biggest change.

So you're saying there have been no advances in string technology in the last 10 years?

Seriously Julius, you respond to Socal's comment and not my post

I swear, a percentage of this forum just wait for Socal to post and then criticise him, rather than take part in the whole debate.

So you notice that as well IMBL, I find it funny, like the famous Reginald Martinez (Reggie) Jackson said, "I am the straw that stirs the drink". Some people just have star appeal I suppose.

IMBL, my thoughts were that it's a bit silly trying to find stats about tennis' popularity and then try to relate them to conditions - it could be down to marketing, globalisation, the rise of the internet, live streaming etc etc
But I thought that might sound a bit harsh, so I didn't reply. But since you forced my hand.....

socal, part of the reason I reply to your posts is so I can clarify what you mean. For example you say "So far the last decade the strings and conditions have been the same" then say "conditions have been relatively stable over the last decade as has technology" which are two different statements. It would be easier if you said what you mean the first time around, that's all.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, my thoughts were that it's a bit silly trying to find stats about tennis' popularity and then try to relate them to conditions - it could be down to marketing, globalisation, the rise of the internet, live streaming etc etc
But I thought that might sound a bit harsh, so I didn't reply. But since you forced my hand.....

No, you should have said that.
I'ts not 'harsh' at all, in-fact it's a fair point. Due to internet the TV viewing figures will be cut, percentage wise anyway. There are also many other factors, as you say, other than the actual tennis on shelf, which play a role in popularity.

However we do not need mathematical stats or numbers to debate the variety vs homogenisation thing.
In my eyes it is very simple. Homogenisation means that it is slightly easier for a player to dominate a majority of tour (year). Of course he has to be consistently brilliant on the surface, without doubt, but still the homogenisation means it is slightly easier to become a 'superstar.'
I think it is these 'superstars' who bring people into tennis. Most people will be brought into watching tennis if they connect with a specific tennis player- this comes back to BB and Lydian's point about who important Fedal are to tennis popularity.
However once someone is into tennis, they start to watch it more and more and start questioning why there is not more variety etc. Also different people will have different styles of tennis they prefer, and more variety will accommodate this better.
So it's a 50-50 for me overall, and as you said I don't think any solid stats can really be found to back anything up.

I really don't think previous eras lacked superstars.

There are two Supertars for this last 10 years. In previous decades we've had at least that rate, probably much higher (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi - with Becker & Edberg knocking at the door).

All done without the need for homogenised conditions to concentrate wins.

bogbrush wrote:I really don't think previous eras lacked superstars.

There are two Supertars for this last 10 years. In previous decades we've had at least that rate, probably much higher (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi - with Becker & Edberg knocking at the door).

All done without the need for homogenised conditions to concentrate wins.

So do you think the homogenisation attempt has backfired: i.e. in trying to create superstars they've actually created a few who dominate too much?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I really don't think previous eras lacked superstars.

There are two Supertars for this last 10 years. In previous decades we've had at least that rate, probably much higher (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi - with Becker & Edberg knocking at the door).

All done without the need for homogenised conditions to concentrate wins.

So do you think the homogenisation attempt has backfired: i.e. in trying to create superstars they've actually created a few who dominate too much?

I don't know if that's what they tried to do. In truth it's been inaction on equipment changes that has been very material, though there's no denying what Wimbledon, Australia and the US have done.

It doesnt need wholesale speeding up, just take some of the domination away from baseline with smaller racquets, string material restrictions, etc. these don't recreate 1990's serve fests, but they force players to be more creative than slug it out side to side point after point.

The 24 5 setters is not metric for a 'successful' USO, is it, SoCal? Let me pick an arbitrary year, say 1992.

1992 USO R1 5-setters

1. Mansdorf-Pozzi
2. Lopez-Pescosolido
3. Caratti-Kuhnen
4. Korda-Sanchez
5. Braasch-Pridham
6. Tarango-Mancisidor
7. Yzaga-Lendl
8. Svensson-Kulti

1992 R2 USO 5-setters

9. Davis-Camporese
10. Stich-Gilbert
11. Stark-Masur
12. Ferreira-Bruguera
13. Krajicek-Markus

Does that mean 1992 was half as successful as 2012 USO?

I remember this year for Edberg heroics.

No laverfan quite simply the point I was making and that I stated quite clearly is that while people are moaning about this or that we were witnessing and epic first two rounds of tennis. The next 4 rounds could be duds. That wasn't what I was saying, all I said is that while a half dozen people moan about attritional and boring tennis the rest of the world outside the fish tank of negative nancys online where enjoying the most competive matches in the first two rounds. And yes 5 setters in the early round while not determinative of the final quality is indicative of competive and tough matches in the early rounds.

Surely its about quality not quantity.
One usually comes at the expense of the other.

Reducing tech limits won't result in serve fests but it will limit the ability to sustain ralleys, placing onus on development of hand skill not lung skill. Young talent cannot compete with 8-10 year conditioned 'lung skill' and conditions that encourage its development.

Tennis is popularised by its great rivalries. Great rivalries come from contrasting styles. A lack of them is a killer, just look at the identikit matches you get on WTA. Homogenisation leads to identikit tennis and is where the mens game is headed in future. Variety of conditions create variety of play, this creates variety of players and we get those great rivalries. Its not about speeding everything up, its about making the surfaces truer to their roots and having more speed variety through the year so the tour becomes a challenge not a grind.

Strings have continued to evolve....anyone played with Babolat RPM Blast recently? I'm not saying ban Lux, I'm saying only use it in combination with gut - as Federer still does. Also, my key point is regarding string tensions, use of silicone and lower cross/mains ratios. This is creating too much spin and power...why does the game need more power when it needs more finesse? Imposing tech limits will help redress the power/finesse balance, instill variety and crucially allow young talent to emerge again. Sorry but its a no-brainer to me..

Lydian 90 percent of the tour mixes luxis with gut, I messed around with all luxis on the strings once and only once every ball felt like I was hitting a stone. So i don't know what you are saying. You are overstating this same style stuff is all that I am saying. Isner doesn't play like Ferrer, Federer doesn't play like murray, Djoko doesn't play like Nadal but for any of them to be successful in today's game they have to be solid off both wings and be fit, what exactly is wrong with that?

I don't want to drastically revolutionize the game to bring back volleying on the first ball at all costs. Are we so impatient that if the player comes up on the 4 or the 5th ball that doesn't count? Djoko is a baseline player he averages about 10-12 net rushes a set and has worked hard on his volleying. so has Nadal both have become good underrated volleyers. If it wasn't an important part of their game why would they bother. You guys overgeneralize and mistake the fact that the modern game requires fitness and solid groundstrokes for the belief that the modern game is just that and nothing more. All the top 4 are good volleyers. All of them have pretty decent slice, lobs, and drop shots. A none of them can afford to run in willy nilly behind any and every first ball, so? Should we massively overhaul the entire game to bring back and antiquated playing style. Tennis isn't tennis unless you can rush in and be successful behind any kind of chip backhand?

Socal, competitive matches are no KPI of quality. You could have Granollers fighting Andujar for 5 sets and 5 hours but its still as boring as hell to watch.

Where are the future Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal type matches going to come from when conditions encourage an iRobot-like pool of Granollers to become the norm. You may like and even have become unknowingly conditioned to the taste of hamburger tennis but I still like and yearn for something a little more delectable.

I'll take hamburger over the Poopie sandwhich of big serve tennis anyday of the week and twice on sunday and the whole sale changes to the technology you suggest would drastically help the servers and hurt the returners on all the surfaces. I would oppose any such moves, I just don't think it is broken therefore it doesn't need to be fixed.

Are there a hoard of next generation talent that model themselves on Nadal? If Nadal has "little" technical skill then why isn't the next generation of talent filled with Nadal clones?

Bogbush suggests that Nadal is the most talented player - perhaps even more talented than Federer. If this is the case why does he and some others consider Nadal to be boring / destroying the sport as a viewable spectacle?

Is it because Nadal doesn't show versatility and the strategy he uses is to drag the game out "interminably" - waiting for an opportunity to strike or to enforce an "unforced error" --> which is the classic tactic of clay court specialists.

Maybe this is all Nadal "is" - a supreme clay court specialist, except that conditions on the other courts plus racquet technologies have allowed him to play his style and game plan to other courts with "minimal" changes to his game.

There needs to be some sort of compromise here surely.

Socal I don't think Lydian is saying we move everything to serve fests.
But he is implying we could have some balance.

Personally I think all changes need to be experimented a lot before implementation. Lydian is making it sound very simple, but I think it's potentially very dangerous.

Nore Staat wrote:Are there a hoard of next generation talent that model themselves on Nadal? If Nadal has "little" technical skill then why isn't the next generation of talent filled with Nadal clones?

Bogbush suggests that Nadal is the most talented player - perhaps even more talented than Federer. If this is the case why does he and some others consider Nadal to be boring / destroying the sport as a viewable spectacle?

Is it because Nadal doesn't show versatility and the strategy he uses is to drag the game out "interminably" - waiting for an opportunity to strike or to enforce an "unforced error" --> which is the classic tactic of clay court specialists.

Maybe this is all Nadal "is" - a supreme clay court specialist, except that conditions on the other courts plus racquet technologies have allowed him to play his style and game plan to other courts with "minimal" changes to his game.

There's as much chance of BB saying Nadal is more talented than Federer than there is of Ion Tiriac flying to moon and painting a section of it blue I think you are mistaken there.

As for Nadal, I think the conditions has had an effect on his game too. Since he was young he has naturally matured on all surfaces. Toni and Rafa are clever, they will switch the game-style depending on the current surface I feel. If surfaces were speeded up then I wouldn't be surprised to see him change his game, and he could be very successful at that too. We'll never know I suppose.
I know he had bad results on HC when he was young, but I think he needed time to mature- he had grown up just playing on clay.

socal1976 wrote:Lydian 90 percent of the tour mixes luxis with gut

Rubbish. Take a look at these 2012 specs and tell me 90% are Lux/gut combos....

http://www.colinthestringer.com/pros-strings/

Most are single poly set-ups.

Exactly IMBL, potentially very dangerous. It is like leaving your hot littlee wife who is a sweet heart and a nice lay for the dangerous blonde across the street who looks really nice when she gets dressed up to go out and is oh so sexy. She sounds nice till you get the divorce bill and find out the hot blonde is a psycho and you ruined the great thing that you had.

They make it sound so simple we ban strings, and limit racquet sizes and weights and bring about more variety. That is wholesale changes that will not just bring variety to a few tournaments, but will favor the servers in each and every event. Are John Isner matches not tedious and boring enough do we want to encourage a generation of Karlovics and Isners. The technology regulation is actually much more dangerous than speeding up a couple tournament surfaces or balls. It is across the board changes that at every event favor a certain style, they do not favor variety, they favor big servers.

PS why am I talking to you people drunk at 4 am, I am going to bed.