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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Do we want to go down the path of weight classes like boxing and use height and weight to run tournaments for Tennis? Is that an option?

Laverfan, that is what the changes to technology do, they create an edge over what exists today for the server at every tournament not just the traditional fast court tournaments. First off I don't think anything is broken and really outside of the pages of a couple of websites do not see reason for widespread panic and changing a broken game. So any type of change I would favor would be incremental and experimental. And I repeat if those faster conditions turns out a steady stream of Dubai borefests than I want none of it.

BB, it is isn't a false choice. The players today are stronger and taller than they were on average than 15 years ago. Any significant move to speed up conditions with these bigger and taller pros will actually result to a much more serve dominated and dull brand of tennis than we saw 15 years ago. It will be the most unwatchable tennis since women played tennis in victorian dresses, we would look back on the late 90s as a great time for baseline play and point construction. And as time goes on and these guys keep getting taller and stronger and are still able to move well enough to play you will see this problem get worse and worse. I am sorry, you may think it is a misrepresentation or that your knowledge of tennis is superior and right, but my honest opinion that the changes you propose would be the poison pill for a very healthy game.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, that is what the changes to technology do, they create an edge over what exists today for the server at every tournament not just the traditional fast court tournaments. First off I don't think anything is broken and really outside of the pages of a couple of websites do not see reason for widespread panic and changing a broken game. So any type of change I would favor would be incremental and experimental. And I repeat if those faster conditions turns out a steady stream of Dubai borefests than I want none of it.

Rest assured, ATP has no plans to ban Clay. Let grass and HC become faster a tad. Even HC has gradation from Miami to Dubai, as does Grass from Queens to Wimbledon.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Lk - I don't condemn Tomic for getting chippy with a reporter. I condemn him for pathetic excuses like he didn't get to hit on the court before the match (just 10 minutes he exclaimed, forgetting that after an hour he was getting nowhere) and the crowd was big (the match began in front of a half empty stadium). I also condemn him for being a pusher with a slappy forehand, and no guts on court.

Jk - we have a different opinion. I've never seen anyone, even JPM, who could half-volley with purpose like Federer. That involves a level of vision and touch that I can't even comprehend.

I guess I agree to disagree. Fed is phenomenal in every respect. What makes me think Sampras is a bigger natural talent is the creativity of his game, where berely there's a point like the other.

This video (WTF Final 1996) is a good testament to that, and a good proof of the "weak and boring" era of the 90s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsu-zL2Ah0

Sampras easily one of the most boring players in history, he was like mats wilanders opposite double. Couldn't stand to watch either guy play. Great talent, great competitor incredible attack player.But watching a sampras match is like watching a Jackie Chan movie if you have seen one Sampras match you have seen them all. Usually when pete was involved in a great match it was the other guy bringing the excitement while Pete held routinely and rarely looked fazed. I don't know what is creative or different about running in behind every single serve. You want tedious watch a Sampras or Ivanisivic match on dodgey grass.

Soc: I suspect you are on a booze even today. Personally, I don't see the similarities between Sampras and Wilander that you seem to spot, quite the opposite types in fact. Also, what you define as "running around the serve" is often called in tennis Serve & Volley, a tactic widely adopted in the past (and sadly far less popular nowadays) in particular by what are traditionally belived to be the classiest players on tour. People like McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Rafter were master of S&V, I am not sure if you have ever bother to watch some of those guys in action.....

I said they were mirror opposites, like 1 and -1. That is how they are similar that and they both displayed as much personality through their career as a head of cabbage. I suggest your reread what I said about them. I found both players dull because they were each the extreme of the other. One player with limited fitness all intent on cranking the first ball displaying huge weapons. The other guy has no weapons and has incredible fitness. That is how they are the yin and yang of tennis boredom for me. I like the power baseline game where both defense and offense are well balanced.

I have always liked baseliners more, the only, the only S and V guy i really liked to watch was becker. Agassi, Connors, and Djokovic were and are my favorites in their respective periods. All baseliners, and I loved becker because of his athleticism and power but he was also a player who was very comfortable hitting big shots from the back of the court. A very underrated groundstroke game limited somewhat by a lack of footspeed.

I mean, if you like baseliners/ grinders game I understand why you enjoy so much tennis as it is. Personally I llike to see variety, touch, class and clashes of styles, as if to say S&V against defensive tennis. I guess we are like +1 and -1 Socal

one clarification I don't really like the out and out grinder either, my preferred style is the aggressive baseliner those are always the guys I liked to watch. I like to see a nice baseline winner as opposed to an unreturned serve or routine volleys. A great volley a la becker diving down can give you brief great flashes from volleying.

socal1976 wrote:BB, it is isn't a false choice. The players today are stronger and taller than they were on average than 15 years ago.

You do realise that being taller is a hindrance to rapid direction change. This seems to support your theory - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574403182239738354.html

socal1976 wrote:Any significant move to speed up conditions with these bigger and taller pros will actually result to a much more serve dominated and dull brand of tennis than we saw 15 years ago.

Blocked returns work very well.

socal1976 wrote:It will be the most unwatchable tennis since women played tennis in victorian dresses, we would look back on the late 90s as a great time for baseline play and point construction.

Do you think a serve is the only point construction that there is. Aggressive play also requires point construction, it is just a shorter clock duration. BTW, did you watch Simon-Wang? I could walk away from my laptop, get a drink, perform daily ablutions and still watch the end of the point, in most cases.

socal1976 wrote:And as time goes on and these guys keep getting taller and stronger and are still able to move well enough to play you will see this problem get worse and worse. I am sorry, you may think it is a misrepresentation or that your knowledge of tennis is superior and right, but my honest opinion that the changes you propose would be the poison pill for a very healthy game.

The average US NBA height is more than Tennis, IIRC.

Laverfan so what the average pygymy height is shorter than tennis player's average height. The loss of direction as a player gets taller is another reason why these changes will destroy the game. Why? the taller the player usually the weaker the returner and the better the server. That is the general rule, yes we have 6 3 murray who is a great returner, but you generally never find great returners over 6 foot 2 or 3. Look at the monstrosity that is Isner on the return or karlovic. Del Po is one tall guy that returns pretty well that is one of his biggest advantages.

So by making it harder to return and easier to serve you disadvantage the big servers on the return, an area that they need help in quite frankly; and then you advantage them on serve an area that they don't need any help in. I can't wait to watch Isner returning those live little balls with a small racquet that will be hilarious. Simultaneously it makes his already uninteresting service games even more uninteresting. The same goes for all the big servers from Anderson to Raonic and etc.

socal1976 wrote:The loss of direction as a player gets taller is another reason why these changes will destroy the game. Why? the taller the player usually the weaker the returner and the better the server. That is the general rule, yes we have 6 3 murray who is a great returner, but you generally never find great returners over 6 foot 2 or 3.

Djokovic was 6-3, Ferrer is 5-9. They are good returners. Height is not the only ingredient. Height gives a ;arger wing-span, but hand-eye coordination gives you better returns and becomes relatively more important than just the height. Safin at 6-4, Ferrero was 6-3, IIRC.

socal1976 wrote:Look at the monstrosity that is Isner on the return or karlovic. Del Po is one tall guy that returns pretty well that is one of his biggest advantages.

Isner is just one player. He is not the general rule. Using Isner and Karlovic to defend the case of slowing down is not a very good case in point. Raonic at 6-5 is not that much taller than Safin at 6-4 or Del Po at 6-6 or Querrey at 6-6 or Berdych at 6-5.

socal1976 wrote:So by making it harder to return and easier to serve you disadvantage the big servers on the return, an area that they need help in quite frankly; and then you advantage them on serve an area that they don't need any help in.

Is it easier to return a ball which slows down on hitting a slower court surface or is it easier to return a ball which retains speed closer to the serve speed due to a faster court surface? What do you say, SoCal?

socal1976 wrote:I can't wait to watch Isner returning those live little balls with a small racquet that will be hilarious. Simultaneously it makes his already uninteresting service games even more uninteresting. The same goes for all the big servers from Anderson to Raonic and etc.

These players don not serve aces on every serve - http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/index.html - notice some of the players on the Men's side.

Let us take Raonic v Blake as an example... - http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day12/1306ms.html

Blake - Avg 102 mph, Fastest - 124mph - differential is 22 mph
Raonic - Avg 119, Fastest - 143 mph - differential is 24 mph

The differential is not that far off. So if Blake served 90% of his serves at 124 mph, while Raonic served 1% of his serves at 143 mph, who do you think has the advantage?

Raonic has 29 aces, while Blake had 3.

Isner isn't one player there are a bunch of taller players laverfan that are much taller than what we have ever seen before in tennis that would get a huge leg up in their serving with the changes to technology purposed. Isner, Querrey, Anderson, Raonic, and even Del PO and Berdy would also get a huge lift.

Now of course it is a bit of generalization but a very tall player is usually not as good at returning. Take Raonic, Querrey, and Isner; they are all well below average returners. The changes pushed for by fast court moaners would make it easier on them to hold and make their return games even more comical.

Seriously speeding up the conditions as male players get taller, bigger, stronger and as the miles per hour on the gun for all shots keeps going up is one of the worst ideas in the history of sports. Milos Raonci and John Isner don't need extra help on their service games in every single match and every single tournament over what we see today.

The game of tennis isn't broken but the cure that has been prescribed by some on this site will certainly damage the game. A case of the cure being way worse than the disease.

And I don't want to see the one trick pony specialists rewarded. They are in a way not cheaters but I like to think of them as semi cheaters. While most of the top guys are working on being good on all surfaces these guys sell out their games and their styles of play to beat better all around players on one surface. I don't want to see the world 1 beat regularly by some 146 ranked guy who spends 12 months a year playing on clay. It isn't cheating but it is cheap and low somehow competively.

Perhaps the protagonists could agree to disagree on this argument de nos jours? Each 'era' of the board seems to have a 'debate' in relation to which increasingly angry factions take sides and up the temparature when they have found themselves unable to persuade the other side.

This is not worth it unless we can take less polarized positions.

For my part I agree that the extreme scenario postulated by socal1976 would be undesirable, I don't want a return to the 1990's which were dire for many of his reasons.

However, I think that the pendulum has swung a bit too far in favour of uniformity throughout the season and I'd like to see something done to speed up conditions on the US HC circuit by a small amount to (i) make it distinct from the Aus Open-Miami turn and (ii) reduce the risk of tired players suffering injuries.

Frankly, nobody endorses a return to that Barry. That's why I call it a strawman argument.

bogbrush wrote:Frankly, nobody endorses a return to that Barry. That's why I call it a strawman argument.

I know that - as I see it the two main points of difference are: (a) whether to make any changes at all; and, (b) if changes are to be made, whether they should be incremental, i.e. not all the suggestions Lydian makes in one go, to make sure that the pendulum is not pushed too far the other way, namely echoing the problem whereby (in my view) the pendulum has gone too far away from the dire 1990's.

Socal does make a decent point that men's tennis right here and now is very popular - equally I take your point that the future may be (is) in peril and changes are needed to stop too much of what people seem to like now damaging it's medium-term future. But we've also got to remember commercial reality. Djoko has talked of making the balls smaller which should be possible at less cost than all the other suggestions and would undoubtedly make a difference of sorts. Changes to surfaces or limits on racquet development would be more expensive and involve stepping on more toes - introducing so many changes in one go might also have the unintended consequence of pushing the pendulum too far. Perhaps the best first step would be to reduce ball size for for 2013 in a number of tournaments and keep an eye on how that goes keeping the position under review.

Exactly, Barry you are suggesting precisely what I am saying. The position put forward by BB and lydian is to give the server an across the board structural advantage at every tournament. That isn't variety that is favoring one type of player over what the current status quo has been for a decade. Wasn't the idea that the slow courts should be slow and the fast tourneys fast, then play incrementally with the balls and courts. Why ban technology in a way to favor fast court players in every single match across the board?

There is no strawman argument BB, you can parrot that line if you like but I disagree with your suggestion and I honestly portrayed what it is. You want to start banning different types of strings and racquets. Which does not make the fast court tourneys faster and the slow court tourneys slower, that is variety. What your suggest does is favor the server and attacker on both the slow court tourneys and the fast court tourneys. It is just a leg up to the attackers at the expense of other players. If you wanted variety you can just tweak balls and courts ever so slightly to speed up the US hardcourts and European indoor events. And you basically leave the slower court tournaments like they are or even slow them down for even more variety and difference between the varying surfaces.

socal your exaggerating the point made by lydian

Make Grass fast again. Speed the US Courts up slightly. Clay has always played slow. Australian Open is the 3rd fastest IMO.

He is merely asking for conditions to play like their natural selves. Not be tampered with to slow down.

As for the argument on strings/racquets. I think that is far too technical and is slicing the salami so to speak.

It is not too technical and I am not exaggerating anything. Tell me how I am exaggerating. They want to ban different types of strings and racquets at all the the tournaments. I challenge any body here to find one iota of exaggeration in anything I said in that statement. Period and end of story.

I watched the Kohlschreiber-Isner match. Isner's serve was unable to win him the match.

The argument can be made that Kohli 'survived' because the courts are 'slow'er. A faster court would not have given the opportunity to break, but that specific argument is a what-if scenario which did not happen.

First Serve % - K - 77%, I - 64%
First and second serve points won are very similar.

The key difference seems to be

BPs converted K - 3/3 (one in each of set 1, 3, and 5), I - 2/11 (Set 2 1/4, Set 3 1/3, Set 4 0/2, Set 5 0/2).

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day13/1310ms.html

Querrey-Berdych is very similar.

BPs Q - 1/11, B - 6/16.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day12/1304ms.html

position put forward by BB and lydian is to give the server an across the board structural advantage at every tournament.

Que exaggeration.

I am not one for banning racquets/strings. They coped with the drastic change in the late 80's early 90's. Connors and McEnroe as examples of players adjusting themselves to the technology.

That is precisely what it does, when has become stating the obvious become exaggerating. If you ban strings that help returners and retrievers and shrink the face of the racquet you handicap the returner vis a vis the server in every single match, when compared to what the current conditions are. You give a leg up to the attacker in every match not just in the fast court tourneys. So no exaggeration whatsoever. The smaller face on the racquet hurts the server less than the returner who is hitting a ball moving a 140 miles an hour while the server is hitting a ball that he himself tossed 5 miles an hour. Much easier to find the sweet spot in the latter situation. And banning strings that favor the returners is also a quote "a structural advantage in every match and tournament" over what the current conditions are. You are really disputing that water is wet on this one.


So that was a complete fail my friend as an example of an exaggeration.

laverfan wrote:I watched the Kohlschreiber-Isner match. Isner's serve was unable to win him the match.

The argument can be made that Kohli 'survived' because the courts are 'slow'er. A faster court would not have given the opportunity to break, but that specific argument is a what-if scenario which did not happen.

First Serve % - K - 77%, I - 64%
First and second serve points won are very similar.

The key difference seems to be

BPs converted K - 3/3 (one in each of set 1, 3, and 5), I - 2/11 (Set 2 1/4, Set 3 1/3, Set 4 0/2, Set 5 0/2).

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day13/1310ms.html

Querrey-Berdych is very similar.

BPs Q - 1/11, B - 6/16.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day12/1304ms.html

The kolby Isner match is a perfect example of a match that if not for the slower conditions Kolby would not have had any chance in the match. Here is a clear case of the slower conditions helping the more gifted, varied, and all around better tennis player at the expense of meathead tennis. See ball, smash ball. Kohlshcreiber put on the master class for beating a player with limited movement. He made Isner cover every square inch of the court, he moved him up and back, and from side to side. He made Isner hit forehand and then a backhand, then a forehand, then a backhand, a short ball then a deep ball. He used the chips, the drops, and most importantly he took Isner up the line repeatedly. But in this tight match Kolby won by converting on 3 BPs, that is it, that is the only look he had at the Isner serve. I know lets favor meathead tennis and turn tennis into a contest of whoever hits 10 miles harder on the serve wins. With the changes proposed by lydian and BB the more varied and technically gifted ball striker would of lost this match because Isner serves 20 miles an hour harder than he does and cranks his forehand harder. Do you want to take away even the 3 break points kolby scrapped for over the course of 5 sets?

I don't think they would be able to hit the serve 10 mph harder - the speed of the serve is measured as it leaves the racket. Unless you mean 10 mph faster than the other player? Not sure which.

Warm balls. They go faster.

You again misunderstand my point julius and then argue with it. I didn't say the changes put forward by BB and LYdian would make the players hit the ball 10 miles an hour faster instantaneously. My point is 180 degrees different, what I said is that these changes would eventually reduce tennis to a contest of who hits bigger on the first serve and first ball. Isner would have won the match last night under conditions put forward by the fast courter proponents. Kolby would not have even had the time or opportunity to display all the shots and court sense he did in that match.

socal1976 wrote:You again misunderstand my point julius and then argue with it.

Yes I thought I might have misunderstood. That's why I didn't argue with it, I asked for clarifcation. By saying I argued with it.... hmmm, you're not misrepresenting me again are you?

No worries just glad to clear it up because a favorite pastime of some on this site is to take my positions, wipe out any logical qualifications I put on it, take out the context, and make my position more extreme than what i actually said and then argue and make jokes about the distortion they created. It is dishonest debating in my mind and very annoying.

socal1976 wrote:No worries just glad to clear it up because a favorite pastime of some on this site is to take my positions, wipe out any logical qualifications I put on it, take out the context, and make my position more extreme than what i actually said and then argue and make jokes about the distortion they created. It is dishonest debating in my mind and very annoying.

OK, I'll try to refrain from doing that, because I'd rather not annoy anyone if I can help it. But I think a lot of it is meant as fairly gentle leg-pulling.

socal1976 wrote:No worries just glad to clear it up because a favorite pastime of some on this site is to take my positions, wipe out any logical qualifications I put on it, take out the context, and make my position more extreme than what i actually said and then argue and make jokes about the distortion they created. It is dishonest debating in my mind and very annoying.

Brilliant stuff!

The guy who claims it's this stuff today or Ivanisevic '90's serve fests accuses others of distortion. Priceless.

Actually your last post is a distortion. I didn't say it would be like the 90s, in fact I SAID IF YOU GO TOO FAR IT WILL BE MUCH WORSE THAN THE LATE 90S. So again I find your reading comprehension skills to be lacking. If you give today's athletes the same or even closely similar conditions to the late 90s you would get a much more boring serve fest than that period. Because of the fact that the athletes are bigger, taller, and physically stronger on average than 15 years ago.

Yeah, if you give them the same conditions.

But then nobody has suggested that.

Lucky you don't distort eh?

Sorry guys been travelling back from Spain so haven't been able to type much.
I have never stated lots of changes need to be made all at once...but I do believe a series of changes would benefit the game in the long term if we're to preserve the integrity and health of the game.

Socal, you keep stating that changes would result in serve fests? Why? The serve fests of the 90s are actually overstated. Most of it came out of Goran vs Pete at Wimbledon - two of the best servers from the Open Era. Are you telling me Isner is as good a server as them? How many others today are as good as them? They were relative one offs. Goran aced people off the park even on clay...he was born to serve. He would do the same in today's conditions too...albeit it at a lower ace count...because the modern racquets/strings turn people into returning demons. We shouldnt be nullifying people like Goran through technology gains that reduce him to the same serving level as Rochus. Otherwise we might as well have a ball machine starting ralleys.
Besdies this, if you watched that indoor WTF JK posted the other day between Sampras and Becker there were plenty of 10 stroke plus ralleys. Where is the rationale or evidence it becomes a serve fest if we stop 102-105 sqin racquets, or reduce the amount of spin generated? I don't buy it. But I do buy it would involve the players taking more risk in this risk averse era. More risk = more excitement. But conditions are already slower allowing more time to return...we don't need everything pointed in the direction of the baseliners surely?

Also, we're not saying every surface should play like 80s grass. Despite his serve Sampras got beat plenty of times outside Wimb and USO, even at USO. We're not expecting these surfaces to go back to those speeds but racquet tech reduction could help balance out the preponderance of baseline play we know see since 2001.

Let me ask this question to you. Do you think there should be ANY changes to the technology or speed conditions on display today? If so, why?

Actually, I don't really think we do need to change the conditions right away Lydian I enjoy the tennis and the game is doing well in terms of support. But if some of the faster court tourneys want to make minor changes to the balls and courts I don't have a problem if the faster tourneys decide that it makes them more marketable to display quote variety go ahead and do it. With these limitations, don't go crazy overboard and lets test and see the reaction of the fans do they like quick points more or less, do they like more variety? Maybe the five or six or even 7 tournaments in one year all go to a slightly smaller ball and little bit faster courts.

I don't like very radical, wholesale changes like the banning of strings and racquets. The smaller racquet face and less luxi dominate stringing that you suggest would not increase variety it would provide a structural leg up for the server in every single match even on the slow courts. I mean this whole move to change things is based on the need for more variety. Well more variety means slow clay courts and lightening fast hardcourts. These changes would give the faster court players a leg up even on traditionally slower hardcourts and clay courts as well.

If the incremental and experimental changes at a few events increase the popularity of the game by all means lets make them permanent or even go for more. There are two things missing from your analysis. 1. the courts were slowed down for reason the fans didn't like big serve tennis of the 90s, pete won more but everyone loved Andre for the most part. 2. The players a even bigger, taller, and stronger than 15 years ago and these changes don't make the fast courts faster and the slow courts slower they just further incentivize this trend. These changes of banning equipment to favor servers in effect gives the big server an edge over what we see today even in the clay court tournaments. These changes in effect makes the faster tourneys faster and even will speed up the clay and slow hardcourt events as well. These are changes for favoring big serve tennis across the board over the current status quo not just at indoor and grass events or the US summer hardcourts.