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.

lydian wrote: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.

The plus side is that a Granollers and Andujar have as much chance winning a Masters event than me crapping in the Queen's handbag.

I keep hearing that 'talent' is being sandbagged by conditions demanding top peak fitness, but for me there just isn't the talent out there. If there is, financially they are not getting the backing they require from their tennis bodies.

I can't remember who it was who made a spot on comment about the restrictions in match tennis that 16/17 year olds face.

socal1976 wrote: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.

I was wondering why you were up so late USA time

I find it hard to believe there is a fundamental loss of talent when tennis has been rising in popularity the past 10 years. Where is the evidence for loss of talent?
Makes easier sense to me that the talent just can't break through in a field of hyper conditioned athletes (many with talent too of course) driven on to be uber fit by ralley extending conditions.

If conditions are so 'one sided' I find it hard to believe that youngsters cannot break through. I would like to see the evidence of talent that can overcome conditions which are only favoured to 'fitter' players.

It if it is all about fitness, why are youngsters not getting fitter as that is where the smart money is.

socal1976 wrote: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 doninkedink it is broken therefore it doesn't need to be fixed.

Again with the false choice. Those aren't the only two alternatives and someone will have to keep pointing this out every time you write it because you have a habit, whenever a point you make is refuted, of disappearing then writing it again on another thread (you said you hated the thought of 95% service hold tennis then later praised the 2009 Wimbledon final as one of the greatest ever. When I pointed out that was 96% service holds you just vanish.)

This false choice is your absolute go-to tactic to misrepresent the alternatives. It's shallow and dishonest, but then you are a lawyer.......

Lydian: rally extending conditions is equivalent to the specialist clay court tactics of the past - no?

IMBL: I thought I read it in a BB comment, but can't find it. So maybe he deleted the comment or I have mis-ascribed the comment. Perhaps BB can confirm ...

legendkillarV2 wrote:If conditions are so 'one sided' I find it hard to believe that youngsters cannot break through. I would like to see the evidence of talent that can overcome conditions which are only favoured to 'fitter' players.

It if it is all about fitness, why are youngsters not getting fitter as that is where the smart money is.

Why would a 17 year old McEnroe, blessed with hand eye coordination from Heaven choose a sport where a dull-witted runner can grind him into the ground?

Talent is there but I can't for the life of me imagine why it would choose pro tennis. Now if I was of good but limited talent, big and tall, and willing to run forever I might see pro tennis as, well, made for me.

Nore Staat wrote:Lydian: rally extending conditions is equivalent to the specialist clay court tactics of the past - no?

IMBL: I thought I read it in a BB comment, but can't find it. So maybe he deleted the comment or I have mis-ascribed the comment. Perhaps BB can confirm ...

No, definitely not my comment. In my book the two most talented players I've seen in almost 40 years are Federer and McEnroe.

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Lydian: rally extending conditions is equivalent to the specialist clay court tactics of the past - no?

IMBL: I thought I read it in a BB comment, but can't find it. So maybe he deleted the comment or I have mis-ascribed the comment. Perhaps BB can confirm ...

No, definitely not my comment. In my book the two most talented players I've seen in almost 40 years are Federer and McEnroe.

Nadal and Sampras for me.

Sampras more talented than Federer?

Just picking that out to avoid boring Fedality to ask you if you really, really mean that.

bogbrush wrote:Sampras > Federer?

Just picking that out to avoid boring Fedality to ask you if you really, really mean that.

Ok Federer as well.

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Lydian: rally extending conditions is equivalent to the specialist clay court tactics of the past - no?

IMBL: I thought I read it in a BB comment, but can't find it. So maybe he deleted the comment or I have mis-ascribed the comment. Perhaps BB can confirm ...

No, definitely not my comment. In my book the two most talented players I've seen in almost 40 years are Federer and McEnroe.

Okay apologies

What I would like to know from anyone - where are the new generation of Nadal clones? Nadal seems to be quite unique in the way he is able to generate sooooo much spin on the ball. I think Lydian might (???) have mentioned somwhere it is associated with his grip and wrist action which is fairly "unique".

ps others have mentioned the possible use by him and others of a banned "spray", that affects the grip of the strings.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If conditions are so 'one sided' I find it hard to believe that youngsters cannot break through. I would like to see the evidence of talent that can overcome conditions which are only favoured to 'fitter' players.

It if it is all about fitness, why are youngsters not getting fitter as that is where the smart money is.

Why would a 17 year old McEnroe, blessed with hand eye coordination from Heaven choose a sport where a dull-witted runner can grind him into the ground?

Talent is there but I can't for the life of me imagine why it would choose pro tennis. Now if I was of good but limited talent, big and tall, and willing to run forever I might see pro tennis as, well, made for me.

This is the whole thing. We have not seen another McEnroe. My whole point is based on the financial backings players receive. Sponsors and tennis bodies alike see players as risks and without the junior records so to speak are going to struggle even if they are talented and just require the stewardship of a tennis coach.

Take Tomic. You are not convinced of his talent, LF on another thread requested time but you were quite clear with your position based on his post match comments which yes I saw and don't fill you with inspiration, but being the youngest player in the top 100 does he not deserve time to change opinion? Federer didn't win his first Slam until he was 21. So there is no question that they deserve time.

There is something out there for talented players. Some just have a poor mentality on court. It goes hand in hand with their talent. Look at Safin. Ok wasn't the most talented player, but he could've easily won more titles had he not had such a Laissez Faire type approach.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sampras > Federer?

Just picking that out to avoid boring Fedality to ask you if you really, really mean that.

Ok Federer as well.

I think it is a close call. Sampras is probably the most natural talent, the prototype of unapredictable and creative tennis genius, Federer is all about tachnical perfection, so a totally different type of talent, Mac is talentwise above both of them for me.

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.

bogbrush wrote:... 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. ...

Probably the best tennis I have ever seen has come from Federer, e.g. the 2010 first set at RG against Soderling. Federer lost in four sets but the first set tennis was just incomprehensibly brilliant from what I can recall. I think it was just the unexpected angles and shots that came from his racquet that took the breath away.

Nore Staat wrote:

bogbrush wrote:... 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. ...

Probably the best tennis I have ever seen has come from Federer, e.g. the 2010 first set at RG against Soderling. Federer lost in four sets but the first set tennis was just incomprehensibly brilliant from what I can recall.

The last set of the RG final 2008.
Heaven

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

Not sure if that proved superior talent but he could play for sure. Boris too.

It did prove that a man could win playing in boxer shorts though.

It Must Be Love wrote:Lydian is making it sound very simple, but I think it's potentially very dangerous.

The tour gradually evolved from 1990s to 2000s from 'fast' to 'slower' homogenised surfaces. It was gradual. The reverse process can also be gradual. There is no need to panic for respective heroes.

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

On one hand you say it is dangerous, on the other If the surface were speeded up.... The players adapt to conditions. Give these players some credit.

Nadal is not done yet, is he?

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

This is not a Nadal vs Rest of the World Debate, like OTF.

It Must Be Love wrote:
The last set of the RG final 2008.
Heaven

Back to a GOAT debate, are we? WTF?

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.

Agreed I don't think he showed enough in the way of guts against Roddick. I think his performance in general was very poor. His passing attempts were just pathetic. However, I am willing to cut him just a little slack because he can show great power on his FH. Just a case of doing it more consistently. It might well click for him yet.

His off court behaviour at times has been a disgrace. Never forget the comments he made to Hewitt when he was offering to help Tomic even if it was just a hitting session.

When you have any player with 6 plus slams they're all uber talented vs the rest, yes even Nadal. We're not talking about the top 4 per se being boring, guys like that thrive in just about any era.....talent to hit the ball is talent to hit the ball type thing.
Its the others who make up the tour I worry about.

From that 96 WTF clip via JK above we can see amazing ralleys under extreme time on ball pressure. Yet sampras could be nullified by a good claycourter back then...that's variety in action and why all the great fast court players had problems at RG. They had to meet guys who were specialists on clay and knew how to blunt the finely tuned race cars. Today you have clay-like conditions everywhere, claycourters don't exist per se any more because its not a speciality. Hence we have dozens of Spaniards in the top 100-200. Now don't get me wrong, I like claycourt tennis but I don't want to see it all year round on every surface. For me when there's a guy like Ferrer riding high in the top 10 since 2006 and going deep at USo several times I worry about where the game has gone. Guys like Sampras were the pinnacle of attacking tennis but that pinnacle is now extinct replaced by what is essentially year long claycourt tennis adapted to different but similar speed surfaces.

Best tennis level I ever saw played was by Sampras against Agassi at Wimb 1999 final.

Agassi is an interesting case in point as he straddled 90s and 00s. Surfaces slowed from 2001, ralleys got longer. Agassi knew he had to change so he switched to Luxilon in 2002 and got back to Number 1 again in 2003. This 35-36 year old man with chronic injuries could still compete at the highest level in 2005 playing an amazing match against Federer at USO2005 final.

Do you think a 35 year old guy could have had the reaction time needed to reach the final in the speedy conditions found 10 years earlier at USO95?

Slower conditions and new strings allowed him, and now others, to compete well into his 30s in seemingly more demanding physical ralley conditions. But stamina, unlike reflex time, isn't affected by age.

The fairer question lydian would be could Agassi at 35 make the US Open Final in 1995?

That was essentially my question.

I would be hmmmmmmm

The fact he won Wimbledon when it played like an ice rink does stir the curiosity could he do it again on a similar court with 10+ years and injuries to go with it.

The telling factor that the oldest player left in the quarters in 1995 at the US Open was 29. Doesn't weigh in a 35 year old Agassi's favour. Then again I wouldn't have betted on Agassi playing 3 back to back 5 setters to reach the final in 2005.

Agassi, an exception, may not be a good measure, because he had a mid-career break.

I would say Connors, at 39, who had more of a 'continuous' career, at 39 could reach the SF @USO. IMVHO, Agassi would have reached SF @ 35 as well.

Very interesting if you look at this list... - http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_sf.html

The speeding up of conditions and favoring big servers at every single event by limiting tech will result in the most unwatchable form of tennis in history. You will see robotic pituitary freaks who hit the ball 10 miles an hour harder on the serve winning more and more of the big events. The increasing power of the male tennis player on serve was the reason the courts were slowed down, take Sampras' action and put in six nine 240 pound body with super fast conditions and watch the steady stream of vomit inducing ace contests flow from your television screen.

Its funny the definition of a quality and competive match has even been changed by the fast courters. 5 set matches that are highly competive are no longer the measuring stick of quality matches. We are told that a record 24 5 setters in the first two rounds doesn't mean that the first two rounds have beeen entertaining. Instead the same crowd of tennis affecianados, not all but many of them where talking up the dubai snoozefest this year as refreshing and high quality attack tennis when there wasn't hardly any competive matches in the whole tournament. Now the negative nancy online brigade has even succeeded in convincing people that 5 set matches filled with hours of high quality shot making are boring and tedious even if decided in the waning minutes with high drama. Instead the kind of tennis we should be favoring is big serve quick point tennis. Now the metric for a quality match isn't how close or competive it is or if it goes 5 sets, that doesn't mean entertainment.

If you want to know what is a great match to these affecianado/expert/gurus of the self-appointed nature you must not look at the scoreline or how many great shots you watched, or how late the match was decided. Now you must conduct the following calculation:



Total shots/Total points< or =5.5 shots or whatever arbitrary number they set=great match and wonderful, refreshing tennis. They claim they want variety but they want the exact opposite, they push for banning technology in a manner that will not just favor fast court players at wimby and the open but will advantage them on every single tournament and in every single match.

I nearly stopped watching mens tennis in the late 90s, if we return to anything even closely resembling that style of tennis I will stop watching and just get my fill of the matches by playing at the club.

Great first two rounds of tennis, and the same critics talking up dubai borefest 2012 seem to have missed it completely.

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.

And again the false choice between now and serve domination.

It's either lying or a gross ignorance of tennis.

socal1976 wrote:The speeding up of conditions and favoring big servers at every single event by limiting tech will result in the most unwatchable form of tennis in history.

Probably why no-one wants that

socal1976 wrote:We are told that a record 24 5 setters in the first two rounds doesn't mean that the first two rounds have beeen entertaining

Er, no, you've not been told that. We were just wondering why the 5-set matches in the early 2000s don;t count as entertaining as well

socal1976 wrote:Now the negative nancy online brigade has even succeeded in convincing people that 5 set matches filled with hours of high quality shot making are boring and tedious even if decided in the waning minutes with high drama.

Really, who's been convinced?

socal1976 wrote:They claim they want variety but they want the exact opposite, they push for banning technology in a manner that will not just favor fast court players at wimby and the open but will advantage them on every single tournament and in every single match.

No again, I think, like Djoko said, more variety is what people want

socal1976 wrote:I nearly stopped watching mens tennis in the late 90s, if we return to anything even closely resembling that style of tennis I will stop watching and just get my fill of the matches by playing at the club.

There are ways to get more variety without that happening.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The speeding up of conditions and favoring big servers at every single event by limiting tech will result in the most unwatchable form of tennis in history.

Probably why no-one wants that

socal1976 wrote:We are told that a record 24 5 setters in the first two rounds doesn't mean that the first two rounds have beeen entertaining

Er, no, you've not been told that. We were just wondering why the 5-set matches in the early 2000s don;t count as entertaining as well

socal1976 wrote:Now the negative nancy online brigade has even succeeded in convincing people that 5 set matches filled with hours of high quality shot making are boring and tedious even if decided in the waning minutes with high drama.

Really, who's been convinced?

socal1976 wrote:They claim they want variety but they want the exact opposite, they push for banning technology in a manner that will not just favor fast court players at wimby and the open but will advantage them on every single tournament and in every single match.

No again, I think, like Djoko said, more variety is what people want

socal1976 wrote:I nearly stopped watching mens tennis in the late 90s, if we return to anything even closely resembling that style of tennis I will stop watching and just get my fill of the matches by playing at the club.

There are ways to get more variety without that happening.

Do you read what lydian and BB are suggesting wholesale banning of technology across the board at every tournament? So your first line is just contracfactual yes there are people argueing for that very thing. That is precisely what BB has been calling for banning all kinds of technology at every event to favor the server.

I just find it amusing that a lot of people on this site have convinced themselves the Murray Djoko semi at AO was terrible, so was the final with Nadal both were classic contests fondly remembered by everyone but the self appointed tennis affecianados. Julius maybe before you claim that no one is argueing these points you actually read what BB and lydian are saying.

I just find it interesting that the same crowd that was cheering the dubai snoozefest of 2012 are no so mum when the USO delivers a great early round sequence of matches. And many people are argueing with me like Laverfan and lydian that five setters don't necessarily mean entertainment and my response would be then what percentage of those 24 5 setters failed on your entertainment requirments and why did they fail.

It seems to me that the scoreline, the competiveness, or the number of great shots don't matter anymore in determining match quality. We need a shot count and a calculator.

bogbrush wrote:And again the false choice between now and serve domination.

It's either lying or a gross ignorance of tennis.

No, you have no idea what will happen when you ban strings, limit racquets, and juice up balls. Tell me how often do you think Raonic will be broken on a fast court, or Isner for that matter. In fact, the exact logical consequence of the changes you discuss is basically giving a leg up to every big server in every tournament and match. That is the predictable and exact outcome of what you and lydian have proposed. And big serve tennis has already proven that is less marketable, that is why they changed the conditions in the first place. If you wanted variety you would favor speeding up balls and conditions on some of the fast court and grass tourneys. But that isn't what you propose you propose a wholesale across the board technical leg up be given to the server and the attack player at every single event even the traditionally slow court events.

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.....

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:And again the false choice between now and serve domination.

It's either lying or a gross ignorance of tennis.

No, you have no idea what will happen when you ban strings, limit racquets, and juice up balls. Tell me how often do you think Raonic will be broken on a fast court, or Isner for that matter. In fact, the exact logical consequence of the changes you discuss is basically giving a leg up to every big server in every tournament and match. That is the predictable and exact outcome of what you and lydian have proposed. And big serve tennis has already proven that is less marketable, that is why they changed the conditions in the first place. If you wanted variety you would favor speeding up balls and conditions on some of the fast court and grass tourneys. But that isn't what you propose you propose a wholesale across the board technical leg up be given to the server and the attack player at every single event even the traditionally slow court events.

Sounds like its the latter then.

There are many options to changing the game by ruling limitations on racquets, strings, balls or courts. Those are options, and can be used selectively to change the game so players have to do more than rally side to side on any surface to thrive. It isn't necessary to turn them all around, though starting with racquet size and string material would be logical. Neither of those would enable a faster serve.

socal, you andI seem to be interpreting lydian's and BB's posts in different ways.
In order to ascertain whether I am being contrafactual, I'll have to ask lydian and BB themselves to confirm :-
a) are you arguing for wholesale changes that would favour big servers in every tournament?
b) do you think such changes would lead to the most unwatchable form of tennis in history?

a) No, I'm not. I'm arguing for alterations to reverse the changes that have seen attacking play placed at a huge disadvantage to baseline manoeuvring. I believe that doesn't even have to include making the ball fly faster; simply making it harder to hit countless groundstrokes would be effective.

b) wholesale changes; depends on how much and how far. I wouldn't want to see serve domination, I want to see it become harder to hit passing shots from any position.

I like the recent suggestions of reducing ball size and maybe having a standard racquet head size.

But the first port-of-call is surely just to get back to being RG clay (slowest), Wimbledon grass (fastest), USO fast hard court and AO slow hard court. So not overall speeding up, just getting back to being different surfaces.

Actually, the first port-of-call should be a shot clock on the 20 seconds between points! That would make a big difference.

It seems to remember that McEnroe, Becker, Navratilova, Graf, amongst other tennis legends, all advocated the return to the wood rackets.

This certainly wouldn't lead to the dominion of the big servers/ or would it?

Personally, as much as I'd love it, I don't think it will ever be a realistic choice, but a certain degree of control over the materials of frames and strings should be a very possible and probably in perspective necessary policy to implement.

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.

HM Murdoch wrote:Actually, the first port-of-call should be a shot clock on the 20 seconds between points! That would make a big difference.

There already is one, it is called the Chair Umpire. Just that the spectators cannot see it. The Chair Umpire calls 'Time'.

SoCal... Players and spectators alike can watch Clay and rejoice in 40+ shot rallies, if they want.

The traditional fast surfaces like HC and grass need to go back what they used to be.

Why do you insist on 50-shot rallies on HC or grass?

Luke Jensen on USopen.org stream during Fish-Simon match said that Sloane Stephens-Ivanovic were serving faster than Gilles Simon at 84 mph/69 mph.

Neither BB, Lydian, JHM are asking for wholesale changes to traditional slower surfaces, but to faster ones.

Do you remember Carpet or Wood at all?

Roscoe Tanner could serve 120+ mph serves using a wooden racquet, as could Pancho.

bogbrush wrote:a) No, I'm not. I'm arguing for alterations to reverse the changes that have seen attacking play placed at a huge disadvantage to baseline manoeuvring. I believe that doesn't even have to include making the ball fly faster; simply making it harder to hit countless groundstrokes would be effective.

b) wholesale changes; depends on how much and how far. I wouldn't want to see serve domination, I want to see it become harder to hit passing shots from any position.

The changes you propose serves as an across the board structural edge to the servers over what we see today. If you want variety why not let the tournaments speed up or use faster balls like the FO in 2011. You favor attack on fast court tourneys and slower play on the slower tourneys. I would support trying it out and seeing how it works. But what you propose is giving an edge to the server and attacker in every single tournament across the board ,that is what the technological changes would involve. It is the exact logical consequence of what you two are proposing.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:a) No, I'm not. I'm arguing for alterations to reverse the changes that have seen attacking play placed at a huge disadvantage to baseline manoeuvring. I believe that doesn't even have to include making the ball fly faster; simply making it harder to hit countless groundstrokes would be effective.

b) wholesale changes; depends on how much and how far. I wouldn't want to see serve domination, I want to see it become harder to hit passing shots from any position.

The changes you propose serves as an across the board structural edge to the servers over what we see today. If you want variety why not let the tournaments speed up or use faster balls like the FO in 2011. You favor attack on fast court tourneys and slower play on the slower tourneys. I would support trying it out and seeing how it works. But what you propose is giving an edge to the server and attacker in every single tournament across the board ,that is what the technological changes would involve. It is the exact logical consequence of what you two are proposing.

No, it doesn't. Slow clay would still clearly favour the slower game. As it is we watch clay tennis on virtually every surface.

Clearly then, the intent, at least, is not to make every tournament favour the big servers. Therefore my point that no-one wants that is not contrafactual.

What is open to argument is simply whether any proposed changes would actually have that universally unwelcome outcome. Ladies and gentlemen, we are today a small step closer to world peace.

Yes Laverfan the fact that you can serve really fast with a smaller head racquet is known to me, but it is also much harder to return with a smaller head racquet. Like I said I want you guys to juice up the conditions and return to the dodgey grass of yore and then I want to watch Isner and Raonic play each other that should be amusing aberration of the game to witness. And then you guys can pat yourselves on the back how you brought back variety, I just disagree completely. In 10 years as these players get bigger and stronger we may have to slow down conditions again, you guys are just not addressing the rapid rate of physical development of the male players. You are going to chase the little guy out of the game with these changes, the game will become much faster than it has ever been before and more serve dominated.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Clearly then, the intent, at least, is not to make every tournament favour the big servers. Therefore my point that no-one wants that is not contrafactual.

What is open to argument is simply whether any proposed changes would actually have that universally unwelcome outcome. Ladies and gentlemen, we are today a small step closer to world peace.

Not really, because socal knew this all along and has been misrepresenting 1990's Wimbledon as the only alternative to today's universal baseline game in order to stifle opposition.

We've moved a step closer to an honest debate though.

socal1976 wrote:If you want variety why not let the tournaments speed up or use faster balls like the FO in 2011.

An entire generation of players would be defunct if you went down this road. And the 'slow' death of S&V is proof. Just ask Henman.

socal1976 wrote:You favor attack on fast court tourneys and slower play on the slower tourneys. I would support trying it out and seeing how it works.

It has already been tried. That is what you designate as Dubai Borefest 2012. You seem to be contradicting yourself, SoCal?

socal1976 wrote:But what you propose is giving an edge to the server and attacker in every single tournament across the board ,that is what the technological changes would involve. It is the exact logical consequence of what you two are proposing.

The server, by definition, always has the edge, and by definition is the attacker. Slowing surfaces turns such an attacker into a defender.

Oh, apparently not.