How do homogenised conditions affect tennis popularity?

On 606v2 there is a lot of debate on the current homogenised conditions of the tennis tour. Many people feel that we need some more variety, but how does this affect the popularity of tennis? It is not clear cut. I am sure the majority of people will be inspired to tennis by a certian 'star'. Nadal, Federer etc. It's these big names that bring people into tennis, and having homogensied conditions means there will be more chance of having 'big names' as it is easier for one player to dominate the tour. (Whether it is homogensised fast or homogenised slow- this still stays the same). I have investigated this, to see whether having varied or homogenised conditions benefits popularity. By homogenised it can be 'all fast' or 'all slow'; I am talking more general rather than this current era (although the conditions atm are an example of increased homogenisation):

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.

Amritia
(My article, also on Sport Pulse- http://www.sportpulse.net/content/how-does-homogenised-conditions-affect-tennis-popularity-4652)

Right now just a few players drag the sport away from the monochromed future that awaits it. Unfortunately, one is badly injured and the other in his 32nd year.
The other upside is the big 4 thing that gets ramped endlessly and which, as of yesterday, has a bit more credibility to it. Unfortunately we're back to needing those same two players to make that up as there's NOTHING coming through.

Those two players are masking the problem.

Seriously, I see people getting bored once these mega-personalities go. If they were to both go for their differing reasons around the same time this sport will need a parachute.

bogbrush wrote:Right now just a few players drag the sport away from the monochromed future that awaits it. Unfortunately, one is badly injured and the other in his 32nd year.
The other upside is the big 4 thing that gets ramped endlessly and which, as of yesterday, has a bit more credibility to it. Unfortunately we're back to needing those same two players to make that up as there's NOTHING coming through.

Those two players are masking the problem.

Seriously, I see people getting bored once these mega-personalities go. If they were to both go for their differing reasons around the same time this sport will need a parachute.

But that, in my opinion, is mainly due to lack of talent outside the Top 4.
Why does homogenisation result in lack of talent outside the top 4?

As I said in the article I believe this is an extreme case where we have boh homogenised conditions, and 4 players who are far superior to the rest. I don't think this is the norm- look at the WTA for example, in the last few years they haven't had a few steady champions at all- and they are playing on the same surfaces.

It does.

Nadal was the poster boy for the being the player that could triumph on such conditions, but look at where his career is now at the tender age of 26. The longevity of players is at high risk as is long term health. What message does it send out to youngsters? Punish your body for a short 8 year career? Is that what tennis really wants? Federer's are 1 in a trillion and tennis cannot rely on that type of player coming round. They have controlled the mould of the modern day player and physical risks now in being that flagbearer are massive. When Federer hangs up his racquet, he will be able to put his feet up. When Nadal hangs his racquet up, I am not so sure he will be able to put his feet up without assistance. I don't like to see any player lose their career to injury, but I am feeling that is what it will take for organisers to contemplate a re-think on condition variation. If it wasn't for strings, would Nadal have actually got 10 years out of his career let alone the Slam haul?

Right now sponsors and organisers dream champion is someone without a tennis brain and that is Tsonga. Robotic styles of play often generate robotic court personalities. The game misses a Connors or McEnroe that could ignite a match with their connection with the fans. Street fighting tennis yes for all it's glory can be ugly, but it can also be beautiful with the right personality behind it.

LK... you are only addressing slow conditions.
By 'homoegenisation' it can also apply to slow and fast conditions. It is only at the moment that we have slower conditions all-round.

I am talking about homogenisation vs variety; now slow vs fast courts which is another debate altogether.

Variation would be a mix of slow and fast.

Right now the argument is that how are current conditions affecting the game which is what I have addressed.

It's a difficult balance to strike.

Tennis is at its most popular when at the very top there rivalries between contrasting players that capture the imagination of those outside the hardcore tennis lovers- Borg/Mac/Connors Mac/Lendl/Connors Becker/Lendl/Edberg/Wilander, Courier/Agassi/Sampras, Federer/Nadal. I think it's style of play that is more important than personality (something which nobody wants to show ostentatiously on Court anyway), which is why I don't think that Djoko/Murray or Djoko/Nadal set hearts racing in quite the same way - Fed/Djoko is pretty good though.

You therefore need an element of different conditions to ensure that it is worth the while of players to try different styles when learning the game to be able to enjoy their rivalries and matches later on. But the differences can't be too extreme - the players need to be evenly matched on some surfaces - and nobody wants back to the 1990's.

Too much homogenity and everyone learns to play the same way with the result that you get to the WTA Tour - there are not enough different styles of player on view to get the public enthused.

Socal is right that the USO has thrown up some very good matches and tennis looks to be in rude health, but looking forward the sport does need great and contrasting rivalries at it's top. What is an enjoyable match in an early round when the public are still anticipating the rest of the tournament would not necessarily pass muster as the final or semi-final. Men's tennis is very dependant on the presence of Federer and Nadal for the sense of contrasting rivalry at it's apex right now. The problem is that there is not much prospect of that being replaced. Sure, tennis has been there before with periods of popularity and great stars at the helm followed by fallow periods whilst the next 'big thing' comes up the ranks and it's easy to panic whilst waiting for that. My concern is that the conditions in which the 'next big things' have been learning the game are such that they are unlikely to be that exciting because they are likely to play similar styles even when they do emerge.

[edit] LK also makes a good point that the guys at the top who play to the epitome of the style which succeeds in current conditions are very much risking burnout, which looks unhealthy too.

Players aren't getting any more burnt out than they were in the past. Nadal's issues are far from unique. Apart from the likes of Connors, Lendl, Sampras and now Federer, there are lots of great names who sufferered mental and physical burn-out in and around their peak years, including Agassi, Borg, Mcenroe among a pretty long list. People sensationalize and exaggerate these issues about the physical, modern game across forums but it's little different from the evolution of other sports. The game is in rude healthy as far as I'm concerned. It's possible it may be slightly less popular when Fed and Nadal call it quits but that would be because the sport reached its historical peak of popularity when those two were at the top and their rivalry would be hard to replicate.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variation would be a mix of slow and fast.

Right now the argument is that how are current conditions affecting the game which is what I have addressed.

Alright

Anyway let's put the question this way:
You are in a powerful position in the ATP. What would you do to make tennis more popular?
a) Make everything homogenised (either fast or slow) which has a greater chance of creating superstars.
b) Have more variety in conditions- more surface specialists.

A Murray / Djokovic rivalry just isn't going to do it. If someone like Tomic joined the club you could forget it - total tedium. Raonic provides a different game to watch, though loads of him would be boring. Nobody serves & volleys - Djokovic apparently serv/volleyed THREE times in the whole US Open!!!

The key is to provide an environment where different types of player evolve, then we get the odd matchups and contrasts when these types meet.
If they don't then it will become really boring and the media will turn just like that, from ramping a "Golden Era" to damning it all as garbage - all it'll take is a high profile retirement for them to hang their hook on. People have to remember the media has to have something to push, and they don't care whether it's positive or negative.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variation would be a mix of slow and fast.

Right now the argument is that how are current conditions affecting the game which is what I have addressed.

Alright

Anyway let's put the question this way:
You are in a powerful position in the ATP. What would you do to make tennis more popular?
a) Make everything homogenised (either fast or slow) which has a greater chance of creating superstars.
b) Have more variety in conditions- more surface specialists.

The latter, anyone smart makes sure they have hedges against changes. Betting everything on a tiny team of superstars playing one game is stupid - you're a retirement or two away from oblivion.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variation would be a mix of slow and fast.

Right now the argument is that how are current conditions affecting the game which is what I have addressed.

Alright

Anyway let's put the question this way:
You are in a powerful position in the ATP. What would you do to make tennis more popular?
a) Make everything homogenised (either fast or slow) which has a greater chance of creating superstars.
b) Have more variety in conditions- more surface specialists.

The variating conditions of years gone by did create superstars. Borg was massive in his heyday. As was Connors and McEnroe.

For me it doesn't require pressure from the ATP. They have selected the venues for the tournaments. For me it is the organisers who need to be pressured into considering the surface their tournament is played on if it benefits player welfare.

Surface specialists or which ever you would like to call them are not the monopolistic elite they once were. This is where talent and stamina become separate because there are players who can play better tennis. Let the 1 Slam winners have their moments. I don't think it damages the popularity of the sport. Look at Roddick and Safin. They are examples of players who couldn't push their mental and physical game to the heights it needed to go. The power in their games became less and less with time. It is a testament to Roddick that for such a limited player that he could keep himself in the top 10 for 8 consecutive years. Look at Isner, Berdych, Cilic, Raonic. Big big men, but seriously are they going to be near the top 10 when they hit 29/30? No chance. Even the fitter players. Ferrer/Tsonga/Tomic. Where do their careers go when the fitter guys above them can hit them off the court?

Court surface changes are not going to create one man dynasties. It takes more. Sampras. Had the champion's mentality. Why he won so many Slams. Ivanisevic and Phillippoussis big servers and big hitters, but didn't have the quality of volley that Sampras did or the mental will. What surfaces with different variety does is create adaption in the players. Look at Federer. The more consistent net game has very much saved his game and his career in some respects. Look at Nadal. Injured and looking at possibly a clay based diet because there is no way he can compact his game to be successful on other surfaces and healthy too. It forces the player to try different things.

I do agree with you that variety can give players new challenges, and it can be interesting and unpredictable to see how they deal with them.
Sampras... in the 90's I feel apart from the French Open the conditions were quite homogenised. Certainly Australian Open and US Open were very similar, both out-door hard courts, and Wimbledon was marginally faster; but there wasn't a huge difference between those 3 slams.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variation would be a mix of slow and fast.

Right now the argument is that how are current conditions affecting the game which is what I have addressed.

Alright

Anyway let's put the question this way:
You are in a powerful position in the ATP. What would you do to make tennis more popular?
a) Make everything homogenised (either fast or slow) which has a greater chance of creating superstars.
b) Have more variety in conditions- more surface specialists.

The latter, anyone smart makes sure they have hedges against changes. Betting everything on a tiny team of superstars playing one game is stupid - you're a retirement or two away from oblivion.

Yes, but then a new guy comes in. If the surfaces are homogenised, and he is good on that surface, he will play well throughout the year and hence has a greater chance of becoming a 'superstar.'
At the moment the strength in depth beneath the Top 4 is not that high, but I think this is mainly due to a lack of talent.

It has certainly made the game boring.

invisiblecoolers wrote:It has certainly made the game boring.

IC, did any specific player bring you into tennis?

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:It has certainly made the game boring.

IC, did any specific player bring you into tennis?

Jim Courier and Steffi Graff

and Jim would have won all 4 if the conditions were homogenized in early 90's, coz during his prime years he looked unbeatable.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:It has certainly made the game boring.

IC, did any specific player bring you into tennis?

Jim Courier and Steffi Graff

Interesting

It often happens that specific players bring new fans into tennis.

The more successful a player becomes... the more people he brings into the game of tennis. Generally

I knew Steffi Graf even before watching a single game of tennis and when ever got a chance watched her to see why people are so fancied about her, that brought me into the game, but those times Monica was beating the hell out of her , and Jim on the other hand made me love the game, I only see Federer eclipse him in terms of more natural yet beautiful play.

When Del Potro came into the scene in 2008 with streak of 17 consecutive wins I started to observe him closely and liked his attitude and the way he handled defeats, AO 2009 loss to Federer was devastating, most players would have retired citing some injury but poor Del Po didn't do that and was ready to accept the bagel and improve the game , and we all knew what happened in FO 2009 semis and USO 2009 finals.

I still can't figure out how Fed beat Del Po in Fo semi's 2009, thats the best match Del Po played in his career.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I still can't figure out how Fed beat Del Po in Fo semi's 2009, thats the best match Del Po played in his career.

Me nether, Del Potro was so incredibly powerful then, hitting through the court at will. Federer played very tough that day.

bogbrush wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I still can't figure out how Fed beat Del Po in Fo semi's 2009, thats the best match Del Po played in his career.

Me nether, Del Potro was so incredibly powerful then, hitting through the court at will. Federer played very tough that day.

Sadly that skill and class will be missed once he retires.

If we were to imagine that the current top 4 didn't exist, the 'new' top 4 would be Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga.

That's one grinder, two big hitters and one powerful eccentric. It's a bigger mix of style than the current top 4.

Personality-wise, we have a two fan favourite nice guys (DelPo Tsonga), one pantomime villain (Berdych) and one rather bland but well-respected character (Ferrer).

Would tennis be worse off if these were the top 4? There's obviously a drop off in quality from the current top 4 but would that stand out if the comparison isn't there?

Are homogenised conditions the main problem here or is it just that 3 of the top 4 play a very similar style?

And if the answer is that these are top 4 because of their style i.e. it suits the surfaces, why is there such greater variety in numbers 5 to 15?

Good question.

To answer the question, I think tennis would be much more fun with that top 4, and we wouldn't know the difference because standard is relative.

Its a tricky question to answer HMM, but who knows it might have been more interesting, but anyways its irrelevant to current scenario as we cannot force a player to follow a particular style and the only way still to have variety of playing style is by having variety of conditions, but it might have still produced a similar top 4.

mthierry wrote:Players aren't getting any more burnt out than they were in the past. Nadal's issues are far from unique. Apart from the likes of Connors, Lendl, Sampras and now Federer, there are lots of great names who sufferered mental and physical burn-out in and around their peak years, including Agassi, Borg, Mcenroe among a pretty long list. People sensationalize and exaggerate these issues about the physical, modern game across forums but it's little different from the evolution of other sports. The game is in rude healthy as far as I'm concerned. It's possible it may be slightly less popular when Fed and Nadal call it quits but that would be because the sport reached its historical peak of popularity when those two were at the top and their rivalry would be hard to replicate.

Here, here thierry an excellent post that none of the critics will acknowledge. Barrystar to be fair also stated that the game is turning out great matches and the mens game is at a high right now. Players have always had burnout, in fact today's tennis because of the money and how well these guys take care of their bodies has players playing longer and more effectively on average into older ages. Agassi burned out in the fast court era, Wilander, Borg burned out in the fast court era. Becker when he came on the scene was thought to be a guy that could double digit slams and dominate but he had one cup of coffee at #1. Mcenroe the most talented volleyer in history hit a huge wall after 84 and he was like Djokovic and Murray's age now. He was the greatest #1 in the open era and all of sudden he was completely out of the game like two or three years later.

The slower conditions ARE ESSENTIAL AS THE SIZE OF THE MALE PLAYERS GOES UP AND THE RADAR GUN NUMBERS GO UP. I mean guys are hitting forehands 118 miles an hour now. Players are nearly 7 ft tall, in fact in 10 or 20 years they are going to make the balls and courts heavier again. Pete Sampras as early back as the 90s had the best serve and was like the only guy hitting mid 130s. Now mid 130s is like a good pacey serve but it won't even put you into the top 15 of guys on the gun. Rod laver and Rosewall where five 8 and 7 respectively their brand of tennis is dead and without radical changes that will have major unintended consequences you can never bring it back. And even if you did fans wouldn't like it, they didn't like it in the late 90s that is why it was changed in the first place. Anything despite MINOR INCREMENTAL TWEAKING OF THE BALLS AND COURTS AT A FEW TOURNAMENTS will probably have disastrous results on the watchability of tennis.

Well, obviously in a negative way. Just look at the reaction from the fans post the Dubai tournament, which was a breath of fresh air after some insipid grueling tennis. We need different surfaces to highlight different facets of the game.

More on that on this post from a few months ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t26422-has-the-push-for-faster-courts-begun

Tennisanorak wrote:Well, obviously in a negative way. Just look at the reaction from the fans post the Dubai tournament, which was a breath of fresh air after some insipid grueling tennis. We need different surfaces to highlight different facets of the game.

It is funny you mention that TA it seems you and I just see things differently which is fine as everyone has their taste. I wrote a thread on how the faster conditions of Dubai resulted in an absolute snoozefest of a tourney. It was terrible there wasn't a single competive match and most of the matches had way, way more errors than winners. Granted the USO finals was an error fest but with those kinds of winds and those two playing it was very expected. I found dubai to be completely uninteresting. A series of one and two shot points, a lot of close sets but almost no 3 setters at all. If Dubai this year is the kind of tennis we want to model to the fans of today who 1000 entertainment options I can guarantee you they will just watch golf or more football. But while I completely disagree with you no one can argue with your taste. For me I loathe that kind of tennis didn't watch much of wimbeldon before they slowed it down it was terrible.

"If Dubai this year is the kind of tennis we want to model to the fans of today who 1000 entertainment options I can guarantee you they will just watch golf or more football. "

Socal, agree with you. Not all tournaments should be like Dubaai, but at least one tournament should be. Keep the Australian Open slow, and speed up the US Open. Bring back carpet.

We need variety, not homogenisation.

Agree with you that if all courts became faster, things would be much worse. But is anyone arguing to make all courts lightning fast? Not sure.

Yes, TA let me ask your opinion because you seem like a fairminded person from what I see. If you limit the size of the racquet face doesn't that hurt the returner and help the server at every tournament? Well that is one of series of technological limitations proposed by lydian and others. The smaller sweet spot will be a big, big disadvantage to the returner and not just on grass or indoor events but on even the slower events. That is what I mean about some of the things spoken of radical. Banning strings that a large number of players play with. Limits on weight and racquet head size, all simulaneously mind you. Now is that variety or just a leg up to the server on traditionally fast or slow court events regardless. Isn't variety slower courts playing slower and faster ones playing faster?

I'm going to wade into this variety argument briefly. socal, you're absolutely spot on here IMO: variety is NOT the same as making courts faster. For me, the FO in 2011 was way too fast (a result of using smaller balls and it being hot). You can't control the weather admittedly, but I didn't like it. Clay should be about rallying, working the opening and pouncing on it, wearing your opponent down.

Grass I would like to see speeded up, not excessively mind (not like 90s speed). Especially I would like a longer grass court season with a masters on grass. Also, lower bounce. The bounce at Wimbledon is too high (I think this is due to the grass being changed), low bounce brings the slices into play more, and makes for some nice variety (the stop volley becomes more effective too, so players might move in more).

HC is OK, would like to see the Us Open speeded up a bit (the Ashe could be made roughly the same speed as the Armstrong maybe?). The odd really fast HC is nice, but I'd like most HC to be middling really (AO medium slow and US medium fast sounds about right).

Bringing back carpet is another move I'd like to see...

Thank you MFC it is nice to have you accept my theories but the numbers are backing it up. Some of the things talked about don't bring about variety but just give the big server and edge in every match.

Too much homogenity and everyone learns to play the same way with the result that you get to the WTA Tour - there are not enough different styles of player on view to get the public enthused.

This quote by barry by and large is the best and most insightful on this thread. Simple and gets to the crux of the matter.

Socal- the "how" can be debated. I think the changes have to be in the courts, and the size of the tennis balls used. Any change in racket technology would speed up tennis across surfaces which is definitely not what we need.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Too much homogenity and everyone learns to play the same way with the result that you get to the WTA Tour - there are not enough different styles of player on view to get the public enthused.

This quote by barry by and large is the best and most insightful on this thread. Simple and gets to the crux of the matter.

If we look at the top 8:

1/ Federer- Attacking baseliner/ All around
2/ Djokovic- Controlled agression- baseliner
3/ Murray- Controlled agression- baseliner
4/ Nadal- Defensive/ counter punching baseliner
5/ Ferrer- Defensive baseliner
6/ Berdych- Attacking baseliner
7/ Tsonga- Attacking baseliner
8/ Del Potro- Attacking baseliner/ power hitter

There's quite a mix of baseliners in that top 8. They don't all play with exactly the same style.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Too much homogenity and everyone learns to play the same way with the result that you get to the WTA Tour - there are not enough different styles of player on view to get the public enthused.

This quote by barry by and large is the best and most insightful on this thread. Simple and gets to the crux of the matter.

If we look at the top 8:

1/ Federer- Attacking baseliner/ All around
2/ Djokovic- Controlled agression- baseliner
3/ Murray- Controlled agression- baseliner
4/ Nadal- Defensive/ counter punching baseliner
5/ Ferrer- Defensive baseliner
6/ Berdych- Attacking baseliner
7/ Tsonga- Attacking baseliner
8/ Del Potro- Attacking baseliner/ power hitter

There's quite a mix in that top 8.

Ermmm

That is not what I would call a mix.

They don't all have the same styles, although I do agree that most of the play these days is from the baseline

We barely have any players who go to the net these days. Barely any serving and volleying.
You could look at the Wimbledon court- far more wear and tear at the back compared to the service box.

Styles for me is irrelevent given that the strength of their games relies on specific court area.

For me if anything the shot-making ability separates them, but I think Federer can easily be called a hybrid of S&V and Baseliner given the portion of his points won in a match vary quite dramatically. Tsonga another one who S&V's and can play from the baseline. I would have Isner down as more S&V given how crap his baseline and return game is. Fish another one who S&V's more now than before.

Players nowadays have to be more physically able and tactically to be able to compete. If Federer hadn't become more capable at the net, no way he would've been able to stay at the top of the game like he has.

See I think Nadal's greatness will be measured slightly by how he adapts his game to his body. It is a different scenario to Federer, but the desired outcome is still the same. If Nadal wants to remain at the top of the game, he needs to change it to succeed.

Djokovic became more aggressive and he succeeded. He used to defend, defend, defend. Now he is more willing to shorten points if he can win it.

Andy became stronger mentally, but utilised his variation much better under Lendl. The FH is a weapon, slightly vulnerable one yes, but none the less still a weapon.

The conversion into baselines for the likes of Ferrer, Berdych, Tipsarevic has come at cost as something as basic of being a competent volleyer.

LK, interesting points.

We have to keep in mind, we are talking about the popularity of tennis, and it's attraction to fans.
To what extent do you think fans need variety. If the top players all played from the baseline, but had totally different styles, different levels of aggression (i.e. we could have a power hitter who is 6"5 and someone like Ferrer who have completely different styles), is that enough?

At the moment the fact is we have a Top 4 who have dominated for so long, and below that not much strength in depth. Hence we have seen the same guys win all the time. I dont' think homogenisation is really to blame for this.

Many generic fans have been fed the diet of the big 4 for so many years now. When young players make a breakthrough in the rankings, their success is measured by not only how they play against the big 4 but how they play like them. My brother has such a neglected view by always comparing upcoming players to the top players at this moment in time. Take Ferrer. For me has had his best year on the tour and my brother called him 'crap' and he is 5 in the world!

If players outside the top 4 win at the Slams, this will stretch the horizon for the fans and players alike. Fair weather fans have been the same as before. Tune into the Slams and wait for the semi's to heighten their interest. My brother for example couldn't name the 9 ATP Master Events or even find the desire to watch them.

Look at the ATP WTF adverts. Have the big 4 plastered all over it. How are the other 4 that make that line up stand a chance of imposing themselves on a popular basis?

For me homogenised conditions have killed interest because it doesn't lend itself to developing a players all round game. The fans it attracts are those who are more lured by the 'athletic' element which should only be a small portion of the skills required by a tennis player. Tweaking of court speeds would change that. Fast courts does not automatically lend itself totally to the mercy of big servers. They need to do more than just serve!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Many generic fans have been fed the diet of the big 4 for so many years now. When young players make a breakthrough in the rankings, their success is measured by not only how they play against the big 4 but how they play like them. My brother has such a neglected view by always comparing upcoming players to the top players at this moment in time. Take Ferrer. For me has had his best year on the tour and my brother called him 'crap' and he is 5 in the world!

If players outside the top 4 win at the Slams, this will stretch the horizon for the fans and players alike. Fair weather fans have been the same as before. Tune into the Slams and wait for the semi's to heighten their interest. My brother for example couldn't name the 9 ATP Master Events or even find the desire to watch them.

Look at the ATP WTF adverts. Have the big 4 plastered all over it. How are the other 4 that make that line up stand a chance of imposing themselves on a popular basis?

For me homogenised conditions have killed interest because it doesn't lend itself to developing a players all round game. The fans it attracts are those who are more lured by the 'athletic' element which should only be a small portion of the skills required by a tennis player. Tweaking of court speeds would change that. Fast courts does not automatically lend itself totally to the mercy of big servers. They need to do more than just serve!

You've made 2 separate points here.
Firstly you say that people mainly follow the Top4, which is absoltely correct. At the moment there is a clear 'Top 4', but at any time the ones who have the most following and bring people into tennis are the superstars.

Then you say homogenised conditions are killing the game as fans as players will only focus on one aspect of their game. This means that we are denying a chance to have a wider range of fans, as only a fan of a specific aspect i.e. monsters serve and volleying (90's) or incredible defense (now) will like the game in homogenised conditions.
This is what I said in the article, which strengthens what you are saying:

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.

However lk, you did not answer my earlier question:

To what extent do you think fans need variety. If the top players all played from the baseline, but had totally different styles, different levels of aggression (i.e. we could have a power hitter who is 6"5 and someone like Ferrer who have completely different styles), is that enough?

This argument is from another thread, and both BarryStar and Born Slippy make fantastic points on this:

Born Slippy wrote:

barrystar wrote:
The bigger issue is variety of play, and that is a very long-term issue. Variety of play on the Tour derives from what coaches and young players decided will maximise their chances in the future. If the conditions are all the same when the Juniors are learning, the resulting senior players will increasingly look like one another to all but the most knowledgeable tennis watchers. I'd say that is the problem with the women's game now that the likes of Henin, Mauresmo, Hingis, Clijsters, Kuznetsova have ceased to play or compete at the top. In the current mens' top 8 there are a lot of quite different players - Fed, Djoko, Murray, Nadal, Ferrer, JMDP, Tsonga, Berdych. They are all at least in their mid-20's with, I think, the possible exception of JMDP who is a bit younger. They really learned to play the game 10+ years ago, before the homogenisation really began to bite. In the next 5 years new players will be emerging who learned to play during the 2000's, the era of homogenising conditions. It is to be expected that there'll be a lull when the superstars of the top 4 are no longer playing - that's perfectly normal and nothing to get into a twist about, it's part of life. However, it is to be hoped that the upper echelons of men's will continue to have variety even if they can't match the quality of the likes of Fed, Nadal and so-on. If they do not I think that there's a bleak time ahead for men's tennis until something is done to change. Nothing extreme, just changes which suggest that some young players might think it worth trusting in their net-play, using a SHBH and slice, as well as patroling the baseline and hitting heavy topspin on both wings.

i don't see that has that much to do with the surfaces. Let's look at Federer's generation. We have Roddick (straight up and down big serving baseliner); Nalbandian (stylish aggressive baseliner) and Hewitt (defensive baseliner). I guess we also have Ferrer; Davydenko and Safin in that group - defensive; aggressive and ultra-aggressive baseliners respectively.

Is that much different to the next generation? Dimitrov is an all-court player with touch and feel; Harrison is a big serving American with more ability at the net than Roddick; Raonic relies on a big serve and aggressive game and Tomic is more defensive, relying on changes of pace, different spins etc. If anything, they are more varied than Federer's generation. We are not seeing a whole bunch of Ferrer clones coming through.

What we are lacking is an out and out serve volleyer in the style of Rafter or Henman. I don't see that the courts are really to blame for that though. That had already occurred by the time the courts started to get slower in 2003 or so. It is a product of the graphite racquets and different coaching methods which started in the 90s onwards.

Look at what I said here:

The fans it attracts are those who are more lured by the 'athletic' element which should only be a small portion of the skills required by a tennis player. Tweaking of court speeds would change that. Fast courts does not automatically lend itself totally to the mercy of big servers. They need to do more than just serve!

Then look at what you said:

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.

Now that for me is far too generic to say fast conditions is just serve, serve and serve. You have missed the point completely by making the distinction that fast conditions is just aces. Volleying is vital. Had Sampras not been able to volley, he wouldn't have won 14 Slams.

The big servers of this generation are players 6'4 and over. There is no way that they could have the speed to carry such mass to the net to follow in a serve to volley.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Look at what I said here:

The fans it attracts are those who are more lured by the 'athletic' element which should only be a small portion of the skills required by a tennis player. Tweaking of court speeds would change that. Fast courts does not automatically lend itself totally to the mercy of big servers. They need to do more than just serve!

Then look at what you said:

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.

Now that for me is far too generic to say fast conditions is just serve, serve and serve. You have missed the point completely by making the distinction that fast conditions is just aces. Volleying is vital. Had Sampras not been able to volley, he wouldn't have won 14 Slams.

The big servers of this generation are players 6'4 and over. There is no way that they could have the speed to carry such mass to the net to follow in a serve to volley.

Yes, you are right, that if a big serve is backed up by a volley, then they have a brilliant formula for fast courts.
What I said was that serve is vital, which I still think it would be.

Also remember tennis has changed from the 90's. We never know. We speed up the courts, tamper with the rackets, and have smaller balls; then we could end up with whole tournaments where players like Karlovic barely get broken! I think personally we shouldn't tamper with the technology, but have some variety: i.e. some courts fast and some slow. That way different styles of players can prosper throughout the year.

It Must Be Love wrote:However lk, you did not answer my earlier question:

To what extent do you think fans need variety. If the top players all played from the baseline, but had totally different styles, different levels of aggression (i.e. we could have a power hitter who is 6"5 and someone like Ferrer who have completely different styles), is that enough?

This argument is from another thread, and both BarryStar and Born Slippy make fantastic points on this:

Born Slippy wrote:

barrystar wrote:
The bigger issue is variety of play, and that is a very long-term issue. Variety of play on the Tour derives from what coaches and young players decided will maximise their chances in the future. If the conditions are all the same when the Juniors are learning, the resulting senior players will increasingly look like one another to all but the most knowledgeable tennis watchers. I'd say that is the problem with the women's game now that the likes of Henin, Mauresmo, Hingis, Clijsters, Kuznetsova have ceased to play or compete at the top. In the current mens' top 8 there are a lot of quite different players - Fed, Djoko, Murray, Nadal, Ferrer, JMDP, Tsonga, Berdych. They are all at least in their mid-20's with, I think, the possible exception of JMDP who is a bit younger. They really learned to play the game 10+ years ago, before the homogenisation really began to bite. In the next 5 years new players will be emerging who learned to play during the 2000's, the era of homogenising conditions. It is to be expected that there'll be a lull when the superstars of the top 4 are no longer playing - that's perfectly normal and nothing to get into a twist about, it's part of life. However, it is to be hoped that the upper echelons of men's will continue to have variety even if they can't match the quality of the likes of Fed, Nadal and so-on. If they do not I think that there's a bleak time ahead for men's tennis until something is done to change. Nothing extreme, just changes which suggest that some young players might think it worth trusting in their net-play, using a SHBH and slice, as well as patroling the baseline and hitting heavy topspin on both wings.

i don't see that has that much to do with the surfaces. Let's look at Federer's generation. We have Roddick (straight up and down big serving baseliner); Nalbandian (stylish aggressive baseliner) and Hewitt (defensive baseliner). I guess we also have Ferrer; Davydenko and Safin in that group - defensive; aggressive and ultra-aggressive baseliners respectively.

Is that much different to the next generation? Dimitrov is an all-court player with touch and feel; Harrison is a big serving American with more ability at the net than Roddick; Raonic relies on a big serve and aggressive game and Tomic is more defensive, relying on changes of pace, different spins etc. If anything, they are more varied than Federer's generation. We are not seeing a whole bunch of Ferrer clones coming through.

What we are lacking is an out and out serve volleyer in the style of Rafter or Henman. I don't see that the courts are really to blame for that though. That had already occurred by the time the courts started to get slower in 2003 or so. It is a product of the graphite racquets and different coaching methods which started in the 90s onwards.

Remember this?

https://www.606v2.com/t31768-volley-don-t-blame-it-on-surfaces-don-t-blame-it-on-baselines-blame-it-on-the-players

I will give that a read LK

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Look at what I said here:

The fans it attracts are those who are more lured by the 'athletic' element which should only be a small portion of the skills required by a tennis player. Tweaking of court speeds would change that. Fast courts does not automatically lend itself totally to the mercy of big servers. They need to do more than just serve!

Then look at what you said:

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.

Now that for me is far too generic to say fast conditions is just serve, serve and serve. You have missed the point completely by making the distinction that fast conditions is just aces. Volleying is vital. Had Sampras not been able to volley, he wouldn't have won 14 Slams.

The big servers of this generation are players 6'4 and over. There is no way that they could have the speed to carry such mass to the net to follow in a serve to volley.

Yes, you are right, that if a big serve is backed up by a volley, then they have a brilliant formula for fast courts.
What I said was that serve is vital, which I still think it would be.

Also remember tennis has changed from the 90's. We never know. We speed up the courts, tamper with the rackets, and have smaller balls; then we could end up with whole tournaments where players like Karlovic barely get broken! I think personally we shouldn't tamper with the technology, but have some variety: i.e. some courts fast and some slow. That way different styles of players can prosper throughout the year.

Big serves tend not to get returned in my book. Sampras was a legend ghosting in behind his second serve. A competent S&V will serve average around 115-120mph mark because much of a S&V relies on the weakness of the return.

I am not asking for strings or racquets to be banned/outlawed. Infact I would like to see how well they would fare on fast courts.

LK, I think balance, variety, is key.

If we speed up all the courts, there is still homogenisation, except the world will be dominate by big servers, and skiled S=Vers, and we will have a lack of players with a baseline game and defensive skill.

Again IMBL you going overboard. All I have ever asked for is for Wimbledon to speed up. I am fine with how Melbourne Park plays and also with Roland Garros. Arthur Ashe could use a touch of speed to replicate that of it's other courts.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Again IMBL you going overboard. All I have ever asked for is for Wimbledon to speed up. I am fine with how Melbourne Park plays and also with Roland Garros. Arthur Ashe could use a touch of speed to replicate that of it's other courts.

I'm agreeing with you mate

I'm not saying that you're saying that we have to speed up all the surfaces, I just stated that as a statement.