Where is tennis heading?

First topic message reminder :

Seems that I'm no alone in finding this one of the most boring finals in years. You have to admire the fitness levels and the retrieval skills but the sheer power over shot making and variety?

It makes you wonder if the demise of Federer also heralds a new era in which just how many times you've worked out in the gym is worth so much more than pure talent and inventiveness on the tennis court. Don't get me wrong there's lots to admire in both Djokovic's and Murray's respective games but put the two together on the same court at the same time and today's match is what you get.

The toll on the players' bodies is a real issue here. Djokovic's powers of recovery maybe legendary but Nadal's knees have paid a seemingly high price from his exertions in these modern day marathon matches. Murray's obviously worked out harder than most to compete which is obviously why he could outlast a fading Federer.

And where's everybody else? Simon couldn't even move his feet against Murray after his exertions in beating Monfils, Ferrer may as well not bothered turning up against Djokovic and none of the youngsters provided anything of a challenge at all. Wawrinka was the only guy outside the usual suspects who appeared to be up for the fight and he was outlasted to no-one's surprise by that awesome retrieving and sheer determination to win at all costs from Novak. Was it pretty? Bloody more like.

The very nature though of these increasingly hard hit baseline rallies means that sooner or later even the likes of Djokovic is going to find recovery for the next match an impossiblity. OK he looked good against Berdych before destroying Ferrrer but then today looked like he'd run out of gas for large periods of the match.

Murray naturally was way too fit and focused for a sadly largely spent Federer but where was all the fight that was needed to see off Djokovic? Was it too much of a case of Murray's strengths simply playing to Novak's? Where were the thrilling rallies and the creativity that this games is best associated with or can we reallly expect more of the same in the next few years when these two inevitably find themselves outlasting all other opposition?

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

I already explained that coming forward to finish off a dead point isn't variety, legendkiller just provided the killer stat to refute your misleading one.

I know it's been a few years, but net play used to mean following the serve in, or playing an approach shot and going to the net knowing your opponent has a good play on the ball

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said elsewhere Danny I just think he went too passive after winning the first set.

Yeah that's what I'm seeing now Craig. What was he thinking though? Did 2012 teach him nothing? Absolutely bizarre.... And infuriating.

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

Sorry why irrelevant? you, imbl, and Socal have been banging the drum about how great was Djokovic today at the net and someone told you he made 4, yes 1 each hour, volleys and you say it is irrelevant. Why is that??

Lets say they played an average of 6 ralleys per point...265 points total...that's say around 1590 strokes...or around 800 each (seems conservative actually). So 4 volleys out of 800 strokes is 0.5% ... That's variety!

The best volley Djokovic did was when he punted the high tennis ball from Murray with his left foot later in the match.

At least Djokovic made an attempt to attack - I'm not sure why people say Murray is the man with the variety and his talent is on par with Federer's...

So it seems lydian.

I am glad some of you remember what net play consisted of.

theslosty wrote:At least Djokovic made an attempt to attack - I'm not sure why people say Murray is the man with the variety and his talent is on par with Federer's...

Of course Murray has great variety. He can play on the baseline, 2 metres behind it, has great volleys, great feel, great power, great slice... The fact that he doesn't approach the net as much as he should is a frustration... But not using a weapon shouldn't be confused with not having it.

Modern strings and racquets make repeated volleying a no-no. To be far none of the players venture forward much these days, even Federer.

lydian wrote:Modern strings and racquets make repeated volleying a no-no. To be far none of the players venture forward much these days, even Federer.

True, it's useful as a surprise tactic, or with a prefect approach shot, but to do it regularly is just asking to lose.

I did feel it was a bit boring at time as it was a case of which player was going to get tired of returning and pull the trigger to end the point. That is why I think Djokovic was frustrated as he got impatient and pulled that trigger only to make silly errors.

Also, vs Federer, Murray kept going to his b/h which made it a bit tedious to watch. The fear to take on a f/h return was amazing. Fine, that maybe a tactic or game plan but its boring. Where were the exchanges at the net or the volleying or even half volleys? Not saying Federer is the most entertaining to watch and the death of tennis is round the corner but at least there is some entertainment.

What Novak hit 4 volleys? Where did that statistic come from the George Bush 2 admnistration? Oh drive volleys aren't volleys, coming to the net doesn't count unless you come up on the first ball? I am done even argueing these points anymore, certain people don't like the tennis being played and the player. But 4 volleys? I want confirmation of this because it sounds absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical, I watched the match he hit at least 10 drive volleys and many more traditional volleys as well. Whatever you guys can into mourning for the next few years and I will enjoy the tennis.

Yep JHM, it's so much easier to pass now, modern strings give RPM and speed, racquets have bigger sweetspots and power too...plus new strings dont have the feel of gut either...all that makes an aggressively powerful dipping volley extremely hard to pick up and place. Even the greats like Edberg, Mac and Sampras would have struggled in today's spin/power era to assert their games.

Tennis has sold its soul to the baseline in a manner of ways that make it hard to reverse, it's not just racquet tech.

Socal it's on the match statistics on the official AO website.

Does this mean conspiracy corner?

Your next post better be spectacular lydian

4 volleys LK, are you guys blind. Are you talking volleys or serve and volleys? That is either a typo or they had a functional special counting the numbers. He hit half a dozen drive volleys, overheads are also volleys. IE the ball doesn't and you hit it in the air. Furthermore I challenge anyone to watch that match and claim there were 4 volleys hit by djokovic. I don't care what the website said I watched the damn match.

The person who counted that stat is mentally deficient, possibly blind, and wouldn't know a volley if bit him on the asss.

Are drive volleys now not volleys, smashing the ball in the air before it bounces not a volley. Djokovic came to net a great deal and without that variation, especially early when his forehand was off he wouldn't of won.

i saw 40 min of highlights and there weren't more than a couple of volleys in there. Sorry Soc, but between you and the official stats, i trust the latter.

I don't mind counting the volleys if someone can devise a way of waking me up when one occurs.



emancipator

I don't see the point of arguing the toss on volleys...it's clear to see the game is almost all baseline now...where its 4 volleys or 40, is still only either 0.5 or 5% of all shots played. The day I see Djokovic playing high backhand smash winners (ala Henman or Rafter) and the low "off-volley" from the BH side (ala Sampras) I'll then think Djokovic can play a little up front but let's not beat about the bush, it's nearly all put away or stop volley stuff from drilled groundie replies.

Get him on Queen's grass with a wooden racquet and gut vs Llodra...!

Yes and jK, the guy didn't count drive volleys or overheads and he didn't even count traditional volleys either. In short an idiot who has no idea what a volley is counted that stat. I know lets change the name of drive volleys to groundstrokes. JK you entitled to your opinion the man cae up 41 times in 4 sets, and no one gives him credit for coming in 2 or 3 times his opponent. This stat is an obvious typo. The stats said he came in 41 times, are you saying that murray failed to get the ball back to or passed him 90 percnt of the time? I know there has never been a typo on any website in history, that is more believable a conjecture than Djokovic hitting 4 volleys.

I have seen him hit that backhand smash volley and that stretch drop volley, maybe you need to watch him more lYdian, but since you don't like his style it is fair not to watch him much. But if you don't watch him play much it isn't fair to make judgements about his game.

I would turn off the tennis if they played with wooden racquets I would find it bizarre and dull.

There's two ways of looking at volleys;

1. The dictionary definition of a ball that's hasn't bounced, or

2. The thing were all thinking of, about a guy taking a driven ball below shoulder height, out in front of him, off a shot from an opponent with a play. I think that was what the guy doing the stats was thinking of and he didn't put overheads in. And rightly, imho.

I watch Djokovic a lot social. I don't mind watching him play at all...just not against Murray.
Come, come social...you're not really trying to equate Novak's net skills with Sampras, Rafter and Henman are you? Seriously?

No, but the shots you claim he can't hit I have seen him hit a number of times. And I challenge anyone to watch the match and count his volleys in the 5th game OF THE FIRST BLOODY SET HE HITS TWO DRIVE VOLLEYS ON BACK TO BACK POINTS. Obviously this aussie tard didn't count drive volleys either, and I doubt he even counted traditional volleys. What a nonsense stat to be trumpetting. Go to the 5th game and watch it from 40-30, in the first set. So BB do drive volleys not count either. By the way you want to hit a drive volley and just about every shot in front of your body.

Lydian I didn't compare his volleying to any of those guys, but no one gives him credit for consistenly coming in a large number of times more than Nadal and murray in virtually every match I have seen between the three in recent year. He had two or three times more net approaches than Murray at the USO as well. But all we hear is how he has no variety. With respect to you I find it a load of hogwash. He has pro level competence on every shot with the exception of his overhead which is kind of a bizarre side arm swing that he gets very tight on in big moments. He didn't miss one in the final and hit quite a few overheads, but he got lucky he almost shanked two of them.

To Scotland if Andy Murray can win Wimbledon and the US Open this year.

I don't dispute he's an able volleyer, infact most top pros are to be fair. Novak does come in and shows a degree of variety at the net when there but none of them come in regularly. Lets not forget all these guys play tennis 7 days/week...many of us would become great volleyers if we had 20 years of doing nothing else but hone our tennis skills. Sometimes we hoist these guys just a little too high up the pedestal...the difference in skills between a top 200 and top10er aren't as great as you'd think and any decent guy with good hand/eye co-ord could become pro player standard in my opinion if given the resources to do so. It's just that many fall by the wayside for many reasons on the way up and the game can only support so many pro's.

Anyway, it's not meant to be comparative, just that most Djokovic/Murray ralleys are decided on groundstroke winners or errors. I don't really go on about the lack of volleying as much now as the conditions are here to stay and even the genuine all-courter Federer finds it hard to come to the net often these days. To be honest it's good to see any of them coming in...rare as it is.

Indeed, I was trying to paint a picture of a shot that equates to the thing we call a volley. I think a drive volley is a different thing from that, in fact a drive volley is really less volley and more groundstroke in form, if you know what I mean.

This sort of thing, like at 0:41

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CeNRgisN4Gc

lydian wrote:I don't dispute he's an able volleyer, infact most top pros are to be fair. Novak does come in and shows a degree of variety at the net when there but none of them come in regularly. Lets not forget all these guys play tennis 7 days/week...many of us would become great volleyers if we had 20 years of doing nothing else but hone our tennis skills. Sometimes we hoist these guys just a little too high up the pedestal...the difference in skills between a top 200 and top10er aren't as great as you'd think and any decent guy with good hand/eye co-ord could become a pro player in my opinion if given the resources to do so. It's just that many fall by the wayside for many reasons on the way up.

Anyway, it's not meant to be comparative, just that most Djokovic/Murray ralleys are decided on groundstroke winners or errors. I don't really go on about the lack of volleying as much now as the conditions are here to stay and even the genuine all-courter Federer finds it hard to come to the net often these days. To be honest it's good to see any of them coming in...rare as it is.

That is what I don't get though in your assessment you deem Djokovic as unvaried but he comes in way more than Nadal or Murray and yet you don't make the same assessment of those two players in fact I might be mistaken but I have heard you talk up murray's variety. Frankly, I think all of the top guys have worked hard to become all court players that can do everything on the court if pressed. Novak has improved his slice bh, his volleys, his serve, has reworked his forehand etc. Don't get me wrong you don't have to like his style, I just think that you may want to look with a bit more of an open mind if you chose to watch him. For example variety isn't just S and V, if that is the only measure of variety than basically no one on tour has any variety. The man has great drop shots, incredible offensive and defensive lobs, and is much improved in the other measures of variety previously discussed.

I put Nadal and Murray on a par volley wise, Djokovic less so. Dont forget Nadal has had the most success in doubles out of the top 4. Novak is an able volleyer, I've watched him, but he's nowhere near a great volleyer. Nadal or Murray aren't true "great" volleyers either but are more skilled at the net IMO. But they're all ballpark.
I agree variety isn't jut about adding in S&V but I wasn't the one putting forward that argument.

Yep BB, nice to see some old fashioned and proper volleying...Henman and Edberg had fantastic SHBHs too. Edberg was well known to be able to topspin a 2nd serve up over your head on grass such was the amount of spin he got on it with that huge back action.

Yes lydian but the term robotic doesn't make me think that you have a high opinion of Djokovic's variety.

Oh he can vary his game alright but sometimes he gets into a patten of play where he drills the balls down the lines like you would do in practice routines....left...right...left...right...etc. He's highly effective but it just doesn't excite me watching him. I still think he needs Nadal or Federer to bring out the best of his game, whereas the reverse isn't true of them. We can go back and forth on this...he's a truly great player and I like to watch him in finals vs Fed or Nadal but I don't go out of my way to catch his matches...there is still something for me that lacks the X factor and I can't easily put my finger on it. Maybe it's lingering memories of how he was a few years ago before this amazing transformation.

The best match he was in was vs Wawrinka but then I could watch Stan's shotmaking all day, especially THAT SHBH - probably the best in the game today.

bogbrush wrote:You'll excuse some of us for mentioning that we did warn of this a few years ago.

Yep....

These days I prefer to watch highlights of tennis matches from the 1980s and 1990s on ESPN Classics, when we had some damn good S&V players....

I can't see this Australia Open final making the ESPN Classics in 2030.

It really is hilarious how the art of volleying is being discussed here. People are slating yesterday's match for lack of volleying well I am sorry folks but to do that you need the correct speed of surface. And if the pace of courts increase you will see more volleys and as Djokovic and Murray are the most adaptible players out there they will adapt their play accordingly. On the boring issue of the match watch for an item I shall post later this evening.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

Sorry why irrelevant? you, imbl, and Socal have been banging the drum about how great was Djokovic today at the net and someone told you he made 4, yes 1 each hour, volleys and you say it is irrelevant. Why is that??

I'm loath to wade back in to this debate but I can't resist such low-hanging fruit.

The answer is the bit you have quoted (did you bother to read it?). The accusation was lack of variety. I refuted this by pointing out that Novak played 41 net points.

Net points are not the same as playing on the baseline. They are different and are therefore variety.

Now for some reason, certain people on here decided that net points couldn't possibly count as variety unless they were a volley. Which is odd because that's not what variety means. Not only in the common usage of the word but in tennis terms too - 'net points' do not mean 'volley' and yet they are considered different enough to merit their own count in the match stats.

It's also odd because the guy who won the tournament also considered the net points as something different. In response to the question "anything different you did to the US Open?" he responded:

Yeah, I tried to be more aggressive... came to the net quite often. I was quite successful in that percentage, so it worked well for me.

Now call me crazy but if the world's best tennis player considers coming to the net as doing something different i.e. variety, then I'm inclined to take his definition over that of some of the wise old sages on this forum.

I trust that clears things up.

Also HM, it doesn't count as variety if you can't volley as well as Edberg

Like I stated earlier variety comes in various guises such as range of shots on display and we got that yesterday. Some people cannot accept any form of tennis except that played by their favourite player when he wins.

I thinnk we saw variety yesterday, it's just variety 2013 style.

Thus, it was astonishing to see Andy and Novak switch between 6 shot backhand to backhand exchanges, then sometimes stretching them out to 8 or even 14+, then surprising us all by taking it back down to 6. I didn't know what was coming next!

Can't believe he only hit 4 volleys, drive volleys alone was probably at least 4.

Looking now. You have to click, oddly enough, on "rally stats". 4 is the total number of winning volleys, it's 7 including errors. That looks very low, still. I also wonder if that didn't include drive volleys. Overhead (an additional 10) is shown separately.

Anyway, Djokovic was certainly at the net more than Murray, by any metric, and no player I saw in the whole tournament was coming to the net, say, 30-40% of the time. It is a function of the surfaces, strings etc isn't it, as we've discussed before.

Djokovic is obviously not a natural volleyer and would have struggled to win 90s Wimbledon even though he would have worked harder on the shot.

HB - this was discussed on another thread. For example, if Djoko hit 3 volleys in a rally and Murray hit his final return into the net, then none of Djoko's volleys would show up in the stats (as none would have been winners or unforced errors)

Good point - should have thought of that - thanks. Do Djokovic hit at least 7 volleys, but equally might have hit 10 or 20 we don't really know.