It's time to speed things up, it really is

by lydian Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:26 pm

First topic message reminder :

David Ferrer, the ironman of tennis who cycles 90 miles per day through winter as training gets cramp today after lung bursting ralleys where neither man could hit winners due to retrieval and ralleying qualities in a 2.5 hr match that was just 3 sets.

During the match, Roddick, Karlovic, Darren Cahill and others tweeted:

ARod: I've seen everything now.... David ferrer cramping. I thought they would find Hoffa first
ARod: Conditions too slow...Guys dying playing 3 sets. So slow. Makes it impossible to hit winners which results in messed up winners/errors ratio

Karlovic: Men and women play with different balls. Men much slower balls...
Karlovic: Court and balls in Miami are too slow to play entertaining tennis. There is no winners, just unforced errors.
Karlovic: Playing on clay this week. Finally some faster courts..

Cahill: I take that 5 set final idea back. 3 sets of that style of tennis on these slow hard-courts is plenty. Well done to Muzza

Gilbert: Great effort from the Muzzard to get it done Winning Ugly
Gilbert: I have never seen Little beast Ferrerrr cramp in a 3 set match

Sergiy Stakhovsky : Ferrer & Murray both 0 aces in 3 sets..does that says something about the speed of the court & balls???

How many more pros does it take to complain about low quality and grind-fests before something is done! What do you think? Its been often cited that the 90's Wimbledon matches between Ivanisevic and Sampras, particularly the 94 Final, jump started this whole process of slowing down conditions towards surface homogenization. ATP have sat back seeing racquets get bigger, strings stiffer, balls larger and surfaces slower...and done nothing whilst ralleys have got longer and longer. All they have done is to reign in the 25s rule when conditions ate getting interminable. It smacks of rearranging deck chairs on the proverbial...

Do low quality, grind-fest matches like Murray-Ferrer (and even Djokovic-Murray, Nadal-Djokovic) prove that the ITF/ATP/WTA need to seriously consider speeding up some of the ridiculously slow conditions on tour such as AO, IW, Miami, etc, to bring back some much needed surface variety and hence balance? If not we're just going to get even more counterpunch ping-pong grind-fest finals on slow-as-treacle hardcourts - on clay ok, it's a surface that is challenging for movement and point building, but not on hard court where sliding movement is restricted and conditions even slower and high bouncing. What gives...

by socal1976 Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:41 pm

Danny_1982 wrote:Everyone seems to agree that some faster HC tournies and some faster grass tournies would be good for the game.

It seems where people disagree is where tennis is right now. Some people think the game is in trouble and desperately needs this change. Others - like me - think tennis is in a pretty good place and these changes would be improving an already good product.

Apart from that difference if opinion, we all seem to be agreeing (although you'd think we were arguing) what changes we'd like made. The only problem is.... I don't think there will be that much change. I think tournaments will be too worried that their tournament will be the fast one that goes by without any drama and without long dramatic rallies.

The fans like the long rallies and the tense matches. That is why they slowed the courts down. If most fans wanted to see quicker matches and quicker points the tournaments would change to speed things up. Now the purists can claim that this isn't what tennis should be etc. But the tournaments are trying to sell their product by making it as enjoyable to the masses as possible. They have a pretty good idea of what the fans like and try to give it to them.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:45 pm

That is it in a nutshell Danny.

I mean we know yesterday's final win wasn't Andy at his finest or David but look at the viewing crowd's reactions. I saw at least three rallies got lengthy standing ovations and didn't detect fans booing. That tells me they werein the camp that tennis is not in the awful place some people paint it.

by bogbrush Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:28 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:That is it in a nutshell Danny.

I mean we know yesterday's final win wasn't Andy at his finest or David but look at the viewing crowd's reactions. I saw at least three rallies got lengthy standing ovations and didn't detect fans booing. That tells me they werein the camp that tennis is not in the awful place some people paint it.

I guess if you go live and don't watch much tennis it would be fascinating. But the TV audience is a different animal; we/they see as much as they want and by now don't see these hour+ per set efforts as novelty.

I honestly dropped in and out of the Miami final; I suspect tennis now needs a partisan viewer - I'd have stuck it out if it had been Federer (though he'd have forced the game to be more rapid). In truth, I don't last all the way through most matches now.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:33 pm

So did you do a straw poll as the crowds ventured into the stadium prior to the final yesterday? I summise that they must have been pretty tennis-orientated as we know it was clashing with a big basketball match so I am sure if their interests lay elsewhere they wouldn't have bothered turning up.

by lydian Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:00 pm

I watched the match whilst doing other things, my son was watching some of it too but ended up playing Temple Run on the iPad as he was bored of the match (and he plays tennis 5 days per week). It only got interesting when Murray couldn't serve it out but I was a neutral so the outcome didn't matter to me. It wasn't a great match and I find Ferrer particularly dull to watch. I was really surprised it went beyond 6-4 6-4 to Murray.

Kind of shows how much surfaces have slowed when Ferrer has made 2 finals in the last 3 HC masters plus SF at AO. Great effort but he doesnt excel in any shot. To think Nadal beat him 6-0 6-2...maybe HC is better suited to Ferrer.

Anyway, sorry but it was turgid viewing at my end - a match that had 37 winners and 95 UEs!! It's those kind of stats that prompted this article...

by CaledonianCraig Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:07 pm

Yes lydian but are you presuming that was Murray and Ferrer at their best....far from it and both players alluded to it at the end. Murray's serving was rank (nothing to do with court speed) and when that is off it makes things difficult. Couple that with the time of the day of the match which atmospherically didn't help plus both players cancelling each other out and you got what you got.

by Calder106 Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:26 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes lydian but are you presuming that was Murray and Ferrer at their best....far from it and both players alluded to it at the end. Murray's serving was rank (nothing to do with court speed) and when that is off it makes things difficult. Couple that with the time of the day of the match which atmospherically didn't help plus both players cancelling each other out and you got what you got.

Stangely I had just looked that up as watching the match yesterday I too felt that the serving stats were really poor. According to the BBC site Murray served at 54% first serves in and got 2 aces, Ferrer served at 56% fisrt serve in and 4 aces. The service speeds at least for Murray were in the main well below his normal which as CC says is nothing to do with court speed.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:41 pm

Calder106 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes lydian but are you presuming that was Murray and Ferrer at their best....far from it and both players alluded to it at the end. Murray's serving was rank (nothing to do with court speed) and when that is off it makes things difficult. Couple that with the time of the day of the match which atmospherically didn't help plus both players cancelling each other out and you got what you got.

Stangely I had just looked that up as watching the match yesterday I too felt that the serving stats were really poor. According to the BBC site Murray served at 54% first serves in and got 2 aces, Ferrer served at 56% fisrt serve in and 4 aces. The service speeds at least for Murray were in the main well below his normal which as CC says is nothing to do with court speed.

I can't be certain but I suspect Andy is carrying a back problem/injury. He did refer to this early in the Miami Masters and I feel it is still bothering him as his serving stats were not great for the whole of the tournament.

by lydian Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:11 pm

I know it wasn't their best performance but I don't think it was a good match up for entertainment regardless. Forget about the serves, they dont necessarily make matches much quicker in slower conditions. Also, when its slower the UE count goes up.

Just think, had it not been 97 UEs the match might have lasted another 20 mins or so with ralleys going further. I'm quite happy for sets to last 35-40 mins, they can still be entertaining with some long ralleys but not every point. For what reason does a 3 set match have to last 3 hrs to be entertaining?

by CaledonianCraig Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:27 am

I disagree. The serve does matter. Better serving would have fore-shortened points somewhat and in turn the match. Going back to your original post then sure the ex-pros were emphasising on court speed but didn't catch any hint of them denigrating the entertainment on show or it being boring.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:35 am

Personally, for me as a Murray supporter it was uncomfortable viewing as his form was off. There were some great rallies but also too many unforced errors for my liking. Was this solely down to court speed? I think not. I mean look how different the semi-final against Gasquet was on the same court but at a different time of day.

by Guest Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:25 am

Murray I do believe asked for more grass courts after his semi final match.

I agree yes speed things up. Leave Miami and IW as they are after the AO and before clay so speeding up these events post and prior to slower playing events would be somewhat bizarre. Move Cinncy and make it grass. Speed up Toronto and the US Open and for the rest of the season have a mix of fast and slow.

I really struggle to see how this thread has 3 pages!!

by banbrotam Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:33 am

lydian wrote:Danny/socal/CC/banbrotam - so things are just perfect right now? is it such a crime to request changes that are so obviously needed? Re: changes, I don't get this polarity thing. Where is anyone suggesting we carpet the whole ATP tour into glasslike surfaces? Besides which if you believed Socal we're almost at 100% holds anyway. Socal, another wonderful strawman you built there about ALL changes made together. Edward Woodward would be proud of the size of a whickerman you could build.

Almost every article you can find on the topic, every pro or ex-pro interview talks about stopping the current uniformity, not speeding EVERYTHING up. Banbrotam mentions that he would listen more if rallying greats such as Wilander, Agassi and Courier spoke up about it. Actually they have been outspoken.

Courier in 2011:
The game has become more physical, the athletes are more physical, they are taller, stronger and faster; the game is elevated, partially because the equipment has made it easier for the athletes to play at a quicker rhythm......The only thing missing is some variety of court speeds so that we could see more of a variety of play, like the serve and volley. Those guys could be more successful if the courts were faster.

Wilander in 2010
WIMBLEDON's slowing grass courts are hastening the end of serve-volley in tennis, according to former world No.1 Mats Wilander. "I'm personally very disappointed (at) the way they are making Wimbledon these days. We're slowly losing the style of playing tennis which is the serve and volley." Wilander, Sweden's non-playing captain for this weekend's Davis Cup World Group playoff tie with India in New Delhi, said ideally players should mix serve and volley with a solid baseline game. "But we are slowly losing that because the grass courts in Wimbledon are getting slower and slower," said the 41-year-old, winner of seven grand slam titles in the 1980s.

Ok Mats is talking about grass but the point about slowing remains and he'd like a mix of S&V and baseline play there...and if at Wimb then the point stands for USO too. Courier is much clearer on the need to mx it up more.

Why do people keep bringing up the strawman 90s acefest argument? If you turn up the speed dial a couple of clicks you don't immediately go from 30+ shot ralleys to 30+ aces. It's a very lame and lazy counter argument.

Re:Cincy, the humidity there in summer is truly awful, oppressive and just as bad as Miami. I don't buy there's much difference. A faster surface is a faster surface. We've seen that IW is much slower this year already...does it take a neurosurgeon to work out that Miami might have gone down a similar path also?

For the future of the game and to stop degeneration into WTA tennis something needs to be done to restore a mix of styles on tour. But it's more than that, we need a catalyst for coaches to start teaching a wider range of skills before the tour loses a whole generation of guys who were highly adept upfront.

I love it when Sampras was asked about his style of play still cutting it today:
"I would play the same, I would get in (into net), chip and charge, put pressure on these guys, its just the only way I know how to play, I'm just all about coming in...My game would hold up in any generation I feel, like when I was at my best I felt unbeatable, technology's changed, its helped guys return a little bit but it would also help me out so it sort of evens out, MAN I LOVE GUYS STAYING BACK I JUST LICK MY CHOPS"

You have to love the predatory nature of those bolded words. The game is poorer without the ultra-aggressive guys like Sampras around. A bit more variety won't do any harm because I do not want to see many more ralleyfest dual counterpunch Murray-Ferrer finals. The future of our game needs something restoring...we can't change racquets that much, the cat is out the bag (although strings I have an issue with) but we can speed some conditions at some events to encourage the guys to get off that baseline!

Lydian. Yours was the strawman position. Not me, CCor Socal. If you read your article it gives the impression that you and those ex-players want fast conditions for hard courts and nothing else. Nowhere was there any perspective about the weather conditons or compliments for two great rerturners (which means more rallies). The article gives the impression that everything is bad about the current game - some of us vehemently disagree and can use numerous examples, i.e. Murray v Gasquet in the previous round

It's only now that you've finally said "A bit more variety won't do any harm" - I thoroughly agree with you and the considered comments of Jim Courier, who could really be quoting exactly what I think. Contrast that to the sulky comments of "I've no chance in these conditions" Karlovic or the smart alec Roddick

The fact you think the game is poorer without Sampras, shows how differently we see the game. I hated that repetitive serve and volley game (liked Sampras as a character, though) and he was obviously one of the reasons why the courts were slowed down, so I'm not in the minority.

Anyway variety is the spice of life and I'll go with LK's idea

by bogbrush Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:55 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:So did you do a straw poll as the crowds ventured into the stadium prior to the final yesterday? I summise that they must have been pretty tennis-orientated as we know it was clashing with a big basketball match so I am sure if their interests lay elsewhere they wouldn't have bothered turning up.

No, funny thing is I didn't. Did you think I had, or were you just avoiding the point?

If you look back I said that if you watch live tennis very rarely then doubtless an endless match is very fascinating, but less so to the TV audience who haven't made it their day out and aren't as committed to the experience.

by lydian Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:56 am

banbrotam wrote:It's only now that you've finally said "A bit more variety won't do any harm" - I thoroughly agree with you

Hey? Come on banbrotam, that's just plainly wrong.
The bottom of my unedited OP says "...to bring back some much needed surface variety and hence balance...". Sorry, I didn't put it originally in bold.

I don't think the game is poorer without Sampras per se. I think it's poorer without the conditions that allow guys like Sampras to be part of the mix rather than a generation of counterpunchers current conditions will result in.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:47 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:So did you do a straw poll as the crowds ventured into the stadium prior to the final yesterday? I summise that they must have been pretty tennis-orientated as we know it was clashing with a big basketball match so I am sure if their interests lay elsewhere they wouldn't have bothered turning up.
No, funny thing is I didn't. Did you think I had, or were you just avoiding the point?

If you look back I said that if you watch live tennis very rarely then doubtless an endless match is very fascinating, but less so to the TV audience who haven't made it their day out and aren't as committed to the experience.

Well that is just an assumption is it not? Since they were paying spectators it is fair to assume they are tennis fans who watch their fair share on television as well considering they could otherwise give it a miss and sit in and watch the popular sport of basketball.

End of the day it will be the powers that be that decides any wholesale changes. But will that be as a result of getting masses of complaints of boredom from fans or the self realisation that matches are boring from within the ATP? If we are to go by the last widescale changes then it will purely be on the ATP realising changes are needed.

by banbrotam Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:25 pm

lydian wrote:Hey? Come on banbrotam, that's just plainly wrong.
The bottom of my unedited OP says "...to bring back some much needed surface variety and hence balance...". Sorry, I didn't put it originally in bold.

Apologies. Missed by me and I read it carefully - looking for such a quote!! picard

by lydian Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:47 pm

No worries

by bogbrush Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:07 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:So did you do a straw poll as the crowds ventured into the stadium prior to the final yesterday? I summise that they must have been pretty tennis-orientated as we know it was clashing with a big basketball match so I am sure if their interests lay elsewhere they wouldn't have bothered turning up.
No, funny thing is I didn't. Did you think I had, or were you just avoiding the point?

If you look back I said that if you watch live tennis very rarely then doubtless an endless match is very fascinating, but less so to the TV audience who haven't made it their day out and aren't as committed to the experience.

Well that is just an assumption is it not? Since they were paying spectators it is fair to assume they are tennis fans who watch their fair share on television as well considering they could otherwise give it a miss and sit in and watch the popular sport of basketball.

End of the day it will be the powers that be that decides any wholesale changes. But will that be as a result of getting masses of complaints of boredom from fans or the self realisation that matches are boring from within the ATP? If we are to go by the last widescale changes then it will purely be on the ATP realising changes are needed.

What it is is me saying that the experience of watching your local Masters event live on a day out with family & friends is different from catching it on TV. And I didn't need to conduct interviews in the queues to work that out, either.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:23 pm

Yes it is different but does that alter the enjoyment/boredom. Also look on pages on ATP site and there are a large number of infuriated posters furious at CBS for leaving the tennis early for basketball. Not many (if any) thanking CBS for ending any perceived torture so you see the TV audience seemed to find enough entertainment in the match as well.

Don't get me wrong I found it tough watching Andy struggle with his form and fitness. Not great even though he won in the end.

by lydian Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:27 pm

Lets put it this way, the next time there's a Murray-Ferrer final you're going to find an awful lot of people finding better things to do whilst they SkyPlus the match for skimming through later.

I mean, come on we're almost talking Granollers-Istomin match up... Run

by Guest Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:33 pm

Not so sure lydian. It was theatre for the crowd, though more keen observers draw the line when the players can barely serve or walk!

by socal1976 Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:29 pm

We keep hearing how viewers and fans will leave the sport unless the wishes of the purist minority take place but yet players are getting 1.5 million for exhibitions for 3 sets, prize money is growing at a much faster rate than inflation during a global recession, and the fact that CBS would even televise a masters match during the weekend without any americans or fedal is a good sign and not a bad sign. Again, Nadal said it best I have never seen the fans standing O after an ace, they do it routinely during these long rallies with athletic gets. That is why the tournaments slowed down in the first place. Why it will be good for the marketability of the game to favor shorter points and more aces at the expense of fan pleasing rallies is lost on me. As no evidence or case has been provided as why that is the case except for the anectodal and subjective opinion of a few online purists. By the way, I am assuming the ATP understands what is the best strategy to market their own product better than we do. That is why they slowed the game down anyway. If the tournaments and broadcasters felt that the game would sell better with more variety and more speedy conditions they would do it. If they thought they could get more money for dressing the players up in renaissance costumes they would do it. The fact that they don't make these changes tells me that they are happy with slow conditions and feel that the game is most enjoyable to the largest amount of fans in this manner. Maybe they are wrong, but the last decade or so would cut against those that argue that the game is awful, dying, and need of drastic overhaul. It just isn't, and you can't resurrect the ghost of S and V without drastically throwing away what we have.

by bogbrush Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:44 pm

Look, I couldn't care less about about taking a poll, here's the facts as is fairly clear if you've watched tennis for a long time;

- universal slow tennis is homogenous and we don't get the interest of watching the greats take on specialists on their courts.
- whole parts of the game are vanishing into obscurity as we watch the baseline drill become the predominant way of playing.
- as variety falls away so does the challenge to players to master a broader range of skills. Neither of the two top players can volley to a level that, say, Tim Henman could as a teenager, and though Federer has a reputation as a volleyer he doesn't do it anywhere near to the standard required when he was young.
- the great Holy Grail challenges (Career Slams, RG / W doubles) are cheapened as the events become harder to distinguish from each other.
- increasingly, fitness decides tennis matches. A number of recent Slam finals have been pure endurance challenges, and it's becoming equally commonplace in the three set format.

I find all the above rather sad.

by Guest Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:09 pm

I've never really prescribed to the too slow courts thing before, to me the games been on such a high the last 9 years or soo, and it still is...

Now Federers getting a lil older and Nadal's not been around, and especially since their matches have been getting less... i dunno i don't wanna say competitive but maybe less keenly contested, I am starting to see Lydians point a little...

Those guys brought the tennis to the level of heart stopping long rallies but still kept every skill, they're just a great contrast... the iron wall versus the paintbrush, etc etc but the guys nowadays have the same brilliant ability with a raquet, but they play very similarly, because current conditions dictate it and thats what can make it a bit dull sometimes.

The Miami final was a bit of an extreme one, a court that slow has no place somewhere that hot, but the lack of varying court speeds and such does seem to be homogenizing them a little.

Of course we don't want the other extreme of the mid 90's but going from one extreme to the other isn't great good points don't NEED to be long, in fact if theyre all long they lose their sparkle, watch Federer vs Nalbandian in the 05 TMC (before he got podgy), those wern't long rallies, but they were great.

Tennis is a game of many skills, should make sense to have tournaments for every skill, that even means ones that favour the serve every now and then.

by theslosty Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:17 pm

bogbrush wrote:Look, I couldn't care less about about taking a poll, here's the facts as is fairly clear if you've watched tennis for a long time;

- universal slow tennis is homogenous and we don't get the interest of watching the greats take on specialists on their courts.
- whole parts of the game are vanishing into obscurity as we watch the baseline drill become the predominant way of playing.
- as variety falls away so does the challenge to players to master a broader range of skills. Neither of the two top players can volley to a level that, say, Tim Henman could as a teenager, and though Federer has a reputation as a volleyer he doesn't do it anywhere near to the standard required when he was young.
- the great Holy Grail challenges (Career Slams, RG / W doubles) are cheapened as the events become harder to distinguish from each other.
- increasingly, fitness decides tennis matches. A number of recent Slam finals have been pure endurance challenges, and it's becoming equally commonplace in the three set format.

I find all the above rather sad.

This.

It is very difficult to argue against any of those points.

by banbrotam Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:42 pm

lydian wrote:Lets put it this way, the next time there's a Murray-Ferrer final you're going to find an awful lot of people finding better things to do whilst they SkyPlus the match for skimming through later

It's more simple than that. Even I dread these two players meeting as it's such a bad match up.

When Murray and Roger play, it doesn't matter what court 75% of their matches are at least good, with at least a quarter being in the great category. Be interesting to see these two on Clay!!

by socal1976 Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:55 pm

bogbrush wrote:Look, I couldn't care less about about taking a poll, here's the facts as is fairly clear if you've watched tennis for a long time;

- universal slow tennis is homogenous and we don't get the interest of watching the greats take on specialists on their courts.
- whole parts of the game are vanishing into obscurity as we watch the baseline drill become the predominant way of playing.
- as variety falls away so does the challenge to players to master a broader range of skills. Neither of the two top players can volley to a level that, say, Tim Henman could as a teenager, and though Federer has a reputation as a volleyer he doesn't do it anywhere near to the standard required when he was young.
- the great Holy Grail challenges (Career Slams, RG / W doubles) are cheapened as the events become harder to distinguish from each other.
- increasingly, fitness decides tennis matches. A number of recent Slam finals have been pure endurance challenges, and it's becoming equally commonplace in the three set format.

I find all the above rather sad.

I don't want the surface specialists to come back, yeah the world number one losing to Juan pablowhosits who trains all year for 2 months of the year to ambush a bigger name player. That was one of the problems with the French open for many years. Tennis is not now and never has been a fitness contest, it is important and crucial but there is no bar to healthy athletes attaining great fitness watch triatholons all those thousands of people are fitter than the fittest tennis player. Players today have as broad if not a broader set of skills as anytime in the past, both Murray and Djoko that you mentioned are very able volleyers which you don't want to acknowledge. Now you can't hide a mcenroe forehand or another weak wing like you could in the past.

So I dispute a great many of your points, the surface specialists who sell out their training and technique for part of the season are a relic I am glad no longer exist.

by bogbrush Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:04 pm

Great, we finally understand our positions.

I loved Pete Sampras killing Wimbledon yet being found short of winning on clay. It gave context to his skills and of course set up the ultimate tests for the truly now all court player. And it made one watch in awe at Borg and his incredible Summers.

As for broader skills...... well, what can I say?

by lydian Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:22 pm

Broader...hmmm...doesnt necessarily mean deeper though, i.e. it has a certain synonymity with 'jack of all trades, ....'

by Calder106 Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:33 pm

I don't see many people having an issue with variation of speeds of courts and I don't either but in my opinion its not going to make too much difference in who will get to the latter stages of the tournaments. You may get one player breaking through in certain events but I don't think it would change things too much. For instance Dubai, Djokovic has won at least four times so far . Cincinatti, Murray has won twice so far. These are meant to be some of the faster courts for the bigger tournaments. So they can obviously can play fast as well as slow. (Murray on clay so far excepting).

by lydian Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:39 pm

Maybe, maybe not. But there's a bigger picture than the present Top4 - the future of tennis. What it would do is to encourage kids coming through, via their coaches, to adopt a more aggressive mindset and playing style, that will truly broaden the skill base and create more contrasts of styles again down the track.

by Calder106 Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:58 pm

Not really only talking about the top four here but think that Tennis is falling in line with a number of other sports at the moment as they have become more professional. That is there are two sides to the game and defence is as important as attack. I know and agree that often this can be negative but you have to adapt your game to how your opponent plays especially where your not playing your best. The top players in the main can do both depending on who they are playing and whether their game is on song.

by socal1976 Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:07 am

Calder106 wrote:Not really only talking about the top four here but think that Tennis is falling in line with a number of other sports at the moment as they have become more professional. That is there are two sides to the game and defence is as important as attack. I know and agree that often this can be negative but you have to adapt your game to how your opponent plays especially where your not playing your best. The top players in the main can do both depending on who they are playing and whether their game is on song.

Exactly, I mean is the big knock on today's tennis that pro tennis players have to be too fit? Exacting standards of endurance and fitness is the evil we are asked to prevent? Speed, fitness, and professionalism should be encouraged in any sport and across the board in all modern sports these things are increasing in value.

by bogbrush Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:08 am

The flaw in this argument is that tennis is largely an aesthetic sport; the emphasis on endurance means that the advantage falls to the super-fit guy with limited skill (see David Ferrer) over the flair player.

You are fond of quoting the idea that there are no standing ovations for aces. Well let me say that there are very few fondest memories of simply very, very long matches based on unforced error counts. People remember great shots and great plays; great match ups and contrasts of skills.

So actually I WOULD endorse a sport which allows the mega-talented to put more emphasis on his virtuosity than his fitness. For me, the virtuosity is the priority.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:28 am

I wouldn't say fitness is a sign of professionalism. If anything it is playing to the core strength of those that can achieve greater levels of fitness.

Frankily the position tennis is in at the moment has taken a lot of the skill out of the game. Technological advances have made players much lazier. In a similar way to golf. Racquet heads are bigger and the strings more forgiven. Like golf with bigger sweet spots on the club face. All about forgiving average and poor shots. The whole concept of the match won on the guy's racquet is so far from that nowadays that it is almost the match is lost on the other guy's racquet.

No-one is denying that the current crop are talented. Question is with the conditions far easier to adjust to, are they really demonstrating the vast array of skills on a tennis court?

Nothing wrong with 'Surface Specialists' hell it would make it much more interesting and competitive for those who are suppose to be top of the game.

Like BB said Sampras romping Wimbledon was great to see because he failed at the FO each year. Like Federer did too and like Nadal struggles at the US Open despite domminating the FO. Lendl and Wilander could never capture Wimbledon.

Tennis should be a sport that challenges every player in every possible way and challenges that talent.

by HM Murdock Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:38 am

I agree that we could do with more variety in surface speed but I also think that tennis will eventually find its own way away from the extreme baseline orientation it presently has.

Tennis is an ongoing cycle of working out how to beat the player at the top.

Fed was dominating but Nadal was able to crack the code with that forehand to backhand match up.

Nadal then looked set to dominate and then in Djokovic we got a player who not only had a potent enough backhand to absorb Nadal's forehand, he had the fitness to outlast him too.

Solving the 'Djokovic Problem' is now the order of the day and it looks like there has been a breakthrough - variety.

The clues were always there.

Federer was always the player most capable of getting Novak on the ropes. This was due to his range of shot making.

Andy's run of success against Novak last year came when he mixed things up, used lots of slice and stopped Novak finding rhythm. It's when he stopped doing this (Shanghai, WTF and AO) that the success dried up.

And in Indian Wells, Del Potro was forced by injury to use a crazy amount of sliced shots and, again, Djokovic struggled.

So the next step is now obvious but it comes down to the players.

Will they be content to play Djokovic-lite and aim to get to the latter stages of tournaments, get some decent ranking points before losing to a player who plays that style better?

Or will they do what is necessary to actually beat a Djokovic game and expand their ability to employ greater variety?

And this to me is the great factor. Yes, variety in court speeds may force players hands. But ultimately we need players with the bravery and talent to attempt to be different.

by bogbrush Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:11 am

This is true, for sure.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:37 am

Decent and solid summary there HM. Nothing to add and nothing to argue that point either

by HM Murdock Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:54 pm

And with regard to court speed, rather than tinkering with the hard courts, I'd prefer to see a Masters each on grass, wood and carpet!

Let's get some proper variety!

by CaledonianCraig Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:23 pm

Absolutely spot on HM.

by socal1976 Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:44 pm

I agree with HM, there is no need to ban technology and dramatically alter the game to satisfy the vocal minority. The game evolves and some minor tweeks here and there will have a significant impact over time. Players and coaches work out a way to adjust their skills and strategy to overcome the best player of the day and the game evolves organically without the need for massive overhaul all the time.

by socal1976 Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:49 pm

I disagree completely with people who want the surface specialists back. Everyone talks about a narrowing skills set, and then simultaneously they bemoan the fact that the one trick ponies of the past have left the game. A player who sells out his training and technique so he can ambush better players 2-3 months out of the year is a de facto cheater in my book. And no Pete Sampras was not a surface specialist. He was a great player who did his best on a faster surface. Just like Nadal isn't a srface specialist.

by LuvSports! Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:55 pm

who would you say were surface specialists socal? I am interested to see who you put.

by bogbrush Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:09 pm

socal1976 wrote:I disagree completely with people who want the surface specialists back. Everyone talks about a narrowing skills set, and then simultaneously they bemoan the fact that the one trick ponies of the past have left the game. A player who sells out his training and technique so he can ambush better players 2-3 months out of the year is a de facto cheater in my book. And no Pete Sampras was not a surface specialist. He was a great player who did his best on a faster surface. Just like Nadal isn't a srface specialist.

"A player who sells out his training and technique" What the Hell is that supposed to mean? Give me half a dozen examples of people who won big in the past who did this. I doubt it's possible.

I guess you just love homogenised conditions favouring lung busting baseliners, I really think that's sunk in now.

by lydian Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:10 pm

I think the point is that the less uniformity you have the more specialists come along as they can focus on the quicker or slower events through the year. At the moment, as Janko Tipsarevic said everywhere plays the same so everyone is a "generalist"!

by CaledonianCraig Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:38 pm

Variety is a confusing word here.

Those wishing a return to all-fast hard and grass courts are going to get variety of court speeds but aside from serve and volleyers winning more tournaments are we going to see that much more shot variety? The top players of today have a great wealth of variety in their shots with all forms of slice and spin applied to drop shots and lobs and all are pretty well-versed in all the shots in the book. In short variety in abundance. I may be being naive but that is how I see it.

by Born Slippy Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:21 pm

You won't see serve volleyers winning tournaments even if they sped up the courts. Henman was a dinosaur in his time - its no coincidence that the next generation (Hewitt, Roddick etc) were all baseliners. That was the way tennis was going BEFORE the courts slowed down. Is anyone seriously trying to argue that Raonic can't serve volley because the courts are too slow?

I'm completely in favour of speeding up some of the tournaments but it will still be a baseline dominated game regardless of the surface. That's the way tennis moved 20 years ago, not just when the courts slowed down.

by socal1976 Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:46 am

Born Slippy wrote:You won't see serve volleyers winning tournaments even if they sped up the courts. Henman was a dinosaur in his time - its no coincidence that the next generation (Hewitt, Roddick etc) were all baseliners. That was the way tennis was going BEFORE the courts slowed down. Is anyone seriously trying to argue that Raonic can't serve volley because the courts are too slow?

I'm completely in favour of speeding up some of the tournaments but it will still be a baseline dominated game regardless of the surface. That's the way tennis moved 20 years ago, not just when the courts slowed down.

Born Slippy, I can't agree with you more, the serve and volley player has really been slowly losing ground against the power baseliner since the advent of the graphite and composite racquet. Players like Rafter and Sampras where few and far between even in the fast court 90s. Players like Nalby, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Muster, and even Kafelnikov and Chang (who some now claim where forecourt players) were principally baseline players who rarely serve and volleyed. The serve and volley heyday of the 70s and 80s was losing steam way before the courts were slowed. In order to reverse that trend we basically have to make the men play with wooden racquets and gut strings. Should we change the game so dramatically to bring back a style of playing that was dying away even before the slowdown? Slightly quicker courts or minor technology changes will not end baseline dominance to do that we would have to radically change the game and lose what we have, which frankly most fans enjoy.

by bogbrush Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:02 am

Again with moving the goalposts; nobody is saying we go back to Laver, we're saying that there is a balance that can be struck so that

- around the calendar, different environments showcase different specialities of the game, with a truly extraordinary player required to achieve across all
- sufficient variety exists to allows all aspects of the game to get a fair shout, so we don't see what is essential an aesthetic, artistic game turn predominantly into an athletic pursuit.

We've had this balance achieved for much of the last 40 years, and we don't have to go back to wooden racquets to find it. That's a false choice (again).

P.S. 90's included Becker, Edberg and Henman as well as Sampras, Rafter. There were some stunning volleyers, and earlier on no reward for an incompetent volleyer like Lendl at Wimbledon. Even Cash saw him off there, winning it from the forecourt.

by Sponsored content