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

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...

But thats still Five hours though. So the rallies are still extended. I think skill-wise, Agassi is good enough to live with these guys, no matter what he says.


www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/01/agassi-australia-theres-no-mens-depth-issue/46183/

Its just that he did have back issues...

Yep, extended ralleys ... 20% longer, 20% slower conditions.
Agree, I think Agassi is bigging up today's players a tad too much - talent wise Andre's right up there in the Open Era. He was 5'11 though...

Must say though, unlike, McEnroe, Lendl etc, Agassi doesnt have any commitments to the tour or the big four for him to be needlessly bigging them up!
Plus he goes into some detail over how certain guys improved.

Good article. I could not agree more; the conditions are favoring defensive play way too much. There are plenty of long rallies without much excitement to them. Yes, some long rallies can be exciting, but it is mostly those ones where things are happening all along - you feel the rally should have ended many times but somehow players kept it alive. However, many of the long rallies today are just dull with little action throughout most of them.

So I would definitely like to see some speeding up. However, as usual, I will also point out that it is a tricky balancing act. It is not hard to get it wrong the other way around. I find more and more of today's tennis boring but I found the serve fests of the 90s Wimbledon even worse. I definitely do now want to see that. Optimally I would like to see more all court tennis with significant amount of S&V too, but I do not see a good way to get there.

Someone mentioned somewhere on this thread that today's players had to be strong "off both wings" and could not say hide a weak forehand like old players could (I think McEnroe may have been mentioned).

I think that comment shows how much tennis has changed. Today, one can almost reasonably think that the term "both wings" pretty much covers the whole spectrum of tennis skills - if you have great forehand and backhand groundies, you are golden. Take Nole for example; his volleying, as well as his slice, leave much to be desired; as does his overhead, yet he is able to reasonably well hide these weaknesses because he is great "off both wings".

Unlike most tennis fans, I am not all that keen on divergence of surfaces. I think one remembers it with a bit of rose tinted glasses when one is talking about how it was interesting to measure true champions by how they were able to succeed outside their home turf. When I remember the 90s, I do not remember true greats conquering all turfs, instead I remember almost two parallel tours - one being clay court one, and the other one covering most of everything else. Especially the difference between RG and Wimbledon was so large that players had pretty much given up on trying to do well at both.

I would like to see a bit more variety than we have today, but not to the point that you see entirely different sets of names reaching the later rounds of Wimbledon and RG.

On the topic of whether homogenized conditions make it easier for players to consistently perform well: I think it is pretty certainly the case. As good as today's top players are, I think some of their numbers - especially the ones relating to consistency - are just easier to achieve than they would have been in the past.

An example that I noticed this year: At the AO, 13 out of top 16 seeds made the round of 16. I felt it was higher than what I used to remember from years gone by, so I checked. And I found this:

In 17 years from 1990-2006, there was not a single year when more than 10 out of top 16 would reach the round of 16.

Out of the last 7 years (2007-2013), there were five such years (i.e., 5 years with at least 11 out of top 16 actually making the roung of 16).

So, there are just much fewer upsets than there used to be. Not surprising, given conditions are consistent so players can just get into the groove and keep playing their game with few curveballs being thrown at them.

Good points SB. We want something inbetween parallel tours and Formula 1 processions where the same 4 cars/people share honours all the time. Dubai is much quicker and yet the same players get towards the finals so we have much scope for speed improvement without it becoming acefests. People are starting to clammer for variety so something will give.

Another issue is how surface speed is determined by ITF. According to their categorisation, Dubai is a 3 (medium) but USO is a 5 (fast)...which is somewhat surprising. If you look at the ITF charts below, an interesting read about the flaws of speed ratings, there is a lot if variance if speed but we know in actual terms this isn't the case.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

lydian wrote:I don't see the contradiction. Almagro probably has the best serve on tour, IMO, but he also has an unusual one. Its got low ball toss and a very quick action making it hard to read. He uses a lot of variation in speed, style and placement - he can basically hit any serve he wants to (flat, kick, slice) to wherever he wants (wide, body, down the line), and he regularly changes it up. As a returner, you have NO idea what's coming at you. Or near you. Or away from you. Andy Murray's ex-coach Alex Corretja said Almagro has the best kick serve on tour and yet he's also the leading ace server. That's some variation. All this from a guy standing just 6 feet tall.

Let's not go overboard on the Almagro serve. Its decent but not one of the real top serves in tennis. His ace count per match is massively up from normal so far this season but I'd be surprised if that remains the case. The main issue with his serve is that it isn't consistent enough. He tends to end up around mid 50% first serves in per season, which isn't really good enough.

lydian wrote:I don't doubt that, slice will always be useful and its a stock serve given it's the same technique as a flatter serve except you wrist pronate less. Its actually the easiest serve to do - its what juniors do loads of before they learn to pronate the follow through. What we see less of is kick, slice and flat serves by the SAME player in a match. Murray doesn't have a particularly good kick serve - as his dolly 2nd serve demonstrates. The point is that slice and kick are used less in general than before...due to slowing surfaces. Again, I'll explain this further.

Slice and kick should be used more on slower surfaces, and are. On faster surfaces, the players do not have to be as accurate with their serves nor use as much variation as pure pace is sufficient. They can indeed get lazy. On slower surfaces, you have to hit your spots in the corners. Slice is as effective as ever and a kick serve is much more effective than it used to be as the courts are so high bouncing, plus the players can get even more spin than used to be the case, given today's strings.

This is the contradiction in your initial post. You (correctly) point out how successful Almagro is with his range of serves but then argue that variation is not of much use on slower surfaces. If Almagro is successful because of variation, then why would the rest of the tour stick to pure pace.

Lydian wrote:
But Raonic has very little placement variation and he doesn't vary his speeds much either, it's quite predictable. Re: variance of speed, I'll make this point about Federer in a minute. Where is your proof that tour players are serving faster? I showed that the number of aces for Top 100 ace players - which is of course most of the top 100 or so - hasn't changed since the mid90s on clay

I'm going to disagree completely with your comments about Raonic. His serve is probably the best I have ever seen. Not only does he generate incredible pace but it is also extremely consistent and he can hit spots either side with seemingly very little change in action. He has an incredible kick serve which he uses to add variety. Obviously, he hits a lot which are very quick - especially on faster courts those bullets are near impossible for anyone to return even if they get a racquet to them. However, he still varies the pace significantly.

In relation to the serve speeds, I'd simply point to the speeds which are recorded. I'm yet to see any evidence that speed guns have led to 15-20mph changes nor can I recall a sudden increase which would be consistent with that being the case - it seems to have been incremental. I'd be prepared to accept 5 or maybe even 10mph being caused by speed gun upgrades but not the significant increases we have seen. In relation to your clay stats, can you explain the analysis that you have carried out. I wouldn't mind looking at it myself before fully addressing the point.

Lydian wrote:It's not better than ever. Far from it, looks are deceiving. One has to look at his serve speeds on average over the years, they have steadily crept up from mid 110s to low 120s (stats can be provided if needed, e.g. At RG11 he served at 121 average - this knackered his back for Wimb11 BTW in my opinion).I believe his speed has been creeping up for a primary reason - again, because surfaces are slower. This means he's having to go for more fast serves - its not that he's putting more juice in, ie. faster serves, to get the same effect, it's just that he needs a greater number of fast serves to keep guys at bay given they have more time to return these days. Slices and kickers are not as effective in slower conditions as they used to be, he still uses them for variance but they're not a mainstay in general. Indeed, a kick serve puts the ball up into the shoulder area which Western grip guys like Djokovic, Del Potro and many others just love. So he needs to keeps serves lower by using flatter, hence fast serves. Slices are useful but the great movers get them back, e.g. Djokovic, if used too much - anyone remember match point at USO11? So, Federer's average speed increase is due to less speed variance being used across the year.

The serve stats I posted above tend to suggest that Fed's first serve is at least as good and probably slightly improved. Adding an extra few miles per hour, without losing any of his accuracy/consistency can only make his serve better. I don't accept that its because he is varying his serve less. Fed has never been a big user of the kick serve (albeit he can hit it). His main variation has always been the slice, which I believe he uses at least as much as he has always done. Even if he is using the kick serve less now, I suspect it will be due to the back rather than anything to do with the courts. In relation to not being able to find a serve when he really needs it, that seems highly unlikely to be anything to do with the back. Most players under pressure will put in a weak second serve from time to time - Federer isn't immune to that.

Lydian wrote:Slower courts across the tour are reducing variety in all manner of different aspects - serve variance, baseline preponderance, power goes up, skill variance goes down, ralley length goes up, aggressive mindset goes down.

In summary, I don't agree that slow surfaces cause less serve variance. The whole point is that speed is less effective. There is therefore more reason to vary the serve.

The DC match involving Raonic is showing exactly why any increase in court speed has to be carefully managed. Raonic actually having a bad serving day for him but still only lost three points on serve after 1 and a half sets.

Good points BS, I'll come back to them if I may but work beckons! Agree Raonic is a great server, who wouldn't, buts lets come back to that also.

BS, is completely right as usual. The detractors of today's game want to have their cake and eat it to. Don't believe the radar guns because they say so. And in earlier posts Lydian said that 10-12 miles is the difference in measurement now we here about 15-20 miles is the difference. Even if you took 10 miles or 12 miles off of the current serve speeds the biggest servers are way ahead of past servers, remembering that Becker and Edberg topped out in the high 120s or barely touched low 130s. Soon we are going to find out that martina navaratilova hit bigger serves than Milos Raonic.

They want to say that serving is worse, eventhough players are across the board holding at higher rates and the gun is showing higher numbers. Simultaneously they want to say returning is also worse today than the high standards of legendary Michael chang, although the BEST returners are breaking at a higher rate. They also want to use comments of past stars and players to dismiss the current quality level of tennis when it suits them. When it doesn't suit them with guys like Agassi, Lendl, and others saying this period is strong and amazing they accuse them of big upping today's stars with no basis.

I have been busy at work and still am so I probably won't be commenting much in the next few days, but BS has made minced meat of the logically inconsistent and unsupported arguments of the detractors in my humble opinion.

socal1976 wrote:
I have been busy at work and still am so I probably won't be commenting much in the next few days, but BS has made minced meat of the logically inconsistent and unsupported arguments of the detractors in my humble opinion.

I'm glad you found yet another like-minded forumer socal

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
I have been busy at work and still am so I probably won't be commenting much in the next few days, but BS has made minced meat of the logically inconsistent and unsupported arguments of the detractors in my humble opinion.

I'm glad you found yet another like-minded forumer socal

Well thanks, I guess if you are not being sarcastic, actually contrary to popular opinion while my views may be in the minority a lot of people agree with many points I make not just Born Slippy. It is just amusing for me that the majority opinion of the past legends and tennis commentators by a large margin points to the current players being very strong but if you read the comments of the majority of wrongheaded in my opinion posters on this site and a few others you would think that the worst tennis ever is being played right now and that the current tour stars are lucky to be able to tie their own shoestrings and can not compare in racquet skills to Chang of all people.

Socal- Welcome back. Tough loss with the Lakers. This pretty much describes the power shift in LA.

www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&gl=ZA&client=mv-google&v=yqWUAft4_pI&fulldescription=1

There is no power shift kingraf the clippers finished on top of the lakers once in the last 40 some odd years. They have a good team but the lakers will be back, it will take at least a decade and half of crappy laker teams and great clipper teams before it is even close in the city between the two teams.

I know SoCal, I was only teasing. But as they say in those Christian Sports Movies, "No one remembers who won (insert title) five years ago"

socal1976 wrote:BS, is completely right as usual. The detractors of today's game want to have their cake and eat it to. Don't believe the radar guns because they say so. And in earlier posts Lydian said that 10-12 miles is the difference in measurement now we here about 15-20 miles is the difference. Even if you took 10 miles or 12 miles off of the current serve speeds the biggest servers are way ahead of past servers, remembering that Becker and Edberg topped out in the high 120s or barely touched low 130s. Soon we are going to find out that martina navaratilova hit bigger serves than Milos Raonic.

They want to say that serving is worse, eventhough players are across the board holding at higher rates and the gun is showing higher numbers. Simultaneously they want to say returning is also worse today than the high standards of legendary Michael chang, although the BEST returners are breaking at a higher rate. They also want to use comments of past stars and players to dismiss the current quality level of tennis when it suits them. When it doesn't suit them with guys like Agassi, Lendl, and others saying this period is strong and amazing they accuse them of big upping today's stars with no basis.

I have been busy at work and still am so I probably won't be commenting much in the next few days, but BS has made minced meat of the logically inconsistent and unsupported arguments of the detractors in my humble opinion.

Radar gun position change isn't opinion, it's fact.

Becker / Edberg weren't the biggest servers, they were the Murray level of their day (if that).

Rates of holds - you've been shown that isn't changing.

Returns aren't equal to breaks, the return is a shot, the breaks is now the result of rallies.


Other than that your post is pretty accurate, apart from exaggerations and putting silly words in others mouths.

BS, sorry for the tardy reply but I wanted to look into HC stats before replying.
My points are as follows.
Good discussion BTW.

1. Almagro
+ Agree Almagro's serve is not consistent enough - too few 1st serves in.
+ However, there was relativity to my point - for his relative low height of 6'0 his serve is amazing and no doubt the best on tour for any guy 6 foot or under.
+ Remember guys like Raonic, Isner, Querrey, Karlovic, Anderson have a huge height advantage of 5 to 10 inches taller than Nicolas which makes for a huge difference in % 1st serve level
+ He's getting 220kph+ due to a somewhat uncommon (v.quick) action that's very hard to read: http://www.top-tennis-training.org/strokes/serve/the-lightning-bolt-serve/

2. Reduced serve variance
+ Please review these stats on ace counts from 1995 to 2012
+ Aces calculated by taking Top 100 players to give complete picture for each year on clay then hard - aces averaged per match (total aces / total matches)
+ Results across top 100: Year -- clay aces -- hardcourt aces
1995 -- 4.2 -- 6.4
1996 -- 4.4 -- 6.4
1997 -- 4.5 -- 6.6
1998 -- 4.8 -- 6.5
1999 -- 4.2 -- 6.6
2000 -- 4.9 -- 6.7
2001 -- 4.6 -- 6.5
2002 -- 4.4 -- 7.0
2003 -- 4.3 -- 7.2
2004 -- 4.4 -- 7.1
2005 -- 4.1 -- 7.0
2006 -- 4.2 -- 6.9
2007 -- 4.5 -- 6.9
2008 -- 4.9 -- 7.0
2009 -- 4.6 -- 7.1
2010 -- 4.9 -- 7.1
2011 -- 4.4 -- 6.4
2012 -- 4.8 -- 6.7

+ Stats show ace counts remaining fairly level over time (remember these are aces per match)
+ Yes, slice and kick are relatively more important on clay, don't doubt that - so we see fewer aces on clay vs HC due to more variance and lower surface speed
+ However - clay ace stability, given clay surfaces aren't faster over time, show serving speeds are not going up or we would see ace count creep up
+ HC ace stability, given speeds aren't going up as shown by clay, despite HC slowing means players are using more fast serves, i.e. less slice, less kick, to maintain that ace count / 1st serve advantage
+ You will get outliers - obviously - e.g. guys like Almagro who use relatively more variance from their clay upbringing. However, 1 person doesn't buck the overall trend shown in the stats

3. Raonic & radar speeds
+ Raonic is a fantastic server, amongst the best ever - agreed, but not best ever IMO
+ His 1st delivery is nowhere near as 'heavy' as Sampras who put 5000rpm topspin on the ball (this is why Becker had a heavy serve too - both used massive back arch, Raonic relies more on just fast arm/racquet)
+ Nor does Raonic 2nd kick have the same level of RPM (in my opinion due to lesser back arch again) - crucially, he isnt as good in clutch moments (BP, MP, etc) in my opinion from what I've seen
+ My belief is that he has a very flat 1st serve - flatness means you don't get the same options for placement vs. a heavier topspinner
+ I don't believe he varies the speed much as you state but cant prove either way
+ Radar speeds - I don't have links (dont think its been discussed fully) but its commonly reported that in 90s speed was measured over the net vs off racquet as it now
+ For example Goran's fastest serve is listed as 138mph but yet he served 145 in an exho last serve at non-prime 40 yrs old!
+ Sampras' fastest is down as 135mph but recently served 142 in exho at 41 yrs old!
+ Rosset also down as 135mph fastest - that's just plain wrong, is Murray a bigger server than Rosset or Sampras?
+ Surely you're not telling me Serena Williams fastest serve is just 5-6 mph slower than Sampras' recorded fastest whilst on ATP Tour?

4. Federer serve
+ If we look at aces/match served on HCs (which have slowed over time) we see:
2001 - 7.9
2002 - 7.1
2003 - 6.9
2004 - 7.6
2005 - 7.5
2006 - 6.6
2007 - 8.2
2008 - 9.4
2009 - 8.4
2010 - 8.4
2011 - 5.9
2012 - 7.9
+ So up to 2010 you might say there was abit of a trend upwards, from 2011 maybe his back has reduced the ace count
+ I don't believe the MPH has gone up over 2001-2010, he's always been around mid120s MPH on fast 1st serve - just think he's been hitting more faster serves more to compensate for HC slowing

5. Overall
+ Despite clay and HC ace counts staying similar we know HCs have slowed
+ The stable clay ace stat infers speeds havent been going up
+ Given its roughly the same top 100 players who lead clay or HC ace counts, if we assume they're also not able to serve faster on HC then the ace count is being maintained due to reliance on more fast serves - i.e. they are using less variation of fast/slice/kick.

socal1976 wrote:Don't believe the radar guns because they say so.

So you believe guns are the same when Serena William's highest serve is listed as just 6mph slower than Sampras' fastest?
Edberg 1st harder serve was always stated as being around 110 mph but it was clearly faster than that by today's measurements.

socal1976 wrote:They want to say that serving is worse

No. Not worse, not faster either. Just having to use less variation to keep ace counts up.
Serve % hold is not a good measure of serving prowess because we have no idea how much groundstrokes, volleys, etc, are used to win those points.
Infact, if serve speeds are steady (as shown by clay ace counts) and % holds are going up as you say (which I dispute) then it would be improved groundstroke games creating that stat!

I thought that the strings were the reason that serves got bigger. Serving is a technical matter, so as long as all joints are firing, I dont think age affects the serve as much say, volleying.

Also, maybe its because I watch cricket, but I dont trust speed guns. Especially for inter generational arguments.

Modern strings mainly add massive spin to groundstrokes. On serve they don't make much difference as proved by Philoppousis who served 130+ with an old wooden racquet with cat gut. Serve speed declines when you become an ex-pro, strength is a factor, timing another. Radar guns were clearly used differently back in the 90s. Again, explain to me how Williams is down at 6mph less than Sampras or Rosset?

I dont know. Thats the honest answer. All I'm saying is that speed guns are a cool TV tool, but I wouldnt trust them if my life depended on it.

I remember watching a cricket video on YouTube circa 1980. The video was essentially a challenge to discover who was the fastest bowler in world cricket. The winner bowled about 145 km/h. Which is in line with how fast most modern paces can get. Of course, this wasnt in line with the "these modern guys are too slow" theory. So the "rose-tinted" ones now claim that the speed was measured at the end of the pitch. Which puts the pace using current speed gun techniques (much like tennis, out the hand) at 180+ kmh.

So my point, I guess, is that speed gun talk can get laughable

Nice post Lydian. I will respond fully but it might not be for a few days. The point that immediately leaps out though is that you say that clay courts encourage greater variation of serve due to the slow surface but then say that slower hard court surfaces encourage players to abandon variation and rely on pure speed. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

@KingRaf... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves

Despite radar issues, the current methods are getting much more accurate.

For example, distance run last point is something that is a recent (by my time scale ) development.

Thanks BS. No worries, we all have jobs to do even though 606v2 can be a welcome (or unwelcome!) distraction at times.

Yes I can see how that might appear a contradiction. However, there are inherent and important differences between surfaces that led to the points I made about serving.

Even though many HCs are now almost the same speed as clay they are still a very different surface. When we talk about homogeneity of surface we mean speed, meaning baseline ralleys predominate with similar tactics. However, clay is still very different due to the its loose top dressing which results in different tactics due to difficulty of movement and different serves. We know clay is very different when we look at Andy Murray – despite all his HC success (35 finals and counting) he's yet to reach a single clay final.

So, let’s look at the impact of the key difference between clay and slow HC – the top dressing. The loose top dressing accentuates every type of spin on clay – kick serves jump up higher and leap forward making returns more difficult, slices spin away and stay low, even dying. Loose clay clumps and grips the ball like no other surface, hence Nadal's spin is a complete beast on clay. Also, clay events are nearly always played when its pretty warm – which is not always the case with hardcourts – which makes the ball bounce even higher. So, highly spun balls are rewarded much more on clay than HC.

Yes, HCs are also bouncy – after all a clay court is a hardcourt, just has dressing on top. They also grip the ball, however spun balls don’t jump up to the same degree as there is no top dressing to accentuate spin. Balls on slower HCs will bounce higher than faster HCs no doubt but it’s still lower than a clay court. This means a kick serve on HC simply wont jump as high as on clay. Also, don’t forget kick serves were originally developed to allow the volleyer more time to get into the net for faster surfaces, they also added safety via net clearance whilst maintaining good speed and the height made them harder to return. However, surface slowing has killed off S&V, servers stay back so the rationale for using kick serving on hardcourt (and grass) has diminished over time. Not only that – we now see guys use more westernised grips plus are much taller and stronger than before. We also have a lot more DHBHs on tour than before meaning returning is easier on that wing for high balls. These factors when coupled with slower HC conditions mean players responding to kick serves have much more time and solidity in returning the ball. They don’t have to worry about an incoming volleyer and are much happier to return at shoulder height than yesteryear. Guys like Del Potro, Murray and Djokovic exemplify this on slow HC. Similarly slice serves on slower HC don’t quite scuttle and die away as they do on clay, plus on slower HCs they pop up more than they used to.

So what does all this mean? Spin serves (slice and kick) are used more on clay than hardcourt in general, but even more so now that HCs have slowed. Kick-servers on slow HC run the risk of putting the ball into the perfect hitting zone but with much reduced pace meaning they get good looks on return. On clay it’s easier to kick above the wheelhouse/in-the-pocket zone. So it’s my belief that flatter, faster 1st serves have become needed more on slower HC than before because they still skid through, stay lower and take time away – all making returning more difficult.

This isn't to say servers dont still use kick and slice on HC, variation is always important. However, variance on HC is less today than it was on faster HC because of all the reasons given. Slices are still useful on HC but if they’re not hit perfectly they run the risk more than ever with slowing of sitting up to be walloped back – as happened with Federer on match point at USO’11.

So these inherent surface differences coupled with serving speeds not going up (as clay ace counts show) Indicate less serve variance is being used, i.e. more fast serves, on HCs to maintain ace count and keep up pressure on returners. On clay nothing has changed conditions wise, spin is still massively effective so variance still pays more dividends. This is why I say Almagro serves with more variance, simply because he's born/bred on clay and is used to doing so - infact he will have developed his serve further to embrace the benefit clay gives, plus his serving action and speed lends him great ability to disguise and vary more. But it doesn't mean other guys don't vary too - however, in general terms we see less variety on HC now than clay for all the reasons listed. After all, if slow HC was the same as clay we'd see similar ace counts but we don't even though they now play at similar speeds - this again points to more variance.

Thanks for that LF- Interesting top 30-something.

I wouldnt trust wikipedia for anything, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity. But dont speed guns tend to go iffy if the weather is un ideal?

kingraf wrote:Thanks for that LF- Interesting top 30-something.

I wouldnt trust wikipedia for anything, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity. But dont speed guns tend to go iffy if the weather is un ideal?

As long as WiKi has valid references, I think the information is less suspect.

The speed guns are now being augmented with hawkeye and the accuracy is much better than a single hand-held gun typically used in the past. I am aware of multiple guns (for redundancy and weather effect cancellation) to provide better accuracy.

But again, because of cricket, I dont trust HawkEye either! Truth be told it doesnt make one iota of a difference to me.

But again, because of cricket, I dont trust HawkEye either! Truth be told it doesnt make one iota of a difference to me. Speed kills in athletics, but in tennis? Speed, on its own, does nothing.

kingraf wrote:But again, because of cricket, I dont trust HawkEye either! Truth be told it doesnt make one iota of a difference to me. Speed kills in athletics, but in tennis? Speed, on its own, does nothing.

It is a game of speed and angles.

By the way in terms of the variety argument I just saw this comment that Djokovic gave to Courier when interviewed after his 2012 AO SF win over Murray:

I had a big privilege and honour to meet personally today Mr. Laver, and he is one of the biggest, and greatest players ever to play the game, thank you for staying this late, sir, thank you ... even though it would actually be better if we played a couple times serve and volley, but we don’t know to play ... we are mostly around here [points to the area near the baseline], we are running, you know, around the baseline ...

LF - has Laver actually commented on the variety - or lack of - in the recent modern game?