Slower conditions could be extending careers according to Andy Murray

Andy Murray says that perhaps a reason why players are playing at an elite level into their 30s is because today’s baseliners hold up longer than net-rushers once did.

“People are saying we need to speed up the courts because guys are not going to be able to play as long. But then, on the other hand, guys are reaching their peak later in their careers,” Murray told reporters in Miami. “A lot of the guys that used to play serve and volley had a lot of problems with their backs and their knees and hips, and finished when they were 28, 29 years old. I think now it seems like guys are able to play longer or guys maybe aren’t breaking through at such a young age. The average age at the Top 100 has increased by a few years since I first came on the tour.”

Murray also said that the game has become more physical and that current players are likely training smarter.


What is interesting is that the push for faster conditions is often sold as a way to protect the players and to keep them from getting hurt by long drawn out rallies. Of course this anectodal argument is belied by the facts in that in the slow court era we are seeing more players having success in their later years than at any time in the recent history of the ATP tour. I have made this very same argument for years, there is a misnomer that serve and volley tennis is easier on the body than baseline play in my experience that simply isn't the case. The hard explosive moves at net the quick lunges, dives, and rapid change of direction required to react to the faster moving ball at net with less time results in more jarring impacts on the joints. I mean this isn't your fat hacker at the club planting himself in doubles and picking off softballs at the club. Take players like Rafter and even Sampras who battled to maintain their forum in what players today are calling their primes. Playing from the baseline gives you more time and requires less explosive change of direction and more reaction time. In tennis this is what results in injury is the jarring cut or change of direction or twist that pushes your body too far. Sure you can get hurt playing from the baseline as well or from just repetitive wear and tear. But does it change the calculus of fast court proponents if speeding up the game to make it quicker and more explosive might result in shortened careers?

Also the slower conditions aren't the only factor, players are taking care of themselves better and that is a major factor as well, and the money being better gives the players more and more insensentive to stick around as long as possible. But I have said the same thing for a long time and this point of mine has always been ignored and glossed over by the fast court proponents. Yet, Murray seems to agree with me.

In an interesting footnote, this also cuts against people's main criticism of Nadal that his style of play leads to his injuries, I have never bought that as many players play defensively from the baseline and play lengthy points and don't suffer the same type of injuries. Does this change our calculus of how much we want to speed up the game? I for one don't think we have room for more than incremental changes and tweeks.

It's not sold that way by me.

It's sold on the grounds that slow conditions are destroying variety, reducing the scope for flair players to thrive, and mean I have to set a day aside to watch a big Slam match.

"Murray agrees with me" Nice turn of phrase, I'm sure he checks in daily.

BB, sarcasm for the sake of sarcasm does not substitute for real analysis and facts. Since I raised the point before it is obvious that I didn't mean Andy checked into V2 and consciously found my arguements compelling. His statement is in agreement with previous statements I have made now does that make you feel better that you got that out of your system.

I remember reading those comments from Murray, and to be honest I'm not sure i fully agree with him. When I think of some of the movements that the likes of Andy, Novak and Rafa make to retrieve balls, stop, then accelerate to cover the court I'm not entirely sure it's better for the body than the movements required to be a good net player.

I would say its more to do with players looking after themselves better in preparing for and recovering from matches and tournaments. The science that goes into ensuring the body is in optimum condition is far more advanced today than it was 15 years ago and I'd put most of it down to that.

However he is a world class athlete at the very top of his sport, so perhaps he knows better than I do. In fact, the word 'perhaps' is probably a slight understatement.

Funny, I post speeding up comments by Roddick and they're seen as self-serving. Nadal makes comments about hardcourts vs injuries and they're also decried as self serving.

But when baselining, counterpunching Murray speaks out against speeding up courts because PERHAPS they make careers last longer, i.e. his, then that's not self serving in the least! I suspect it's more to do with better diet, fitness regimes and recovery techniques than anything else. Murray also needs to remember he's only 25, anything could happen yet. We also know its taking players longer to mature into peak now so the window of prime playing is moved from something like 20-28 to 24-32.

Anyway, since you're now hanging on every word Murray says what did you make of this post-Miami comment as he heads to clay regarding your point about return of serve is now key?

Murray: "It's easier to return on clay so it's even more important to serve well.".

BTW, Nadal's knee injuries are attributed to orthotics correcting his feet not his style of play.

I also have orthotics.... that is all

lydian wrote:Funny, I post speeding up comments by Roddick and they're seen as self-serving. Nadal makes comments about hardcourts vs injuries and they're also decried as self serving.

But when baselining, counterpunching Murray speaks out against speeding up courts because PERHAPS they make careers last longer, i.e. his, then that's not self serving in the least! I suspect it's more to do with better diet, fitness regimes and recovery techniques than anything else. Murray also needs to remember he's only 25, anything could happen yet. We also know its taking players longer to mature into peak now so the window of prime playing is moved from something like 20-28 to 24-32.

Anyway, since you're now hanging on every word Murray says what did you make of this post-Miami comment as he heads to clay regarding your point about return of serve is now key?

Murray: "It's easier to return on clay so it's even more important to serve well.".

BTW, Nadal's knee injuries are attributed to orthotics correcting his feet not his style of play.

Where in Murray's statement did he speak out against speeding up courts. All he has done is point out a fact in that the slower courts are not bringing the attrition rate which some would like to think they do.

Yeah my son wear custom ones too. Over-pronation is very common, up to 70% of people, and in some cases its severe. Just check your trainers - if they're wearing on the outsides (or insides for supination) quicker then you may have a problem. Many go jogging miles etc without realising, only to go on and develop knee, hip and even back issues if not corrected. I'd recommend anyone here who does a lot of running and/or tennis to get themselves checked out for free on a machine...there's loads of them around the world and UK from a company called FootBalance - you can find them in lots of local sports shops:

http://www.footbalance.com/find-store

Calder, er...when he says "People are saying we need to speed up the courts...." then goes on to oppose the statement by saying "BUT then, on the other hand, guys are reaching their peak later in their careers". I take that as Andy having a tacit disagreement with those saying speed up on the basis of prolonging careers. I actually disagree with most of the points he makes but then people would expect me to

I disagree almost completely with him!
I think he is clueless at times.

lydian wrote:Calder, er...when he says "People are saying we need to speed up the courts...." then goes on to oppose the statement by saying "BUT then, on the other hand, guys are reaching their peak later in their careers". I take that as Andy having a tacit disagreement with those saying speed up on the basis of prolonging careers. I actually disagree with most of the points he makes but then people would expect me to

Yes that appears to be what he is do. He is countering a point which is being used to give strength to a particular viewpoint. At no time does he speak out against the speeding up of courts.

Well that's the inference I, and I'm sure many others, take from those comments,

Anyway, there's parts missing from the interview in the OP, Murray went on to say "...and now guys are probably training better. There are better training methods, and people probably understand how to recover from matches better and are learning new things all the time about how the body works."
Querrey and Haas also back up our responses to the OP, and what many of us have been saying for a while:

Querrey:
"Compared to 20 years ago, I think guys can hit the ball bigger now. A man can just overpower and blow away an 18-year-old boy. I think 20 years ago with the rackets and the way people played, guys couldn't just blow through an 18- or 19-year-old. Guys weren't big power guys. You couldn't hit the ball through players as much, so it allowed some of the younger players to feel their way into the game. Nowadays I feel that's tougher to do. There is a bigger difference between the way a bigger, stronger man plays compared to an 18- or 19-year-old."

Haas:
The German said he and other thirtysomethings on the tour know how to take care of their bodies and are properly conditioned - "I think what it comes down to is the older you get, you would assume you get wiser," he said. "Now with nutrition and everything you can do, the right training, the trainers that you have, it just helps you mentally. You just know what works for you best. You might do a lot of lifting; you might do a lot of cardiovascular workout. You try to figure out what helps you the best if you want to keep on riding it for as long as you can."

Sam, I'd go even further. Those 18-19 yr olds are also blown away because they lack the physical conditioning to live with the mid20 yo's on court. Also, those 18-20 yo's therefore used SKILL to compete with the top guys! Anyway, the power side means we now see the 'prime window' moved up 3-5 years. None of this backs Murray's point that basically baselining is better for you than S&V, or indeed slower courts are better for you. All that happens is a players prime window of 8-10 years is moved. Sure, they're older when they end up retiring but will they have won any more titles? Personally, I doubt it.

I've read the article. I dare not read the responses

Is it safe to have a look? Now that a player who's actually at the top of his game has blown the shorter career objections (to slower conditions) out of the window

Socal, you're a mischief maker - I'm sure this a late April fools. Andy would never disagree with the intelectual heavyweights that patrol these boards like over anxious Sainsbury's security guards

lydian wrote:Funny, I post speeding up comments by Roddick and they're seen as self-serving. Nadal makes comments about hardcourts vs injuries and they're also decried as self serving.

But when baselining, counterpunching Murray speaks out against speeding up courts because PERHAPS they make careers last longer, i.e. his, then that's not self serving in the least!

Considering that Murray has proven himself on every fast court going, I fail to see how his comment could be remotely self serving. He would have no issue with faster courts - but makes a key point that serve volleyers (and power players) tend to have more injuries and shorter careers

I can think of very few (ironically with the exception of Sampras) of the big servers that didn't have some problem

I stand to be corrected, but logically (to me) if you can play all the shots well, then you are less likely to force your joints to play some shots overtly aggresively.

Lydian People will always see statements from a different viewpoint depending on what they want it to prove (me as much as you). So there's no point dragging this argument out as we will not agree on it.

I totally agree that the current game requires players to more physically aware. Murray himself found out when he came on the tour that skill alone would not get him to near the top and took the required steps to rectify it. It's as they say everything just needs to be so much more professional these days.

... the slower conditions had Ferrer falling over (Two of the fittest players on the Tennis planet- Bill Macatee - CBS). And it requires 15 more shots to win a point. How does that prolong careers?

No young'uns can match Murray the Tank in fitness, so Murray may stay in Top 4 for another 10 years.

Over the past seven years, Murray has invested huge amounts of time and sweat into building up his body, to the point that his schoolboy friend Jamie Baker recently compared him to a tank. But even tanks develop mechanical glitches. And as Murray approaches his 26th birthday — middle age, in tennis terms — he is ever more aware of the precarious nature of a sportsman’s existence. “I feel like I’m getting to a stage where if you do too much you start getting injured,” Murray said.

https://www.606v2.com/t42428-murray-talks-of-the-fine-line-between-fitness-and-injury

Should I believe Murray in this thread or in the other?


Bill Macatee ‏@BMacatee 31 Mar

Have lots of respect for David Ferrer and Andy Murray after that grueling Men's Final @SonyOpenTennis. Congratulations to Andy on the win.

https://twitter.com/BMacatee

... and this was a three set match.

lydian wrote:Funny, I post speeding up comments by Roddick and they're seen as self-serving. Nadal makes comments about hardcourts vs injuries and they're also decried as self serving.

But when baselining, counterpunching Murray speaks out against speeding up courts because PERHAPS they make careers last longer, i.e. his, then that's not self serving in the least! I suspect it's more to do with better diet, fitness regimes and recovery techniques than anything else. Murray also needs to remember he's only 25, anything could happen yet. We also know its taking players longer to mature into peak now so the window of prime playing is moved from something like 20-28 to 24-32.

Anyway, since you're now hanging on every word Murray says what did you make of this post-Miami comment as he heads to clay regarding your point about return of serve is now key?

Murray: "It's easier to return on clay so it's even more important to serve well.".

BTW, Nadal's knee injuries are attributed to orthotics correcting his feet not his style of play.

Not so much self serving, but ignorant. I take the view it is easier to make such comments when taking into account that himself, Djokovic, Ferrer haven't had severe injury layoffs in recent time. It is far easier to make these comments if unaffected by the injuries that conditions like these can cause. Given how much he prides himself on conditioning and the fact he has welcomed change when questioned about changing conds, I don't find it self serving. If his body starts to buckle under the brutal hardships of the game, maybe he might change his tune.

Take his last 2 matches.

Gasquet - 119 minutes
Ferrer - 165 minutes

What impresses me is that clearly he can handle the change in pace of the match to his opponent.

Conds do need to change though. The key is getting buy in from players as well as TD's. The mistake is thinking faster conds = serve and volley. There did used to be some baseline play in those days.

lydian wrote:Well that's the inference I, and I'm sure many others, take from those comments,

Anyway, there's parts missing from the interview in the OP, Murray went on to say "...and now guys are probably training better. There are better training methods, and people probably understand how to recover from matches better and are learning new things all the time about how the body works."

It isn't missing from the OP I put it into the Murray quote and I also talked about the better training myself in my own points and commentary on the quote. I took the entirety of the murray quote and provided it including the part about the training.

I think athletes are training better and state that it is a major factor that has contributed to the increase in career lengths. I think the conditions being slower also contributes because Serve and volleying is murder on the body as well but in a much different manner than the cardiovascular fitness of the top pros. I have also noted that one factor why the older players do better is that they are fitter and stronger than the young guys.

By the way I never called your quotes of some players as self serving that was banbro. I produced the murray quote because I think it bears on the cost benefit analysis of how much we speed up conditions and how much we change the game to bring back Serve and volley tennis.

LK, everyone who wants the fast conditions bemoans the fact that S and V is a rarity and the banning of technology is seen by most fast condition proponents as away to resurrect volleying. Although volleying hasn't gone anywhere the players have to work harder to gain fewer net opportunities, it just doesn't happen as much on the first ball.

Volleying hasn't gone anywhere? In what way is that true?

Volleying on the first ball is a rarity but many, many points do finish at the net. Djokovic averages 8-12 net approaches per set, but I forgot with shady bookeeping that overheads, drive volleys, and volleys that are easy put aways or too late in the rally don't count; then I suppose volleying has dissappeared. If we let you guys do the counting that is. It is still an important part of the game it just rarely occurs on the first ball, which is the only volleying that seems to satisfy certain critics.

I didn't say you had quoted others as self-serving but others have. Anyway, player fans never agree on interpretation so there we are.

Fair enough but the exact words weren't in there. They're important because they're just as important as any "perhaps" he uses re: slower courts prolonging careers.

Once again then we always get the polar extremes put forward of the 90s and even Murray is doing it. No-one....yes no-one...is advocating a return to the 90s. So the level of S&V wouldn't be the same...it can't be the same anyway due to tech changes. But we need to get more of it in, to allow guys like Llodra to ply their trade. The S&V you talk about still occurring now is different, it's just put away stuff with bare minimum risk. Volleying as an art form combines risk with reward. There is no risk in modern tennis...Ferrer exemplified that perfectly on Sunday, he'd rather hit a UE than go for the lines or steal in. On match point he hoped Murray's shot was out rather than go for the win. Slower courts breed a different mentality...many of us just want a mix of modern & retro - which BTW was pretty damned effective and still could be.

Tell me this, why should the game just be played predominantlynfrom the baseline across uniformily slow courts? Where is the opportunity for those who have different skills? Instead we squeeze everyone into the same smaller box until we all bemoan a tour full of Ferrer's (as nice a guy he is).

socal1976 wrote:Volleying on the first ball is a rarity but many, many points do finish at the net. Djokovic averages 8-12 net approaches per set, but I forgot with shady bookeeping that overheads, drive volleys, and volleys that are easy put aways or too late in the rally don't count; then I suppose volleying has dissappeared. If we let you guys do the counting that is. It is still an important part of the game it just rarely occurs on the first ball, which is the only volleying that seems to satisfy certain critics.

I think the fact you can't distinguish between a put away from a weak retrieval after a baseline rally, and a diving or reach volley played from the net against an opponent with time on the ball really speaks loudly.

If the stat counter shows Novak coming to the net to plonk a put away down I guess Djokovic really is single handedly bringing back the volley, as someone said on here a year or so ago.

I don't get this argument that Llodra has been hampered by the slow courts. He is 9 months older than Federer yet when the courts were generaly faster he never got higher than 38 (2004). Therefore claiming he has been held back seems a bit of a stretch. He actually got to 22, I think , in 2011. So if his serve voley game was so good why was he not much higher up in the early 2000's.

Don't get me wrong. He is entertaining to watch and has some good skills but I don't think he has had the consistency required over a match to be a really top player.

Calder106 wrote:I don't get this argument that Llodra has been hampered by the slow courts. He is 9 months older than Federer yet when the courts were generaly faster he never got higher than 38 (2004). Therefore claiming he has been held back seems a bit of a stretch. He actually got to 22, I think , in 2011. So if his serve voley game was so good why was he not much higher up in the early 2000's.

Don't get me wrong. He is entertaining to watch and has some good skills but I don't think he has had the consistency required over a match to be a really top player.

I beg to disagree. He was primarily a doubles player. Doubles W/L 354-204 ATP #3 in doubles and 25 titles (550+ matches) compared to Singles W/L 178-207 (385 matches) and 5 titles.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Michael-Llodra.aspx

He could have been a good singles player, if he had focussed on it. Clement, Santoro, Zimonjic, Benneteau played as his partners (and some others).

2010 Paris lost to Soderling, 2012 Paris lost to Ferrer (both Soderling and Ferrer were eventual champions in those respective years).

Calder, you're being very literal. I said "guys like Llodra". Plus who knows how good Llodra could have been had he been able to hone his game into the 2000s?

Just what are people worried about here? Why the kick back, where's the harm in bringing more events where the attackers can shine? People know on here I'm a dichotomous fan in that I appreciate Nadal but also followed Sampras before that - 2 ends of the spectrum seemingly. I just appreciate what both bring or brought to the tour, and I wonder why in the modern game conditions can't exist where we see both types of player. Tell me, who wouldn't want to see the modern equivalent match between Nadal vs Sampras? I love flat hitting, I love "Nadal" hitting, retrieval, volleying...the full mix. As tennis fans we're getting sold short and many seem to want to sleepwalk into WTA tennis. I just don't get what the issue is, feels like everyone just wants the taste of vanilla and not the fuller range of flavours out there. The points Sam Querrey makes are actually quite sad for the game, he's admitting the skills 18-19 year olds have which were good enough to become top10 not too long ago are now blunted by power. That's the price of uniform slow courts. It's not about speeding everywhere up, it's about speeding enough events up to create a mix that's brought together in the slams. Do people want Nadal, Djokovic or Murray to win that much that they're happy for the tour to sleepwalk into convergent banality as it is doing?

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Volleying on the first ball is a rarity but many, many points do finish at the net. Djokovic averages 8-12 net approaches per set, but I forgot with shady bookeeping that overheads, drive volleys, and volleys that are easy put aways or too late in the rally don't count; then I suppose volleying has dissappeared. If we let you guys do the counting that is. It is still an important part of the game it just rarely occurs on the first ball, which is the only volleying that seems to satisfy certain critics.

I think the fact you can't distinguish between a put away from a weak retrieval after a baseline rally, and a diving or reach volley played from the net against an opponent with time on the ball really speaks loudly.

If the stat counter shows Novak coming to the net to plonk a put away down I guess Djokovic really is single handedly bringing back the volley, as someone said on here a year or so ago.

Like I said if we use your accounting measure than volleying has dissappeared apparently if you volley on the first ball it is good, but on the 5th ball the volley doesn't count. Many points finish at the net, not all volleys are routine put aways etc. You just say it is so and then we have to accept it as fact. By the way, I was being a bit tongue and cheek, but yes Djokovic finishes a lot of points at the net much more than most players the fact that you can't see it or fail to account for his volleys as volleys because they aren't the type of volleys you deem important tells the reader everything they need to know about the subjectivity and anectodal nature of your arguments.

Laverfan All fine but was Paris 2010 and 2012 not in this new slow court age. Also as you say he was primarily a doubles player. My point is that people keep on putting him up as an example of of a serve volleyer whose opportunties have been curtailled by the slowing down of courts but prior to the slow down he had not even been near the top10.

Lydian As per above my issue here is that a number of times Llodra is used as an example in this way. I'm not into criticising any player unnecessarily and realise he is a very skillful player.

It's still a different type of volleying Socal, it's low risk, it's not being used to open the court up for the final put away volley...it is THE put away volley. Opening up the court is only done by ralleying now.

Conditions around 2004 were probably at a crossroads...slowing down had started but not to the full extent we see late 2000s. Look at Tim Henman in 2004...he got to the semis of 3 slams,..his style could work...yet we had Federer, Agassi and emerging Nadal plying from the baseline. It was a good mix. Seeing Henman battle Coria at RG was brilliant? But then it just went too far and guys like Henman were killed off. What's so wrong in having a bit more speed like we used to have? The 2002-4 mix of conditions could be about right moving forwards.

As I said lydian some change is not inappropriate. But the fact is, and I mentioned it on the other thread. Given a choice between a lot of quick points and baseline exchanges the fans have spoken they like the lengthier points. Changes in terms of speed that we need have to be measured and incremental because of the fact I mentioned above. People don't cheer aces that much but they like 20 shot rallies. Variety is great but we have to careful and measured. Also with the taller players and stronger players we have today people fail to realize that the slower conditions acts as a governor on power and maybe a needed governor.

I still haven't changed my position

1. we need more grass court tourneys and a longer grass court season

2. We can tweek the speed of courts and balls at some of the traditionally faster events

But I don't see the dire need for drastic change and I don't want the surface specialists to return players who sell out their technique and training to ambush better players 2 or 3 months out of the year, and I don't want anything approaching Isneresque or Karlovician or Roddickesque tennis.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Volleying on the first ball is a rarity but many, many points do finish at the net. Djokovic averages 8-12 net approaches per set, but I forgot with shady bookeeping that overheads, drive volleys, and volleys that are easy put aways or too late in the rally don't count; then I suppose volleying has dissappeared. If we let you guys do the counting that is. It is still an important part of the game it just rarely occurs on the first ball, which is the only volleying that seems to satisfy certain critics.

I think the fact you can't distinguish between a put away from a weak retrieval after a baseline rally, and a diving or reach volley played from the net against an opponent with time on the ball really speaks loudly.

If the stat counter shows Novak coming to the net to plonk a put away down I guess Djokovic really is single handedly bringing back the volley, as someone said on here a year or so ago.

Like I said if we use your accounting measure than volleying has dissappeared apparently if you volley on the first ball it is good, but on the 5th ball the volley doesn't count. Many points finish at the net, not all volleys are routine put aways etc. You just say it is so and then we have to accept it as fact. By the way, I was being a bit tongue and cheek, but yes Djokovic finishes a lot of points at the net much more than most players the fact that you can't see it or fail to account for his volleys as volleys because they aren't the type of volleys you deem important tells the reader everything they need to know about the subjectivity and anectodal nature of your arguments.

That's really sad if you can't distinguish shots on any finer criteria than that. May as well just watch a match via the stat count.

Calder106 wrote:Laverfan All fine but was Paris 2010 and 2012 not in this new slow court age. Also as you say he was primarily a doubles player. My point is that people keep on putting him up as an example of of a serve volleyer whose opportunties have been curtailled by the slowing down of courts but prior to the slow down he had not even been near the top10.

Llodra is another one from the old school with natural gut. He had other challenges as well. It is not just the slow courts which can be solely blamed in his specific case. Between 2004-2008 he was not doing very well as a singles player. You are quite correct that he lacked consistency.

He has played pretty well on fast HC and grass.

2010 (2) Eastbourne (Outdoor/Grass) , Marseille (Indoor/Hard)

2008 (2) Rotterdam (Indoor/Hard) , Adelaide (Outdoor/Hard)

2004 (1) 's-Hertogenbosch (Outdoor/Grass)

SINGLES CAREER FINALIST (5):

2012 (1) Marseille (Indoor/Hard)

2009 (2) Lyon (Indoor/Hard) , Marseille (Indoor/Hard)

2005 (1) 's-Hertogenbosch (Outdoor/Grass)

2004 (1) Adelaide (Outdoor/Hard)

I think Murray was doing some thinking out loud here on a question of why the trend of 30-somethings doing so well. As Lydian says, he puts forward a few ideas - about the court speed & style of play and about training & conditioning.

This was his answer to a specific question on court speed earlier in the week:

Q. Do you think these courts are too slow? Would you like hard courts faster than they generally seem to be at the moment?
ANDY MURRAY: It's faster here than it was at Indian Wells. The courts in Indian Wells are extremely slow, and that's why I find it quite tricky to play there. The ball moves extremely fast through the air, and when it hits the court it checks. It really stops.
But here the courts aren't that slow. I mean, they painted these courts about over a month ago, because I was practicing on them when they painted them. A lot of the tournaments, they do that a few days beforehand. So it's not too slow.
But, you know, I think there should be a longer grass court season, and I think the more variety in the surfaces the better for the game. And also, you know, the longevity of the players, as well, you know, shorter rallies.
But if you look how long guys are playing now compared with back then, the guys that played serve and volley didn't last that long. Their joints and backs and stuff got hurt, as well. So it's tough to know exactly what's best for the body.

So "the more variety in the surfaces the better for the game". I agree.

I think the time for the faster hard courts are the US Open Series, leading up to a fast hard court slam, and also the indoor season at the end of the year and February time. Not sure where that leaves IW/Miami & the Asian swing - are they the place for the slower hard courts?

I do think Sunday's final was a bit of an extreme - not a great match-up & for whatever reason, one player well below their best. But if anything, it would have made more sense for Ferrer to be winning in Miami than in the Paris Masters, which should be the fastest Masters surface in my opinion.

Good post Yvonne. Murray is being a little coy via giving mixed messages. On the one hand it sounds like he's saying more variety in terms of more grass is good but isnt clear on changing speeds per se to achieve that, then on the other he wants conditions for shorter rallies, ie quicker.

Yes Paris Indoors should be quick. Miami should be much quicker than IW (DecoturfII vs Plexipave 2) but it doesn't really appear to be. At the end of the day we know all the TDs have been cramming sand into their paint pots for some time, it's time they stopped making the guys play on virtual sandpaper.

I think Murray is essentially saying "why are people moaning about Miami? IW was slower than this. But yes more variety would be good. Don't expect it to help with players longevity though as players who play at the net historically have got more injuries"

I don't think he's being particularly cryptic. He's always wanted variety and enjoys a quicker court. Only bit I disagree with him on is the injury bit... But I guess he would know better than us.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Volleying on the first ball is a rarity but many, many points do finish at the net. Djokovic averages 8-12 net approaches per set, but I forgot with shady bookeeping that overheads, drive volleys, and volleys that are easy put aways or too late in the rally don't count; then I suppose volleying has dissappeared. If we let you guys do the counting that is. It is still an important part of the game it just rarely occurs on the first ball, which is the only volleying that seems to satisfy certain critics.

I think the fact you can't distinguish between a put away from a weak retrieval after a baseline rally, and a diving or reach volley played from the net against an opponent with time on the ball really speaks loudly.

If the stat counter shows Novak coming to the net to plonk a put away down I guess Djokovic really is single handedly bringing back the volley, as someone said on here a year or so ago.

Like I said if we use your accounting measure than volleying has dissappeared apparently if you volley on the first ball it is good, but on the 5th ball the volley doesn't count. Many points finish at the net, not all volleys are routine put aways etc. You just say it is so and then we have to accept it as fact. By the way, I was being a bit tongue and cheek, but yes Djokovic finishes a lot of points at the net much more than most players the fact that you can't see it or fail to account for his volleys as volleys because they aren't the type of volleys you deem important tells the reader everything they need to know about the subjectivity and anectodal nature of your arguments.

That's really sad if you can't distinguish shots on any finer criteria than that. May as well just watch a match via the stat count.

Watch a match based on stat count, like counting errors to winners to determine the entertainment level of a match?

Hey, I'm not the one who's tried to pretend that a put away is the same thing as a reached volley off a serve or a slice approach. That's your newspeak, your way of pretending that Djokovic is a leading exponent of the volley.

I've never judged a match on the statistics; if I call a match boring it's because I've watched it until it bored me.

I think its probably the nutritonist, masseuse, personal trainer, sports psychologist, bed-maker, chef and barber all these boys have as entourage thats helping extend careers

kingraf wrote:I think its probably the nutritonist, masseuse, personal trainer, sports psychologist, bed-maker, chef and barber all these boys have as entourage thats helping extend careers

Djokovic needs to look at that barber, seriously.

kingraf wrote:I think its probably the nutritonist, masseuse, personal trainer, sports psychologist, bed-maker, chef and barber all these boys have as entourage thats helping extend careers

Yes kingraf, but big entourages have been around for the biggest stars since the 80s. I remember martina travelling with a nutritionist and fitness trainer. Serve and volley tennis involves much more explosive movement and change of direction as you have less time to react to the ball. There is more lunging, twisting, jumping, and turning. Courier I have heard say the same thing on US tv broadcast that in his day it was rare to see a serve and volleyer last very long because most of them had damaged their joints by the mid 20s. Look at how hard it was for Sampras with his back in his late 20s.

That may be true, Socal, but if modern medicine has improved, then logic dictates that the practitioners, (masseuse, trainer, dietician) are giving their clients better service?

To be fair, the baseline grinders of the 90s werent exactly IronMen taking tennis into the 21st century, Agassi excepted. I am not denying that S & V is more punishing on the joints, all I'm saying is that there were other mitigating factors. After all, Sampras won his last Slam at 31, while Courier won his last at 23. Even Goran finally broke through at 30, how many baseliners won their first slam at that age

do i really have to go and find out? gawwwddddd i have a life you know. I recently just purchased something on ebay, i am an ebay warrior.

kingraf wrote:That may be true, Socal, but if modern medicine has improved, then logic dictates that the practitioners, (masseuse, trainer, dietician) are giving their clients better service?

To be fair, the baseline grinders of the 90s werent exactly IronMen taking tennis into the 21st century, Agassi excepted. I am not denying that S & V is more punishing on the joints, all I'm saying is that there were other mitigating factors. After all, Sampras won his last Slam at 31, while Courier won his last at 23. Even Goran finally broke through at 30, how many baseliners won their first slam at that age

Goran was 29 and the oldest grandslam first time champion if memory serves me right.

i think gomez was over 30 socal, he won the french in the early 90's

I think there is a presumption of causation here, which socal has expounded on, but that is not necessarily the case. Slow courts may have coincided with longer careers, but how can we really know if slowing the courts down stretches out careers.

MMT1 wrote:I think there is a presumption of causation here, which socal has expounded on, but that is not necessarily the case. Slow courts may have coincided with longer careers, but how can we really know if slowing the courts down stretches out careers.

What I rely on is my own experience watching and playing TV. MMT1 take the socal challenge, play a match and stay back the whole match, then play a match and run up on every point, see after which match your body howls. I guarantee you it will be the S and V match, it is not easier on the body to play S and V and shorter points like some claim. Did it look easy for Boris becker head diving around the court?

Certainly there may be many reasons why the older players are more than holding their own at the moment.
Around three or four years ago Federer said he felt more happy with his physical condition and match fitness than at any time in his career. By this time at around 27 or 28 years of age, he was probably not as fast around the court or had such lightning reflexes.
But what he said was that he was totally aware of what his body was capable of and what was needed in terms of training and match fitness.
Another thing that some might recall. Murray when much younger said he did not think he was, at that time, PHYSICALLY capable of winning a Grand Slam. He joked he might be able to do it if he could win all his matches in straight sets.
So we could have the seeming paradox of a sport where the physical demands are so great that youngsters take time to come through but at the same time the older players can hang on longer. Interesting, eh?

Becker was a nutter, and he was still making GS finals at 27. Maybe its because I am a cricket fan, but I dont buy that the eyes and reflexes deteriorate appreciably at around age 26-28.