Federer calls modern game "More one dimensional"

These days, the topic of playing surfaces becoming similar keeps coming about in discussions as the top 4 men continue to dominate tennis irrespective of the surface. With the dominance of hard courts, which have been slowed down, tennis has become a battle of long baseline rallies. And those players who can win on hardcourts, also win on clay and grass courts. Roger Federer thinks that this should change and said that there should be some variety in the playing surfaces speed and conditions.

"I think there are no necessarily grass-court players, indoor specialists, not really clay-court specialists, for that matter. So everybody can play everywhere now. In the past people would miss entire clay- or grass-court seasons because they just thought, I’m not going to waste my time there. I’m going to practice and return on a surface that I prefer. It makes it sometimes easier then to dominate through different surfaces. But at the same time, if you’re on bad run, also that run can last longer as well.”

“That you come into, let’s say a quick hard court or a slow clay court and you have somebody who feels totally out of sorts, Before I thought that was pretty funny sometimes to see a guy feeling so uncomfortable having to play the other expert, but trying with what he had to make the other player feel uncomfortable. It’s not so much that anymore now, because everybody hits a good forehand, everybody hits a good backhand, everybody serves well now and moves well and is fit. It’s more one-dimensional now.”

But according to socal nothing has changed since 2003.

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Roger-Federer-says-all-players-can-play-on-all-surfaces-now-articolo9858.html

While what Roger saying is true, its a bit of a glass half-full/empty scenario. Other than the big four, are other players constantly making their seedings in tournaments? I would think that would be the case if its all the same.

"It’s not so much
that anymore now, because
everybody hits a good forehand,
everybody hits a good backhand,
everybody serves well now and moves
well and is fit. It’s more one-
dimensional now .”

I dont know how this is a bad thing, to be honest. No way is having more rounded players bad for the tour.

Imagine a football manager saying "Everyone can head, control with both feet, score, tackle and run for 90 minutes", that would constitute a massive improvement.

Also is that not a contradiction. It could be argued that players are just more three-dimensional as they can cope better on all surfaces and is that not a good thing? After all before court speeds were changed clay courters never stood a prayer on fast hard courts or grass courts and vice versa so it ruled them out of equations largely for certain slams and the same went for grass courters on clay. Hardly fair to all players was it?

And before I get jumped upon by others for my previous remark I have said many times I'd like a good fair few quicker surfaces introduced and I stand by that.

Before Federer, Nadal, Djokovic there were players like Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Budge, et al., who could play on all surfaces, slow or fast. They could play on polished wood and switch to grass or red clay.

The ability to play such a diverse game is slowly being lost as surfaces are homogenised to promote rivalries. Surfaces are not identical yet, but are similar.

I am glad to see the likes of Hass, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Wawrinka et al make some dents, but perhaps not much.

kingraf wrote:While what Roger saying is true, its a bit of a glass half-full/empty scenario. Other than the big four, are other players constantly making their seedings in tournaments? I would think that would be the case if its all the same.

But I think there is some evidence that other players have also become more consistent. At this year's AO, I have noticed that 13 out of top 16 made the round of 16. I felt it was more than I used to see, so I checked all AO draws since 1990. And the pattern is quite clear - top 16 seeds are more consistent than they used to be. In the 17 year period from 1990-2006, there was not a single year when more than 10 out of top 16 seeds would reach the round of 16. In the seven years after 2006, it happened five times. That is a huge difference.

Also, another - more circumstancial - piece of evidence is David Ferrer's play at recent GSs. He is clearly well below the big 4, yet he is now on 20+ match GS winning streak against non-big-4 opponents. That is very very consistent. Much as I like little David's work ethic, if he can get a streak like that, you should start scratching your head.

kingraf wrote:
"It’s not so much
that anymore now, because
everybody hits a good forehand,
everybody hits a good backhand,
everybody serves well now and moves
well and is fit. It’s more one-
dimensional now .”

I dont know how this is a bad thing, to be honest. No way is having more rounded players bad for the tour.

I do not know how Fed meant it, but to me he is not necessarily saying players are more rounded these days. He may be saying that a lot of the variety has been lost. All you need is a good forehand, backhand etc, but you no longer need to be able to do all kinds of things with those shots. In the old days, you needed to have ground strokes but you also needed to be good at the net, you needed to be able to hit a good slice, and to know how to play if someone hit a slice against you, etc etc. I think it is sort of like when you (I think it was you?) mentioned something about today's players being good "off both wings". That statement hides an awful lot of shortcomings that today's players can afford to hide behind those "good forehands and backhands". Nole is a run-away number one even though he has an atrocious slice, mediocre volley, cannot hit an overhead.... and what is worse, these things do not even look like big holes these days.

In the old days, the range of skills needed to make a "perfect" player was much wider. In fact, it was so wide that nobody had a chance to come close - players had to choose their skills from among the desirabale ones. But that is what made it more interesting. Some players would be good at certain things while others would be good at others, and they could have become successful playing varying styles. Edberg and Wilander were both moving up the rankings at the same time while playing extremely different games.

These days, the skill set required to succeed is less varied and, as a result, it is easier for a player to look like they have no weaknesses - but it really is just because less versatility is required nowadays.

Excellent post SB.

KF, I think you've misunderstood the intent behind Roger's statement. I don't think he's saying that players are more well-rounded today, quite the opposite in fact. I believe he's saying that the homogenisation of conditions means you only need a small skillset ie, a good FH, a good BH, and be very fit, to succeed at a reasonable level.

I think Roger's spot on as usual with his observations. The ATP and the WTA players are for the most part all clones of each other. It's the Bollitieri, one size fits all, approach. And it's successful because the conditions are not challenging enough requiring players to take risks and do different things.

Yeah, but the upshot is everyone is that everyone is more rounded.
Lets create a generic player:
Good forehand
Good backhand
Good movement
fit.

If Fed says everyone plays like that, surely that means everyone us more rounded? I was watching Wimbledon 98 a few days ago... Some of these guys were relying on the serve, thats it, no forehand, neglible backhand, but could make last 16 based only on that.

emancipator wrote:Excellent post SB.

KF, I think you've misunderstood the intent behind Roger's statement. I don't think he's saying that players are more well-rounded today, quite the opposite in fact. I believe he's saying that the homogenisation of conditions means you only need a small skillset ie, a good FH, a good BH, and be very fit, to succeed at a reasonable level.

I think Roger's spot on as usual with his observations. The ATP and the WTA players are for the most part all clones of each other. It's the Bollitieri, one size fits all, approach. And it's successful because the conditions are not challenging enough requiring players to take risks and do different things.

I agree!! Let's go back to the good old days of 1991, when only big servers excelled at Wimby and metronomic baseliners excelled at RG

I mean Wimbledon 1991, was soooooooooo entertaining - we must go back to that!!!

I hope Roger isn't 'complaining' about the skillset's of his colleagues or harking back to 'the good old days'. After all he is nearly 32 and is it so bad that he got beaten by an up and coming player. Is he that arrogant - that he then resorts to questioning todays conditions? As I stated - I'm not certain he is complaining, so I'll give him the benfit of the doubt

LIke CC there should be a bit more variation - but we are light years better than terrible fast or turgid slow choices we had back in the 90's, which for me is easily the worst spell of entertaining Tennis (since the 'open' era)

Hence, for me there is too much wistful looking back with rose-tinted glasses. You know you're getting old when you think that the summers used to be better when you were at school

Or you keep moaning about modern day Tennis conditions

kingraf wrote:Yeah, but the upshot is everyone is that everyone is more rounded.
Lets create a generic player:
Good forehand
Good backhand
Good movement
fit.

If Fed says everyone plays like that, surely that means everyone us more rounded? I was watching Wimbledon 98 a few days ago... Some of these guys were relying on the serve, thats it, no forehand, neglible backhand, but could make last 16 based only on that.

Not necessarily. A composite player with the above qualities would just be good at hitting FH's and BH's from the baseline. That doesn't make them more rounded, it just makes them one-dimensional like Federer said. A well rounded player would also have a good serve, be able to volley, use slices and spins etc. The point that Federer, I believe, is making is that homogenisation leads to a preponderance of one style on tour. So the 1-D aspect is the fact that there is just one style, for the most part, being used on tour. With more surface variation you'd have a wider range of players with different styles. The player's may then either become more varied in their play to aquit themselves to the different conditions or they may become more a specialised in their play devoting themselves more to one style for one particular surface. Either way the tour gets more varied, and the top players in particular have to contend with different styles.

kingraf wrote:I was watching Wimbledon 98 a few days ago... Some of these guys were relying on the serve, thats it, no forehand, neglible backhand, but could make last 16 based only on that.

Thankfully, you were too young to actually live through that as a Tennis fan

But some people on these boards appear to have temporary memory loss and seem to have forgotten just how poor some of the skills were of those outside the Top 20

I suppose we need to accept that some think being a good serve and volleyer is the holy grail or Tennis

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Excellent post SB.

KF, I think you've misunderstood the intent behind Roger's statement. I don't think he's saying that players are more well-rounded today, quite the opposite in fact. I believe he's saying that the homogenisation of conditions means you only need a small skillset ie, a good FH, a good BH, and be very fit, to succeed at a reasonable level.

I think Roger's spot on as usual with his observations. The ATP and the WTA players are for the most part all clones of each other. It's the Bollitieri, one size fits all, approach. And it's successful because the conditions are not challenging enough requiring players to take risks and do different things.

I agree!! Let's go back to the good old days of 1991, when only big servers excelled at Wimby and metronomic baseliners excelled at RG

I mean Wimbledon 1991, was soooooooooo entertaining - we must go back to that!!!

I hope Roger isn't 'complaining' about the skillset's of his colleagues or harking back to 'the good old days'. After all he is nearly 32 and is it so bad that he got beaten by an up and coming player. Is he that arrogant - that he then resorts to questioning todays conditions? As I stated - I'm not certain he is complaining, so I'll give him the benfit of the doubt

LIke CC there should be a bit more variation - but we are light years better than terrible fast or turgid slow choices we had back in the 90's, which for me is easily the worst spell of entertaining Tennis (since the 'open' era)

Hence, for me there is too much wistful looking back with rose-tinted glasses. You know you're getting old when you think that the summers used to be better when you were at school

Or you keep moaning about modern day Tennis conditions

Trust you to come along and build some strawmen.

Who is calling for widely diverging conditions?

I think everyone is advocating SOME VARIETY, let me spell it out for you, a little variation in surfaces compared to the uniformish pace that seems to prevail today. Capiche? Does that sound like a return to the serve fests of the nineties? No, so what exactly are you arguing against? Or do you feel so insecure about Murray's accomplishments that anything, in your little mind, that seemingly devalues those achievements (like presumably homogenised conditions which make it easier for the top players to excel today compared to more divergent conditions a few years ago), you feel the need to rail against, even if it means building strawmen. TBH , you and Socal do that all the time. Build extreme strawmen and try to pass them off as other posters' unreasonable opinions.

emancipator wrote:A well rounded player would also have a good serve, be able to volley, use slices and spins etc.

An here the argument fails spectacularly. There are far more players who can do this with far more competence than in the 90's.

I think people seriously need to do some research on how basic, due to the conditons, that numerous players were. If you didn't have a fast serve, your were toast and would almost have no chance of success - unless you had unique skills like Agassi

i.e. the gradient between 1 and 51 was even greater

Maybe that's OK though, i.e, the very good players being miles better than the also-rans (so to speak) but if this is the case why do so many people moan about the Big 4?

Wimbledon 1991 was entertaining
Wimbledon 1998 was also entertaining, as a Henman fan.

S & V should be the holy grail of grass court tennis IMHO, just as baseline rallies should be what clay court tennis is about. I'd rather watch McEnroe, Edberg and Henman on an old grass court than just about any grass court match these days, because I can see today's grass court matches on other surfaces.

Exactly Julius.

Banbro doesn't seem to understand that tennis can be played in different ways. Perhaps a little variety in surface condiions may facilitate some variety in play? Is that something wrong?

If it was up to Banbro he'd have a tour full of Andy Murray clones.

emancipator wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Excellent post SB.

KF, I think you've misunderstood the intent behind Roger's statement. I don't think he's saying that players are more well-rounded today, quite the opposite in fact. I believe he's saying that the homogenisation of conditions means you only need a small skillset ie, a good FH, a good BH, and be very fit, to succeed at a reasonable level.

I think Roger's spot on as usual with his observations. The ATP and the WTA players are for the most part all clones of each other. It's the Bollitieri, one size fits all, approach. And it's successful because the conditions are not challenging enough requiring players to take risks and do different things.

I agree!! Let's go back to the good old days of 1991, when only big servers excelled at Wimby and metronomic baseliners excelled at RG

I mean Wimbledon 1991, was soooooooooo entertaining - we must go back to that!!!

I hope Roger isn't 'complaining' about the skillset's of his colleagues or harking back to 'the good old days'. After all he is nearly 32 and is it so bad that he got beaten by an up and coming player. Is he that arrogant - that he then resorts to questioning todays conditions? As I stated - I'm not certain he is complaining, so I'll give him the benfit of the doubt

LIke CC there should be a bit more variation - but we are light years better than terrible fast or turgid slow choices we had back in the 90's, which for me is easily the worst spell of entertaining Tennis (since the 'open' era)

Hence, for me there is too much wistful looking back with rose-tinted glasses. You know you're getting old when you think that the summers used to be better when you were at school

Or you keep moaning about modern day Tennis conditions

Trust you to come along and build some strawmen.

Who is calling for widely diverging conditions?

I think everyone is advocating SOME VARIETY, let me spell it out for you, a little variation in surfaces compared to the uniformish pace that seems to prevail today. Capiche? Does that sound like a return to the serve fests of the nineties? No, so what exactly are you arguing against? Or do you feel so insecure about Murray's accomplishments that anything, in your little mind, that seemingly devalues those achievements (like presumably homogenised conditions which make it easier for the top players to excel today compared to more divergent conditions a few years ago), you feel the need to rail against, even if it means building strawmen. TBH , you and Socal do that all the time. Build extreme strawmen and try to pass them off as other posters' unreasonable opinions.

I've highlighted the bit, that you've obviously missed. Socal, myself and CC just get sick to death about all the carping of today's game as if the previous era was the works of Shakespeare.

I mean some have said that Roger is regretting that we have lost variety for 'sameness'. If that is the case, can we not then go back an look an (admitedly) exteme time when we had such variety and remind ourselves what the game look like? Obviously not, you're not allowed to suggest that the game today is good and be careful of what you wish for

Let's be honest, if an alien arrived on these boards and read some of the articles, they'd think that the game was on it's knees. It is that what some of us protest about

And please will you stop always thinking there is an agenda when Murray fans moan about others moaning!! I'd settle for 90's conditions today as it would basically make him No.1 in the world (or Federer) because he has no trouble with fast conditons as he uses the pace of a player - he's a poor generator (hence why he's relatively poor on Clay)

Hope that's clear enough for you!!

Banbro, perhaps others get sick to death about all the carping of yesterday's games as if it was all a big pile of dinosaur poopie and today's game is the work of Shakespeare and Einstein combined

Let's be honest, if an alien arrived on these boards and read some of the articles, they'd think that no-one could play tennis before 2008 . It is that what some of us protest about.

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Excellent post SB.

KF, I think you've misunderstood the intent behind Roger's statement. I don't think he's saying that players are more well-rounded today, quite the opposite in fact. I believe he's saying that the homogenisation of conditions means you only need a small skillset ie, a good FH, a good BH, and be very fit, to succeed at a reasonable level.

I think Roger's spot on as usual with his observations. The ATP and the WTA players are for the most part all clones of each other. It's the Bollitieri, one size fits all, approach. And it's successful because the conditions are not challenging enough requiring players to take risks and do different things.

I agree!! Let's go back to the good old days of 1991, when only big servers excelled at Wimby and metronomic baseliners excelled at RG

I mean Wimbledon 1991, was soooooooooo entertaining - we must go back to that!!!

I hope Roger isn't 'complaining' about the skillset's of his colleagues or harking back to 'the good old days'. After all he is nearly 32 and is it so bad that he got beaten by an up and coming player. Is he that arrogant - that he then resorts to questioning todays conditions? As I stated - I'm not certain he is complaining, so I'll give him the benfit of the doubt

LIke CC there should be a bit more variation - but we are light years better than terrible fast or turgid slow choices we had back in the 90's, which for me is easily the worst spell of entertaining Tennis (since the 'open' era)

Hence, for me there is too much wistful looking back with rose-tinted glasses. You know you're getting old when you think that the summers used to be better when you were at school

Or you keep moaning about modern day Tennis conditions

Trust you to come along and build some strawmen.

Who is calling for widely diverging conditions?

I think everyone is advocating SOME VARIETY, let me spell it out for you, a little variation in surfaces compared to the uniformish pace that seems to prevail today. Capiche? Does that sound like a return to the serve fests of the nineties? No, so what exactly are you arguing against? Or do you feel so insecure about Murray's accomplishments that anything, in your little mind, that seemingly devalues those achievements (like presumably homogenised conditions which make it easier for the top players to excel today compared to more divergent conditions a few years ago), you feel the need to rail against, even if it means building strawmen. TBH , you and Socal do that all the time. Build extreme strawmen and try to pass them off as other posters' unreasonable opinions.

I've highlighted the bit, that you've obviously missed. Socal, myself and CC just get sick to death about all the carping of today's game as if the previous era was the works of Shakespeare.

I mean some have said that Roger is regretting that we have lost variety for 'sameness'. If that is the case, can we not then go back an look an (admitedly) exteme time when we had such variety and remind ourselves what the game look like? Obviously not, you're not allowed to suggest that the game today is good and be careful of what you wish for

Let's be honest, if an alien arrived on these boards and read some of the articles, they'd think that the game was on it's knees. It is that what some of us protest about

And please will you stop always thinking there is an agenda when Murray fans moan about others moaning!! I'd settle for 90's conditions today as it would basically make him No.1 in the world (or Federer) because he has no trouble with fast conditons as he uses the pace of a player - he's a poor generator (hence why he's relatively poor on Clay)

Hope that's clear enough for you!!

Yes that is more clear.

I can understand that you may get frustrated when it seems like people are just knocking the modern game.

I don't feel that there is much wrong with the modern game but that doesn't mean I don't think the product can be improved upon. Of course any changes need to be made in small gradated steps so as not to swing things in another direction too suddenly.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Wimbledon 1991 was entertaining

It might have been 'enteraining' but it wan't in the same league as the 21 Wimbledon's before or the 21 Wimbledon's after. I remember those wonderful SF's as Stich won on 3 tie breaks due to an crass inability to do anything much more than serve

As for the other SF, we had David Wheaton, who makes Ivo Karlovic look like Roger , manfully try and do something against Becker

And I took Friday afternoon of to watch all this!!!

The final was even worse, the first an only time I felt sorry for Becker

I'm more than happy that some on these boards think that 1991 was 'entertaining' - it means that it's like trying to convince somene who is allergic to Vitamin D that the sun is good for them

kingraf wrote:Yeah, but the upshot is everyone is that everyone is more rounded.
Lets create a generic player:
Good forehand
Good backhand
Good movement
fit.

If Fed says everyone plays like that, surely that means everyone us more rounded?

No. There should be much more to tennis than that.

kingraf wrote:I was watching Wimbledon 98 a few days ago... Some of these guys were relying on the serve, thats it, no forehand, neglible backhand, but could make last 16 based only on that.

I agree with you on W98, but I would not think of it as "W98 vs today's well-roundedness". I think W98 and today's game are two sides of the same coin. In both cases, the variety is lacking. The only difference is that W98 was erring on one end of the spectrum, while today's game is erring on the other end.

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Wimbledon 1991 was entertaining

It might have been 'enteraining' but it wan't in the same league as the 21 Wimbledon's before or the 21 Wimbledon's after. I remember those wonderful SF's as Stich won on 3 tie breaks due to an crass inability to do anything much more than serve

As for the other SF, we had David Wheaton, who makes Ivo Karlovic look like Roger , manfully try and do something against Becker

And I took Friday afternoon of to watch all this!!!

The final was even worse, the first an only time I felt sorry for Becker

I'm more than happy that some on these boards think that 1991 was 'entertaining' - it means that it's like trying to convince somene who is allergic to Vitamin D that the sun is good for them

Well yes, God forbid anyone should have a different idea of what is entertaining tennis than you banbro - clearly they are just plain stupid and wrong and you are the God of all tennis appreciation.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Banbro, perhaps others get sick to death about all the carping of yesterday's games as if it was all a big pile of dinosaur poopie and today's game is the work of Shakespeare and Einstein combined

Let's be honest, if an alien arrived on these boards and read some of the articles, they'd think that no-one could play tennis before 2008 . It is that what some of us protest about.

But in fairness - I'm not saying that. My favourite era remains that 1979 to 1984 spell and probably always will, The late 80's was fine, where Edberg was at his peak (you see I do like S&V's ) and the 90's got going around 92' for a couple of years, when you could argue that as there were around half a dozen slam winners all playing at the same - it was as good as it is now. But then the big servers began to dominate with their awful one-dimesional play (96' Wimby final anyone?)

A few more faster courts are needed - but that isn't going to stop all round multi-surface players from still all looking the same

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Wimbledon 1991 was entertaining

It might have been 'enteraining' but it wan't in the same league as the 21 Wimbledon's before or the 21 Wimbledon's after. I remember those wonderful SF's as Stich won on 3 tie breaks due to an crass inability to do anything much more than serve

As for the other SF, we had David Wheaton, who makes Ivo Karlovic look like Roger , manfully try and do something against Becker

And I took Friday afternoon of to watch all this!!!

The final was even worse, the first an only time I felt sorry for Becker

I'm more than happy that some on these boards think that 1991 was 'entertaining' - it means that it's like trying to convince somene who is allergic to Vitamin D that the sun is good for them

Well yes, God forbid anyone should have a different idea of what is entertaining tennis than you banbro - clearly they are just plain stupid and wrong and you are the God of all tennis appreciation.

Juliius. My last sentence was actually accepting that people have different ideas of what is entertaining. I haven't said that you were "stupid" or "wrong".

Indeed, I've celebrated the fact that if you think 91' was entertaining then the discussion ends here - because for me we diametrically more opposed than Cameron and Milliband!!

Actually, perhaps not that bad

But fine - I'm more bemused by your statement, but respect it, simply because like me you're an avid fan of the game

1991 left me in a state of depression that only the birth of my wonderful daughter, in October, lifted me from

lydian wrote:These days, the topic of playing surfaces becoming similar keeps coming about in discussions as the top 4 men continue to dominate tennis irrespective of the surface. With the dominance of hard courts, which have been slowed down, tennis has become a battle of long baseline rallies. And those players who can win on hardcourts, also win on clay and grass courts. Roger Federer thinks that this should change and said that there should be some variety in the playing surfaces speed and conditions.

"I think there are no necessarily grass-court players, indoor specialists, not really clay-court specialists, for that matter. So everybody can play everywhere now. In the past people would miss entire clay- or grass-court seasons because they just thought, I’m not going to waste my time there. I’m going to practice and return on a surface that I prefer. It makes it sometimes easier then to dominate through different surfaces. But at the same time, if you’re on bad run, also that run can last longer as well.”

“That you come into, let’s say a quick hard court or a slow clay court and you have somebody who feels totally out of sorts, Before I thought that was pretty funny sometimes to see a guy feeling so uncomfortable having to play the other expert, but trying with what he had to make the other player feel uncomfortable. It’s not so much that anymore now, because everybody hits a good forehand, everybody hits a good backhand, everybody serves well now and moves well and is fit. It’s more one-dimensional now.”

But according to socal nothing has changed since 2003.

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Roger-Federer-says-all-players-can-play-on-all-surfaces-now-articolo9858.html

Snake biten on Socal articles.

Very good article again Lyd

Tennis at times do get boring coz there is lack of variety and thats making the top dogs feel comfortable coz they already know the trade, once the top dog starts feeling uncomfortable of a specific surface they will start to lose and more they start to lose less the underdogs will fear and hence more challenges and upcoming youngsters.

summerblues wrote:

kingraf wrote:While what Roger saying is true, its a bit of a glass half-full/empty scenario. Other than the big four, are other players constantly making their seedings in tournaments? I would think that would be the case if its all the same.

But I think there is some evidence that other players have also become more consistent. At this year's AO, I have noticed that 13 out of top 16 made the round of 16. I felt it was more than I used to see, so I checked all AO draws since 1990. And the pattern is quite clear - top 16 seeds are more consistent than they used to be. In the 17 year period from 1990-2006, there was not a single year when more than 10 out of top 16 seeds would reach the round of 16. In the seven years after 2006, it happened five times. That is a huge difference.

Also, another - more circumstancial - piece of evidence is David Ferrer's play at recent GSs. He is clearly well below the big 4, yet he is now on 20+ match GS winning streak against non-big-4 opponents. That is very very consistent. Much as I like little David's work ethic, if he can get a streak like that, you should start scratching your head.

kingraf wrote:
"It’s not so much
that anymore now, because
everybody hits a good forehand,
everybody hits a good backhand,
everybody serves well now and moves
well and is fit. It’s more one-
dimensional now .”

I dont know how this is a bad thing, to be honest. No way is having more rounded players bad for the tour.

I do not know how Fed meant it, but to me he is not necessarily saying players are more rounded these days. He may be saying that a lot of the variety has been lost. All you need is a good forehand, backhand etc, but you no longer need to be able to do all kinds of things with those shots. In the old days, you needed to have ground strokes but you also needed to be good at the net, you needed to be able to hit a good slice, and to know how to play if someone hit a slice against you, etc etc. I think it is sort of like when you (I think it was you?) mentioned something about today's players being good "off both wings". That statement hides an awful lot of shortcomings that today's players can afford to hide behind those "good forehands and backhands". Nole is a run-away number one even though he has an atrocious slice, mediocre volley, cannot hit an overhead.... and what is worse, these things do not even look like big holes these days.

In the old days, the range of skills needed to make a "perfect" player was much wider. In fact, it was so wide that nobody had a chance to come close - players had to choose their skills from among the desirabale ones. But that is what made it more interesting. Some players would be good at certain things while others would be good at others, and they could have become successful playing varying styles. Edberg and Wilander were both moving up the rankings at the same time while playing extremely different games.

These days, the skill set required to succeed is less varied and, as a result, it is easier for a player to look like they have no weaknesses - but it really is just because less versatility is required nowadays.

Well put forward, post of the week.

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Banbro, perhaps others get sick to death about all the carping of yesterday's games as if it was all a big pile of dinosaur poopie and today's game is the work of Shakespeare and Einstein combined

Let's be honest, if an alien arrived on these boards and read some of the articles, they'd think that no-one could play tennis before 2008 . It is that what some of us protest about.

But in fairness - I'm not saying that. My favourite era remains that 1979 to 1984 spell and probably always will, The late 80's was fine, where Edberg was at his peak (you see I do like S&V's ) and the 90's got going around 92' for a couple of years, when you could argue that as there were around half a dozen slam winners all playing at the same - it was as good as it is now. But then the big servers began to dominate with their awful one-dimesional play (96' Wimby final anyone?)

A few more faster courts are needed - but that isn't going to stop all round multi-surface players from still all looking the same

Spot on. That is my take as well. I have said a number of times that my favourite era was that of Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. However, people are painting is as sacrilege if you dare to offer an opinion that you prefer the current era over the early 2000's. Why?

CaledonianCraig wrote:[I have said a number of times that my favourite era was that of Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. However, people are painting is as sacrilege if you dare to offer an opinion that you prefer the current era over the early 2000's. Why?

Quite simple and sad really. For me it appears that some people can't get over how players like Murray (as they would put it) and Novak can (genrally) be consistently the best in the world - it seems to have some totally perplexed

What better way to disguise this feeling by moaning on about how this is only down to how average all the surfaces are etc, i.e. they'd have been lost in earlier era's

We then get the amusing posts about how Tommy Haas would have won 20 slams if the conditions were like they were in 2002

It's a great argument, because we'll never know. But when you make a good educated guess, i.e. a great instinctive returner, like Murray, would have been just as good in the 90's - it get's ignored

Worse you get accused of been too defensive of the strength of the current game - simply because of your liking for a player

As someone who's watched Tennis with the same intensity in 1977 as I do now, I think if me, you and people like Agassi (who makes the least out of the game at the moment, i.e. doesn't have a commentating or coaching career) are marvelling at the current Tennis (or more correctly 2011 up to Nadal's injury) then we're on the right side of the argument

I repeat - make the US Open and a couple of Masters faster add a grass court Masters or a '500' one and we're about perfect. Perfect for Andy, actually

Exactly banbro - the faster the better for Andy. Perhaps explains why clay is his weakest surface as it is the slowest surface.

Works both ways - e.g. state that a young and fit Hewitt would have been in contention for slams in today's game and you get ridiculed because no player from the early 2000s would get in the top 100 these days - or similar stuff like that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Works both ways - e.g. state that a young and fit Hewitt would have been in contention for slams in today's game and you get ridiculed because no player from the early 2000s would get in the top 100 these days - or similar stuff like that.

I think you know JHM that is quite a bit of an exaggeration as I cannot recall myself, banbro or socal ever saying that.

And I think you know CC that saying "people are painting it as sacrilege if you dare to offer an opinion that you prefer the current era over the early 2000's" is also quite a bit of an exaggeration.

Yes but CC when you say Andy likes fast you mean medium-fast, not carpet-fast. Andy isn't trained to play ultra-fast, he's trained to last 5 hour matches from the baseline.

Good post SB, I also said almost exactly the same a month or so ago when I highlighted Tipsarevic's response to the question: "How different are the surfaces?".

He answered "Honestly? Not that much. You know, they created every surface, I don’t want to say the same, but really similar. The surfaces are so much alike that you don’t really have to go out of your way to change your game plan in order to adapt to a certain surface. Even if it’s indoor, outdoor, clay court or grass court."

I went on to add "If you're not having to use different game plans you're not having to bring in other aspects to win matches. It's like you have a bag of 25 tools - when surfaces varied more you needed to use all 25 in the course of a year, you adjusted your game plan in which say 15-20 you used for any given surface. Now you can get away with using the same 15-20 tools across all surfaces."

...then...

"However, adaptation has been made easier by convergence via speed reduction. Borg couldn't win a hard slam, Lendl a grass one, Mac and Sampras clay ones. All former great players struggled across the divergent surfaces, yet we're to believe that history has thrown up 3 of its best players in the last 10 years given Federer and Nadal achieved the mystical career slam within 12 months of each other, with Djokovic coming close another 24 months later...and will probably achieve it soon enough."

Speaking of Djokovic, he said this after AO12 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 ...".

We're being served up less courses than before but some feel the food is still as good as ever, maybe, but I'd prefer a broader menu to whet my appetite.

JuliusHMarx wrote:And I think you know CC that saying "people are painting it as sacrilege if you dare to offer an opinion that you prefer the current era over the early 2000's" is also quite a bit of an exaggeration.

Perhaps poor choice of words but it does come across that way when you get posters constantly popping up posts about Haas to try to prove a point, or posts about what Player A has said etc. I say quit all the crowing on both sides and settle back and enjoy the tennis.

I wouldnt say a young Hewitt has no chance, but I dont think he would fare better than Ferrer,might be wrong, but he just doesnt possess the weapons.

The problem with the 2000s theory is that at the age they should have been peaking, the top four was Nadal/Federer/Djoko/Murray.

Safin made semis of Wimbledon in in 2008, but that was a swallow in a fruitless summer. Andy Roddick made ONE GS final post 25.

lydian wrote:Yes but CC when you say Andy likes fast you mean medium-fast, not carpet-fast. Andy isn't trained to play ultra-fast, he's trained to last 5 hour matches from the baseline.

Good post SB, I also said almost exactly the same a month or so ago when I highlighted Tipsarevic's response to the question: "How different are the surfaces?".

He answered "Honestly? Not that much. You know, they created every surface, I don’t want to say the same, but really similar. The surfaces are so much alike that you don’t really have to go out of your way to change your game plan in order to adapt to a certain surface. Even if it’s indoor, outdoor, clay court or grass court."

I went on to add "If you're not having to use different game plans you're not having to bring in other aspects to win matches. It's like you have a bag of 25 tools - when surfaces varied more you needed to use all 25 in the course of a year, you adjusted your game plan in which say 15-20 you used for any given surface. Now you can get away with using the same 15-20 tools across all surfaces."

...then...

"However, adaptation has been made easier by convergence via speed reduction. Borg couldn't win a hard slam, Lendl a grass one, Mac and Sampras clay ones. All former great players struggled across the divergent surfaces, yet we're to believe that history has thrown up 3 of its best players in the last 10 years given Federer and Nadal achieved the mystical career slam within 12 months of each other, with Djokovic coming close another 24 months later...and will probably achieve it soon enough."

Speaking of Djokovic, he said this after AO12 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 ...".

We're being served up less courses than before but some feel the food is still as good as ever, maybe, but I'd prefer a broader menu to whet my appetite.

But lydian what is your beef and who is it with? Myself, banbro and yes even socal have said they would like a few more quicker courts so I don't see what you are getting at?

kingraf wrote:I wouldnt say a young Hewitt has no chance, but I dont think he would fare better than Ferrer,might be wrong, but he just doesnt possess the weapons.

The problem with the 2000s theory is that at the age they should have been peaking, the top four was Nadal/Federer/Djoko/Murray.

Safin made semis of Wimbledon in in 2008, but that was a swallow in a fruitless summer. Andy Roddick made ONE GS final post 25.

By saying Hewitt wouldn't have much of a chance you're doing him a great injustice. You're basically transposing the Hewitt of early noughties to this era and then comparing. That's not how it works. You bring Mac '84 straight into this era and he gets hammered by anyone in the top 10. Neither of them trained to play in this era, and neither of them grew up as contemporaries of this era. Had they done so they may have been completely different players and being the champions they are they would have competed and taken slams most likely. That is why era comparisons are futile. It would be like taking Rafa or Novak to Sampras's heydey and asking them to compete against him on W centre court.

Stating that Hewitt would be no better than Ferrer is just wrong. Hewitt had a completely different mentality. He was a scrapper, a fantastic mover (before injuries got the better of him) and a fantastic returner of the serve (Pete Sampras can attest to that). He had bottle and a winners mentality. Those two things alone can take you a long way. Didn't old banged up Hewitt take a set off Djokovic at last years AUS open. He could dictate using angles off the baseline and had very good touch around the net. Ferrer has none of those things and is basically just a grinder. If Murray can win slams in this era, then Hewitt certainly can (particularly if he had had a level playing field, ie was a contemporary).

lydian wrote:Yes but CC when you say Andy likes fast you mean medium-fast, not carpet-fast. Andy isn't trained to play ultra-fast, he's trained to last 5 hour matches from the baseline

For you, given your normally well balanced opinions, this sounds amazingly mean-spirited. Are you saying that this is Andy's main weapon? What like that Olympic final?

You seem to not even respect Murray's sheer instinctive style of play that is better, generally, the faster the surface. Have you not noticed that he tends to have a history of playing well against the very good servers and a poor one on clay. Could that be because, he loves the pace that others give him and uses this to full affect? That's why he had his first big Masters match win (against Federer) in Dubai. That's also why he tends to be te equal of Novak on such surfaces (i.e. Dubai, Olympics 2012)

Does this sound like someone trained just for five hour matches? - jeez, give the man some respect

And what do you mean that Andy "isn't trained to play ultra-fast"? Of course he isn't because it would get him nowhere right now. Give him a few events on fast surfaces and the history shows that he plays as good as anyone apart from Roger to win them

You've done it. I'm now a convert. I want every surface to be super-fast, just to prove that Murray would revel in such conditions - not struggle

Im sorry but Hewitt lost, what 14 in a row to Roger? He got taken to five sets by an 18-year old Rafa in his home slam. I dont see a "peak" Hewitt beating Nadal, he quite obviously couldnt beat Federer.

An interesting thing I noticed in that post is that you say,

". That is why era comparisons are futile."

And yet you seem very sure Hewitt could win a slam in this era.

If
Murray can win slams in this era, then Hewitt
certainly can (particularly if he had had a level
playing field, ie was a contemporary).

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:[I have said a number of times that my favourite era was that of Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. However, people are painting is as sacrilege if you dare to offer an opinion that you prefer the current era over the early 2000's. Why?

Quite simple and sad really. For me it appears that some people can't get over how players like Murray (as they would put it) and Novak can (genrally) be consistently the best in the world - it seems to have some totally perplexed

When is Murray consistently best in the world , Banbro you starting to make jokes now. Even if we forget reaching no.1 ,Murray reached no.2 quite a few times in his career but never for once held it for like 10-12 months in a row, so how on earth that consistently best in the world. Even if Murray reach NO.2 I am pretty sure he is not gonna latch onto it for 10 months in a row.

This doesn't mean Murray is a bad player or I hate Murray, I indeed want Murray to reach NO.1 and I tipped him to reach NO.1 by the end of this year or by 2014 max but for the moment there is no consistency exhibited by Murray to hold the 2nd best spot let alone the top dog spot.

kingraf wrote:Im sorry but Hewitt lost, what 14 in a row to Roger? He got taken to five sets by an 18-year old Rafa in his home slam. I dont see a "peak" Hewitt beating Nadal, he quite obviously couldnt beat Federer.

An interesting thing I noticed in that post is that you say,

". That is why era comparisons are futile."

And yet you seem very sure Hewitt could win a slam in this era.

If
Murray can win slams in this era, then Hewitt
certainly can (particularly if he had had a level
playing field, ie was a contemporary).

Lets count how many matches Rafa lost to Djokovic from 2011 , I won't be surprised if that exceeds the mark set by Hewitt in the future, do that mean Rafa will become a bad player all of a sudden? so is the case for Hewitt, both Hewitt and Rafa are early bloomers and Fed and Djoko are late bloomers.

kingraf wrote:Im sorry but Hewitt lost, what 14 in a row to Roger? He got taken to five sets by an 18-year old Rafa in his home slam. I dont see a "peak" Hewitt beating Nadal, he quite obviously couldnt beat Federer.

An interesting thing I noticed in that post is that you say,

". That is why era comparisons are futile."

And yet you seem very sure Hewitt could win a slam in this era.

If
Murray can win slams in this era, then Hewitt
certainly can (particularly if he had had a level
playing field, ie was a contemporary).

One slam match against Rafa doesn't prove anything. Losing 14 in a row to Roger likewise does not rule him out of contention. Roger, the fitter, faster version was an awful matchup for Hewitt.

My last statement is not an era comparison. It's just applying the logic that a two time slam champion would be in contention for slams in this and probably any era if given the same conditions and opportunities to develop as his contemporaries. Your likening of Hewitt to Ferrer is far more ridiculous or your statement that the Hewitt of early noughties wouldn't win a slam in this era - without even considering how the game has changed. Using that logic, Lendl of 87-89 wouldn't even make the semi's in this era.

Not really, youre comparing a 8-time Slam winner with a two time slam winner. Also, since 2011, Nadal is 3-8 vs Djokovic, with with two of his defeats going to a third set tie-breaker, while one went to five sets. Hewitt on the other hand has been frequently put to the sword.

Guys from the eighties like Becker, Lendl, McEnroe say that this is a golden era, then people say "nah, they are too directly involved in tennis". Agassi and Sampras say the exact same, but they get ignored, instead we are told that that the big four are less skilled amongst other things than Hewitt of all people?

Fair enough Hewitt may have had different results had he been born four years later, but I dont see anything in his game which he would have changed had he been born in 1984. He was never particularly skilled at S & V, nor does he really have any great weapons that could scare one. In fact his game is the tactical ancestor for guys like Murray, and Nole who have better serves, and bigger groundstrokes.

You say the Nadal match is not a big enough sample to judge wether Nadal would have consistently beaten him, and yet one post earlier you use a single set

"Didn't old banged up Hewitt take a set
off Djokovic at last years AUS open. "

kingraf wrote:Not really, youre comparing a 8-time Slam winner with a two time slam winner. Also, since 2011, Nadal is 3-8 vs Djokovic, with with two of his defeats going to a third set tie-breaker, while one went to five sets. Hewitt on the other hand has been frequently put to the sword.

Guys from the eighties like Becker, Lendl, McEnroe say that this is a golden era, then people say "nah, they are too directly involved in tennis". Agassi and Sampras say the exact same, but they get ignored, instead we are told that that the big four are less skilled amongst other things than Hewitt of all people?
Fair enough Hewitt may have had different results had he been born four years later, but I dont see anything in his game which he would have changed had he been born in 1984. He was never particularly skilled at S & V, nor does he really have any great weapons that could scare one. In fact his game is the tactical ancestor for guys like Murray, and Nole who have better serves, and bigger groundstrokes.

You say the Nadal match is not a big enough sample to judge wether Nadal would have consistently beaten him, and yet one post earlier you use a single set

"Didn't old banged up Hewitt take a set
off Djokovic at last years AUS open. "

Who exactly said that?

You started off this whole comparison thing by boldly stating that Hewitt would likely not win a slam in this era and that he's no better than Ferrer.

I called you up on this and highlighted how Hewitt is a product of his time. He is a two time slam champ and a former world number one, who I believe finished with a positive H2H against one of the GOATs of the game in Sampras. Yet you are so eager to dismiss his chances.

WRT the Nadal thing - again I did not say what you claim, I stated that being taken to five sets by Rafa is not necessarily indicative either way of how Hewitt would have fared against him if they had been contemporaries growing up and playing the tour together (remember Hewitt came unto the scene around 1999). The reference to Novak just serves to highlight that Hewitt even at 31 yrs old, with multiple surgeries behind him, is capable of winning a set off the best player in the world playing at his peak - maybe not quite as rubbish as you think, eh?

@ Kingraf , to compare Hewitt with Ferrer is absolute disgrace and now you are taking Socal's route.

CaledonianCraig wrote: But lydian what is your beef and who is it with? Myself, banbro and yes even socal have said they would like a few more quicker courts so I don't see what you are getting at?

My beef is lack of variety. How many top10 players does it take to mention it before we take it seriously. Does this forum know better than the top pros?

The OP is about Federer stating the game is played in a more 1D way than before, I.e. there is less variety of play. We know this is because the game has evolved to glue everyone to the baseline. My beef is with ITF and ATP for allowing this to happen, for allowing courts to keep on slowing, to stop balls getting larger and larger, to make the players have to change game plans from one event to the next.

I work with kids in tennis every week, I see juniors of all ages, I talk with senior performance coaches all over the country and go to tournaments up and down the land. I can tell you homogeneity of play is going to be even worse in future. Coaches see the conditions of today and kids are basically taught only to play from the baseline, volleying practice is minimal, DHBH are the only BHs taught (which reduces aggressive mindsets even more for technical reasons) and they are doing stamina classes from 8 yrs onwards because that's what's much more important later on than before. The conditions of today are breeding another 15-20 years of players who will be even more entrenched at the baseline unless ATP/ITF do something to heed what Federer, Tipsarevic and others are saying.

Banbrotam...my comment wasn't meant to be harsh on Murray, it's just factual. I've been one of the guys on here who says he has great hands and variety potential but conditions have turned him into a gym rat glued to the baseline. He probably comes forward to the net the least out of the top10 inc. Ferrer and Djokovic which is ridiculous given his all court potential. He's just literally become a product of the environment. It's not his fault, he's trying his best to win in the prevailing conditions but in my opinion these conditions have sold his potential short...had there been much more variety of conditions, and variety of play, then I think he might have been even more successful at Wimb and USO than he has been because the tour is not full of guys who can play in quick conditions.

At no point did I call Hewitt rubbish. What I said is I dont think he would fare better than Ferrer. A huge difference. That is in fact very disrespectful to Ferrer. Theres no shame in beingb compared to the world number four. In fact the hth is 2-1 to Ferrer.

Theres a two year gap between Hewitt and Ferrer. Hardly a chasm. I dont see why its an unfair comparison. Both are great returners, neither have a killer shot.

Hewitts last slam was at the age of 22, before his body gave in started giving. If he was born 1984, that puts him slap bang in the middle of Federers dominance. Theres a good chance he doesnt win a slam.

Im sorry but I really cant see why a Hewitt-Ferrer comparison is so wrong.

Lydian,

It is not us not taking it seriously though is it? Like I said myself, banbro and socal have all said we have no problem with more faster courts. It is the tournament directors and the ATP who obviously aren't taking it seriously and not posters here.

As for what Federer is saying is that all he said or was there more? I ask because he doesn't exactly state a time when the game was so different. For all we know he could be speaking about when he first turned pro in 1998. Also seems like he is not totally delighted with things back (whenever he is talking about) as quoting him: 'In the past people would miss entire clay- or grass-court seasons because they just thought, I’m not going to waste my time there. I’m going to practice and return on a surface that I prefer. It makes it sometimes easier then to dominate through different surfaces. But at the same time, if you’re on bad run, also that run can last longer as well.”

“That you come into, let’s say a quick hard court or a slow clay court and you have somebody who feels totally out of sorts, Before I thought that was pretty funny sometimes to see a guy feeling so uncomfortable having to play the other expert, but trying with what he had to make the other player feel uncomfortable. It’s not so much that anymore now, because everybody hits a good forehand, everybody hits a good backhand, everybody serves well now and moves well and is fit.

kingraf wrote:Im sorry but I really cant see why a Hewitt-Ferrer comparison is so wrong.

I posted a link not long ago for an article written when Hewitt won the USO, The journo said Hewitt was playing tennis at a higher level than anyone had previously played the game. I distinctly remember a BBC commentator saying he could win 10 Wimbledons (after his win there).
He was that good at the time. Ferrer has never, and never will be anywhere near Hewitt's level.

Well the journo was wrong wasnt he?? He would go on to win one (ONE) Wimbledon. Even if his body didnt give in, I doubt Hewitt wins two Wimbledons.
His record
vs Federer 8-18
vs Roddick 7-7
vs Safin 7-7
vs Nalbandian 3-3

Ferrers record against the same guys
Federer 0-14
Roddick 7-4
Safin 1-1
Nalbandian 9-5

Imo very comparable records.