Tennis needs to change

by Andy11 Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:18 am

First topic message reminder :

I have been disillusioned with the state of tennis for some time now. Watching the Murray- Mahut match, you realise how little the elegant skills of the volleyer counts for in today's game and it made me feel sad enough to write a topic on it, in order to see if this is a tolerable situation for other tennis fans. Is it right that brilliant serve and volleyers like llodra and stepanek can get to the third round of wimbledon at most, and that the only way to succeed in tennis is to become a muscle man (Murray has clearly realised this). I want tennis to become once more a sport where truly attacking tennis is a viable option, instead of being inevitable fodder for the defensive baseliners. There is only one solution to my mind, and that is a severe restriction in racket technology.

by _homogenised_ Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:20 pm

Andy11 wrote:Wood or 80's rackets would be fine.

Calder106, my point about the murray Mahut match is that it is too easy for Murray to pass Mahut. I'm not particularly impressed by Murray's passing shots and this is an injustice to Murray as well as to Mahut.

Socal, I don't want to go back to 90's Wimbledon; that is a strawman.

Just consider a few things. David Ferrer- baseline scrapper, no net skills but can get to the quarter finals of all grand slams easily. Wawrinka vs Djokovic Australian open 2013- Wawrinka far outplayed Djokovic but being the agressor, the bar for winning is so much higher and essentialy has to play three perfect sets to win. Djokovic only needs to play at about 65% and he will win.

Spot on.

by JubbaIsle Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:36 pm

Andy11 "Just consider a few things. David Ferrer- baseline scrapper, no net skills but can get to the quarter finals of all grand slams easily"

I'm sorry, but thats the result of not playing any of the top 5/6 or peers up to those stages. It says more that he hasnt been in many slam finals because he is a baseliner and does not have the net skills required.

Murrays ease at passing Mahut is the product of passing skills and a volleyer who wasnt coming to the net at the appropriate time. S&V or coming to the net is only affective if you put the opposition under pressure to provide you with a ball that can be put away, providing you have the skills to do that, not every player has, does or will be able to S&V effectively.

by Calder106 Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:41 pm

Andy11 wrote:Wood or 80's rackets would be fine.

Calder106, my point about the murray Mahut match is that it is too easy for Murray to pass Mahut. I'm not particularly impressed by Murray's passing shots and this is an injustice to Murray as well as to Mahut.

Socal, I don't want to go back to 90's Wimbledon; that is a strawman.

Just consider a few things. David Ferrer- baseline scrapper, no net skills but can get to the quarter finals of all grand slams easily. Wawrinka vs Djokovic Australian open 2013- Wawrinka far outplayed Djokovic but being the agressor, the bar for winning is so much higher and essentialy has to play three perfect sets to win. Djokovic only needs to play at about 65% and he will win.

Andy still don't get your point. They were playing tennis on a fast grass court and I didn't see Murray playing as a defensive baseliner. Remember Mahut beat Murray in the same tournament last year playing serve and volley. This time Murray played a more aggressive game.

by socal1976 Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:58 pm

jubbaisle wrote:For a start, serve and volleying was not the be all and end all of serving in the history of tennis. Even the best S&V's did baselining and muscling shots. The chance to leap into the net to put a volley away didnt happen on every single point, and you'd hardly get a clay court specialist doing that if he /she wanted to win the FO.

I've seen a distinct increase in players utilising S&V over the last decade to a point where it is quite a common tactic to use in a wide or DTL serve. As in "the old days", if you did it all the time, you got read and passed, it was a more prolific tactic way back then because the speed of the game was slower.

But at the same time, the skills needed to perpetuate a point from the baseline and win from that position is not entirely based on muscle as Roger Federer has exemplified for over 10 years. Muscle does not equal dominance, it helps to create more aggressive shots and stamina but as a weapon, it didn't do Mark Philippoussis much good in the longevity section but it did provide him with an enormous serve, he wasn't unbeatable because players by then had to learn how to react quicker, but even so, Mark was a S&V too.

I think its a misnomer to relegate modern tennis to the boredom drawer just because S&V is not as prominent as it was, but it certainly is not dead and is making a comeback as players become aware of its deadliness in economic use.

Any kind of variety during a match gives a player more scope to attack, so as S&V is on the increase, so too has the drop shot and lob become more attractive as well as trick shots. In fact I'm enjoying tennis per se for all its varied and colourful players that are on the scene who have provided some great tennis to watch recently.

An excellent post by Jubba, not only do I like the personalities and games of today's players I like the tennis I am witnessing. Variety doesn't come just from volleying, today's players have as wide a range of skills than any that have come before them and then some. I don't find anything wrong with today's game that needs drastic changing. In the past Lydian and BB have put forward ideas about banning technology and playing with the conditions. I think this would create and even more serve dominated tour than we have ever seen and the tennis would not be enjoyable. During these debates I have always stated that the balls and the courts would be easy and less drastic things to change that could be changed from event to event providing the most variety of any option for change. Now I am glad to see that the emphasis is put on the balls as an area for change. I can agree with this concept of trying quicker balls at the traditionally quicker tournaments and lets see the quality of tennis we get and see if the fan interest is improved or not. That would be a good safe starting point.

But frankly I don't come from a place that feels like the game is in duress or boring and we need to make drastic overhauls either to the schedule or the style of play.

by socal1976 Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:03 pm

@homogenized, did you watch the match point of Wawrinka v. Djokovic? Is that one player going for his shots and the other defending? Novak did a fair amount of great shotmaking in that match as in many others. Yes Wawrinka played spectacularly, but the AO since the 90s has been played on slow hardcourt. And he was playing the world #1 and 3 times in a row champion. He had a drop in form in the middle of the match despite his brilliant play at the start and finish and lost to a guy he never plays that close, and the point is so? If anything that match is a testament to the beauty of the modern power baseline game as both players are fit, fast, and hit the living psiss out of the ball from both sides. This hasn't always been the case in the game of tennis and we should be happy about it as opposed to cry in our pudding all the time.

by Sponsored content

Tennis needs to change

Tennis needs to change

Re: Tennis needs to change

Re: Tennis needs to change

Re: Tennis needs to change

Re: Tennis needs to change

Re: Tennis needs to change

Re: Tennis needs to change