Tennis needs to change

by Andy11 Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:18 pm

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 mthierry Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:53 am

[quote"_homogenised_"]No, it is more than that. The newer racquets mean you can use your opponents strength against him. All Nadal does it get a racquet on it. In my own games, when I hit what should be a winner, it comes floating back. It favours defence more than it does attack, not to mention newer racquets have a larger surface area,[/quote]
A larger racquet surface area also aids the attacker allowing less consideration of timing and a bigger backlift to take bigger cuts on the ball. Simple. Don't twist things in a highly blinkered way to reflect that anti-Rafa bias. The same advantage the racquet gives Nadal is the same advantage it gives to a Del Potro.

by _homogenised_ Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:00 am

It isn't twisting anything to suggest modern racquets favour defence over attack, it's a fact.

by mthierry Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:06 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Sorry mthierry, but this is mostly crap of the lowest possible kind. Who's told you that the "followership of the game has never been more vibrant" . Bringing some stats to back this idea wouldn't mind. What I'am fairly sure of, is that the interest for tennis in some important countries, as an example the US, is declining at a fast rate.

You're talking nonsense, bro. Not even mentioning the fact you ridiculed me for providing no stats and yet provided none yourself. Tennis has always been a minority niche sport in the US but attracts more fans year-on-year. You think the rise in corporate sponsorship and prize money is indicative of struggling, declining viewership? Really?

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:11 am

mthierry wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Sorry mthierry, but this is mostly crap of the lowest possible kind. Who's told you that the "followership of the game has never been more vibrant" . Bringing some stats to back this idea wouldn't mind. What I'am fairly sure of, is that the interest for tennis in some important countries, as an example the US, is declining at a fast rate.
You're talking nonsense, bro. Not even mentioning the fact you ridiculed me for providing no stats and yet provided none yourself. Tennis has always been a minority niche sport in the US but attracts more fans year-on-year. You think the rise in corporate sponsorship and prize money is indicative of struggling, declining viewership? Really?

Nonsense? That's common sense!

http://www.denttennisacademy.com/blog/taylors-insights/american-tennis-popularity/

by mthierry Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:13 am

_homogenised_ wrote:It isn't twisting anything to suggest modern racquets favour defence over attack, it's a fact.

Twisted myth with no solid grounding. Nothing remotely factual about it. It gets repeated enough, mainly by self-styled purists and connoiseurs, to actually start being taken seriously as fact.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:15 am

US tennis is suffering because no-one replaced Pete or Andre.

homogenised...what do you mean by a "modern racquet"?

by mthierry Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:21 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Nonsense? That's common sense!

http://www.denttennisacademy.com/blog/taylors-insights/american-tennis-popularity/

[/quote]
An American tournament experiencing a decline due to a paucity of local talent reflects nothing about the popularity of the sport. That's common sense. Is there a decline in the UK or Europe or Asia or even American TV viewing figures?

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:25 am

lydian wrote:US tennis is suffering because no-one replaced Pete or Andre.

So why top tier athletes aren't keen to get into tennis?

Anyway, now it's my tennis time byeeeee

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:29 am

mthierry wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Nonsense? That's common sense!

http://www.denttennisacademy.com/blog/taylors-insights/american-tennis-popularity/

An American tournament experiencing a decline due to a paucity of local talent reflects nothing about the popularity of the sport. That's common sense. Is there a decline in the UK or Europe or Asia or even American TV viewing figures?[/quote]

Reflects nothing to you? That's no surprise, bye.

by socal1976 Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:12 am

It is not a load of crap JK, I agree on this one with mthierry, the enhanced power from the baseline is enjoyable to watch and so are the incredible gets and passing shots that are allowed by the technology. The fact is that ratings in the states are down for everything. Because unlike 15 or 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, virtually every major established sport is down in TV viewership. Why because there are 1000 channels, facebook, youtube and etc. to chose from. But if you analyze the ratings over the short term tennis is doing better over the course of the last few years. In the 1950s the last episode of "I love Lucy" garnered 75 percent of the ratings, well there were exactly 3 channels back then so it isn't as impressive a stat as one would think, the same dynamic is played out on TV ratings.

Attendance numbers are a much better indicator and attendance figures keep breaking records with ever increasing ticket prices. Prize money is increasing at rate far outstripping inflation, and players are making a million or more for single exhibition match. So JK, these are all signs that what Mthierry is telling you is not crap but it is true. The fans like the modern game, money is flowing into the modern game, and there is no reason for dramatic changes and banning technology.

As for the US, tennis will only perform here if you have Americans dominating, if you don't, it won't. But new markets like asia and eastern Europe are taking off and even in the states the popularity of the game is on the rebound in comparison to the peak of the Sampras and Agassi days.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:29 am

I don't think the changes lydian is suggesting are dramatic and might lead to even larger increases in viewers/sponsorship/prize money.

by _homogenised_ Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:50 am

lydian wrote:US tennis is suffering because no-one replaced Pete or Andre.

homogenised...what do you mean by a "modern racquet"?

I mean not the old wooden ones of 70-80. And it's getting worse. But like I said, these advantages can be easily balanced out again with changes to the balls and to surface. Serve and volley has its place at Wimbledon, just as grinding points has its place at Roland Garros. The problem today is, all of the surfaces are playing to close to one another, and it's the attacking players who are faring worst.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:00 am

I'd currently say in the top 10 there are 6 attacking players, while there are 4 counter punchers.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:10 am

Homogenised, we're on the same hymn sheet regarding conditions. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking Roger has been hard done by...conditions were slowed (smaller balls on clay, bigger balls on grass, slower surfaces) and made more powerful (graphite racquets, poly strings) long before Roger won his first slam. He's as much a product and beneficiary of the modern game as Nadal. They just play the game differently.

by Andy11 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:36 am

Socal, we are not the board of directors. Frankly, I don't care if 'money is flowing into the game'. The game is being dumbed down. Why do you think every surface, every tournament should be biased towards the baseline retrievers?

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:41 am

Andy, why did the ITF think that back in 2001?

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:43 am

Cos everyone was getting bored with serve and volleying.

by Johnyjeep Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:47 am

i dont think this is about Roger or Rafa. its about the complete death of s&v. i simply refuse to believe there is an out an out s&v out there on tour now. Llodra excluded. because they all know its futile due to the slowing down of conditions everywhere. watching edberg, becker, johny mac, connors et al was a delight. it wasnt boring tennis at all. now there is no opportunity for these kind of players. im not saying whole scale changes. but there is so little reward for s&v now.
rafa would have been a champion in any era. much like borg who was immense in conditions that shouldnt have suited his game. federer the same. champions will always be champions.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:47 am

...and if everyone gets bored with fast court tennis what does that do to the "money flowing into the game"?

Why are the ITF going to risk swinging the pendulum back the other way? The game is as popular as its ever been right now globally. They might tinker with the ball types used but they won't touch the surfaces now.

by Andy11 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:49 am

Also, Murdoch says I am being nolstagic. Well, he is right. I do lament the fact we will never see another Agassi vs Rafter Wimbledon 2000 match, or that a match between Murray and, for example Gasquet, is decided on stamina and not on skill.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:49 am

JohnnyJeep, Lydian- good posts thumbsup

This is a touchy matter, any changes made should be thought out carefully.

by HM Murdock Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:53 am

Andy11 wrote: Why do you think every surface, every tournament should be biased towards the baseline retrievers?

Andy, you keep saying about the bias toward baseline retrievers. How many the following players do you consider to be baseline retrievers?:
Djokovic
Murray
Federer
Ferrer
Nadal
Berdych
Tsonga
Del Potro
Gasquet
Wawrinka
Haas
Cilic
Nishikori
Tipsarevic
Raonic

by Andy11 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:54 am

You are right Lydian, I am not optimistic that there will be any change. In 2001 they correctly identified a problem but implemented a short- termist 'quick fix' solution.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:55 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
Andy11 wrote: Why do you think every surface, every tournament should be biased towards the baseline retrievers?
Andy, you keep saying about the bias toward baseline retrievers. How many the following players do you consider to be baseline retrievers?:
Djokovic
Murray
Federer
Ferrer
Nadal
Berdych
Tsonga
Del Potro
Gasquet
Wawrinka
Haas
Cilic
Nishikori
Tipsarevic
Raonic

I'd say out of the top 15:
-10 out and out attacking players
-3 Counter Punchers (ie players who have big weapons so that they can turn the rally around and dominate even if at first on the defensive)
-2 out and out defensive players

by _homogenised_ Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:56 am

lydian wrote:Homogenised, we're on the same hymn sheet regarding conditions. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking Roger has been hard done by...conditions were slowed (smaller balls on clay, bigger balls on grass, slower surfaces) and made more powerful (graphite racquets, poly strings) long before Roger won his first slam. He's as much a product and beneficiary of the modern game as Nadal. They just play the game differently.

I disagree. Had the conditions stayed like they should be, Federer would have more slams than he does now. The slower conditions favour Djok, Murray and Nadal over Federer.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:57 am

If the conditions were ultra-fast, maybe Roddick, Isner and Karlovic would have shared Roger's GrandSlams- who knows?

by Andy11 Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:58 am

How many of those players have a realistic chance at winning a grand slam, even getting to a semi? Of these, only tsonga and federer have an all court game which they are willing to use. (Murray used to have variety but gave that up when he realised it was futile.)

by HM Murdock Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:02 am

Andy11 wrote: a match between Murray and, for example Gasquet, is decided on stamina and not on skill.

This is where you are falling down.

Last 4 meetings between Murray and Gasquet:

Miami 2013 - Murray wins, 3 sets, just under 2 hours.
RG 2012 - Murray wins in 4 sets, 2.5 hours
Rome 2012 - Gasquet wins in 3 sets, 3 hours
W 2011 - Murray wins in straight sets, just over 2 hours

Gasquet won the longest match! And the longest Murray win was only 4 sets and 2.5 hours.

Where are these being decided by stamina?

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:37 am

_homogenised_ wrote:
lydian wrote:Homogenised, we're on the same hymn sheet regarding conditions. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking Roger has been hard done by...conditions were slowed (smaller balls on clay, bigger balls on grass, slower surfaces) and made more powerful (graphite racquets, poly strings) long before Roger won his first slam. He's as much a product and beneficiary of the modern game as Nadal. They just play the game differently.

I disagree. Had the conditions stayed like they should be, Federer would have more slams than he does now. The slower conditions favour Djok, Murray and Nadal over Federer.

I disagree back because you assume no-one could have challenged Federer under faster conditions.
There is only 6 mths age gap between Hewitt and Federer, when conditions were much faster, and by that I mean pre-2004 (USO and many other courts are widely accepted to have slowed significantly from 2003 onwards outside ball changes), Hewitt was 7-2 up in the H2H. If you look at those matches they were nearly all on fast surfaces which Hewitt excels on. Slower conditions/surfaces from 2004 onwards seemed to kill Hewitt as they did many other players of similar age and background.

Look at his H2H vs Nalby before 2004...Dave was 5-1 up...again most matches on faster surfaces. Safin beat Federer on carpet in 2002. We know up to 2004 his H2Hs against true fast court guys like Henman, Rafter, Kafelnikov, etc were well down. Ok Federer was younger but he was over 22 by end of 2003 and there are enough pointers to suggest he struggled against fast court adept players.

Let's not forget he was brought up on clay with a heavy topspin FH himself, he prefers to play from the baseline no matter he's fairly adept at the net. You also assume Nadal or Djokovic can't challenge him on faster surfaces or wouldn't have adapted more if they had to. Djokovic beat Federer in Dubai, the fastest outdoor hardcourt. Nadal is no typical claycourter with his adept net play, slices and use of SW forehand (not Western). Similarly Murray who Federer has always found difficult to play and I'm sure would have been an adept fast court player had he had to adapt differently.

In short, there are plenty of signals to indicate Federer vs fast court players wouldn't have fared any better slam wise if they were much quicker than he has done already in my opinion.

by HM Murdock Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:00 am

Lydian, you are on scorching form today!

by socal1976 Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:04 am

lydian wrote:I disagree back because you assume no-one could have challenged Federer under faster conditions.
There is only 6 mths age gap between Hewitt and Federer, when conditions were much faster, and by that I mean pre-2004 (USO and many other courts are widely accepted to have slowed significantly from 2003 onwards outside ball changes), Hewitt was 7-2 up in the H2H. If you look at those matches they were nearly all on fast surfaces which Hewitt excels on. Slower conditions/surfaces from 2004 onwards seemed to kill Hewitt as they did many other players of similar age and background.

Look at his H2H vs Nalby before 2004...Dave was 5-1 up...again most matches on faster surfaces. Safin beat Federer on carpet in 2002. We know up to 2004 his H2Hs against true fast court guys like Henman, Rafter, Kafelnikov, etc were well down. Ok Federer was younger but he was over 22 by end of 2003 and there are enough pointers to suggest he struggled against fast court adept players.

Let's not forget he was brought up on clay with a heavy topspin FH himself, he prefers to play from the baseline no matter he's fairly adept at the net. You also assume Nadal or Djokovic can't challenge him on faster surfaces or wouldn't have adapted more if they had to. Djokovic beat Federer in Dubai, the fastest outdoor hardcourt. Nadal is no typical claycourter with his adept net play, slices and use of SW forehand (not Western). Similarly Murray who Federer has always found difficult to play and I'm sure would have been an adept fast court player had he had to adapt differently.

In short, there are plenty of signals to indicate Federer vs fast court players wouldn't have fared any better slam wise if they were much quicker than he has done already in my opinion.

lydian
Posts: 7065
Join date: 2011-04-30

Precisely, Nalbandian and Hewitt had a winning h2h against Federer on faster surfaces and both are approximately Fed's age. Federer as a very fast player and great defender benefitted a great deal from the conditions, probably as much or more than any player.

by socal1976 Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:07 am

Andy11 wrote:Socal, we are not the board of directors. Frankly, I don't care if 'money is flowing into the game'. The game is being dumbed down. Why do you think every surface, every tournament should be biased towards the baseline retrievers?

Andy11
Posts: 13
Join date: 2013-06-04

This is not about the money, the money is a reflection of fan interest and excitement about the game. Outside of a few websites I haven't seen this view among most fans that the game has become boring or repetitive. That is my point in discussing the vibrant financial health of the game. If the tournament directors and broadcasters thought for one second that they could make more money by speeding up the game and bringing back S and V they would. But people rarely ew and aw for an ace or a two shot point, they just don't. That is why they slowed the courts down in the first place.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:18 am

This is the sort of thing which sends the crowd crazy: *btw watch it in 1080 quality

by Calder106 Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:26 am

Andy11 Wrote

"Socal, we are not the board of directors. Frankly, I don't care if 'money is flowing into the game'. The game is being dumbed down. Why do you think every surface, every tournament should be biased towards the baseline retrievers?."

Andy straight question. I know you don't warm to Murray as you have said another thread. Your entitled to your opinion. Each to their own. However do you really think that Murray beat Mahut yesterday by playing as a baseline retriever. It's not what I saw.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:30 am

Lol, cheers HMM Smile

I read something funny Nadal recently said (last week) about his prowess outside clay...

"It’s true that I started out being more specialized as a claycourter, but I was not exactly chopped liver on a fast court [...laughter...]. At [just turned] 16, I reached the semis of the Wimbledon juniors [2002]."

So, homogenised, again I say that players like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic would have posed Federer problems no matter the conditions.

by Johnyjeep Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:46 am

this seems to have converged into a discussion around the top 4 again.

basically i just wish wimbo had stuck to its guns more. undoubtably tennis favours baseliners now whether attacking or defensive. there has always been ample opprtunity in tennis for baseliners of all varities with clay. grass was where players with touch and flair could excel. thats not to say baseliners dont have that ability. but volleying requires it to a greater extent. people would be on their feet applauding a full length becker dive to put away a volley as much as a 40 shot rally.

there is definately a lack of variety in playing styles across the game now.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:48 am

TBH I don't really care who has benefitted or who would have challenged who. That's not a criticism of anybody's comments, which have been very interersting and relevant. It's just that I personally feel as though I'm being deprived of seeing the sort of tennis I like to see, and have less interest in tennis as a result. So of course I'd like to see some changes. Forget about the players - change it for me!

by Henman Bill Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:02 am

I'm not sure I agree with Lydian here. I think Federer would have won more on faster surfaces on balance. Compared to players like Murray, Nadal and Djokovic he is a better server and volleyer and worse baseliner.

Before 2004 he lost the matches because he wasn't as good a player. His dominance at the main tournaments lasted longest at the relatively faster indoor surface of the O2 and to this day he seems to do better on faster surfaces, e.g. won Rotterdam and Madrid I think in 2012 when they were fast.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:20 am

o2 is as slow as treacle HB Wink

Dubai is fast though, and he won there last year I believe.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:21 am

The quickest court I've seen since 2004 for me is Dubai 2006.
Bloody hell the courts were so fast that year you could barely see the ball zip from one end to another.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:28 am

Dubai has always been fast. Look at the winners on the left down the years (RU on the right):

Tennis needs to change - Page 2 Image13

Only 4 diff winners in last 11 championships...all adept players on quick courts.
Both Nadal and Djokovic have won titles there in recent years, so it's not been all Fed since 2006.
Re: WTF, again Djokovic does well there but to be honest I just think Nadal is knackered traditionally by year end, don't think it's a lack of ability per se when he's won Queens, Dubai, Madrid Indoors and final of Rotterdam.

Anyway, outside the top 4, agree we need more variety. Need to change those balls!!!

by whocares Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:32 am

If you really love Serve and volley, go and watch some doubles.
Jokes appart, I agree that wimbledon was all special because of the emphasis on so called "classy" serve volley players while RG was dominated by some ultra-marathonians brutes in the 90s. But do you really miss one-dimensional players like henman or krajicek? I dont really and same goes with the likes of sergi bruguera or thomas muster for that matter. Looking back at that era, am relatively happy with the current crop of very gifted power baseliners that seem to annoy a lot of people.
And you know what Richard Krajicek share the same realistic view:
Quote
Richard Krajicek: I like to watch all of those players for different reasons. I like to watch Murray: he plays fast, can take the ball earlier and has a beautiful backhand. Tsonga is a very strong player who can attack as well. I really enjoy watching today's tennis. It's exciting, the only thing I am missing is two or three serve and volley players like a Patrick Rafter, a Tim Henman, a Stefan Edberg. Tennis is fantastic to watch nowadays and what I see in the box office at our tournament is tennis has never been so alive as it is now in Holland. The Nadal-Federer rivalry has taken tennis to new peaks, which is fantastic. It would be nice to see one or two serve-and-volley players and I think it would be great to see the contrasting styles between the baseliners and a few serve-and-volley players. Now, we have good contrasting styles from the baseline, Nadal is a great counter puncher who plays an exciting grinding, running style and Murray plays a little bit quicker from the back of the court so you are seeing variation from the baseline. A couple of good serve and volleyer players would make this perfect but I think nowadays tennis is very blessed with such a strong and very dynamic generation that we have now. The whole top 10 is great to watch, they are fantastic players and it makes me as a tennis lover and tennis fan feel blessed.
Unquote

by time please Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:35 am

I miss Tim!

by _homogenised_ Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:55 am

Red wrote:If the conditions were ultra-fast, maybe Roddick, Isner and Karlovic would have shared Roger's GrandSlams- who knows?

I am willing to bet that Roddick would have won more than 1 slam, but beating Federer under ultra fast conditions would have been all the harder for him. Still, he imho he would have more than 1 slam, and I am pretty sure tsonga would have at least one too. Instead its the merry go round of nadal djok murray fed. Nothing else.

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:24 am

Bangkok is a fast surface...

by ChequeredJersey Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:43 am

I agree things need to change and balls are a good way of starting that, but attempts to guess how many majors players would have won in less homogenised courts is nothing more than interesting and diverting fantasy. It's the same as comparing across eras. We have no idea how good Federer might have been in that fantasy scenario, but also how any of the others might. They would all have approached tennis in a different manner and any of our opinions will be so afflicted by our biases as to be effectively valueless

by _homogenised_ Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:50 am

Most sports evolve with conditions but imho that;s not how it should be. You should settle on a standard and stick with it.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:16 pm

Fair point chequered but speculation of what could be, or what could have been, drives discussion on sports forums the world over. No matter how futile an exercise it may be - we all know that - I'm loathe to say it shouldnt be done. Otherwise we just rationally discuss hard facts and figures which is a little boring without further extrapolation or speculation. Fan bias will always come into play, again as long as discussion is not insulting I see no problem...even the wildest fan-biased discussions can throw up new learnings if we sift through the statements like gold prospectors, lol.
Admittedly, its not always easy though... Wink

But thats ok surely, it can be interesting seeing differences of speculation opinion and those differences can lead to consensus or new ideas. In a way it's like giving opinions at work in a brainstorm session...should we feel we have to defend everything we speculate on? Should brainstorming ahead not be allowed?

homogensed, the problems started when they moved away from wood...hard to see in this day and age guys still playing with wooden bats. Golf is imposing limits on tech, why not tennis. I don't think tech or fitness can change that much more now so it wouldn't be a bad time for ITF to assess some new recommendations rather than keep dunking their heads in the homogenised landscape they've ironically been the architects of.

by Andy11 Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:51 pm

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.

by JubbaIsle Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:11 pm

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.

by Sponsored content