McEnroe is a closet 606v2 reader

First topic message reminder :

“How about making the size of the rackets smaller, reduce the sweet spot so you can’t get away with mis-hitting shots 17 feet behind the baseline. We need to encourage serve-and-volley. Court surfaces have been homogenised. There is an argument that Wimbledon is slower than the French [Open]..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/tennis/article3794367.ece (paywall).

Some will say that Mac is just trying to stir up a little controversy but I can't believe that!

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's easy to big up the game, as it benefits everyone in the game - as such you won't draw any criticism from players, fellow journos/analysts etc.
It's harder to be critical, and therefore more likely to carry more weight.

Here, for example, a number of ex-pros are worried about string technology - http://www.10sballs.com/2012/06/25/players-are-concerned-about-spraying-racquet-strings/

But if you don't care about such things when you watch tennis, then it's easily dismissed.

The advances in technology are a big reason why the players of today play at a higher level than yesteryear - which is why I find it difficult to say today's players are 'better'. Sure, they play at a higher level, but so would Mac if he was 25 this year - but he wouldn't be able to play the same style that everyone so admired back then (even if you hated him). That sort of artistry can't reap rewards these days.

Oh so only when they criticize the game they are credible? Other then that these retired multimillionaires some of whom (Agassi and Sampras) have no financial interest in the game are functioning like unpaid PR men for the ATP tour. What a conveniently made up logic for basically wiping out 100 percent of the arguments of anyone who happens to like the modern game. Only negative comments about the game are credible, if that is your position Julius well then I think it doesn't take a genius to decipher the flaw in it.

It's not my position, it's your strawman. Not for the first time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The advances in technology are a big reason why the players of today play at a higher level than yesteryear - which is why I find it difficult to say today's players are 'better'. Sure, they play at a higher level, but so would Mac if he was 25 this year - but he wouldn't be able to play the same style that everyone so admired back then (even if you hated him). That sort of artistry can't reap rewards these days.

This is something that I agree with completely at an intellectual level. I'm still unsure what my 'emotional response' to this fact is though.

I'm going to get a bit lateral on this and draw a musical parallel.

I'm pretty sure that if the Beatles formed today, the cannon of songs they would create would be very different. Times, styles and technology have moved on.

But I'm also pretty sure they would produce good stuff because their talent and creativity is the same, it would just be expressed in a different way.

Bringing it back to tennis, I'm also pretty sure that if McEnroe or Borg were born 30 years later they would not play in the same style as they did in the 70s and 80s. But I'm also pretty sure that it would still be brilliant and would still have artistry. Talent of that kind finds it way through and expresses itself.

That's why I'm really strongly opposed to the arguments that conditions nowadays are stifling talent or that the lack of serve and volley shows a lack of talent among modern players etc etc.

Talent and hard work always breaks through.

Likewise art (and I'm going to count tennis as art) always changes. Painting, songwriting, film making, novels... it all changes with technology and the styles of the time.

Lamenting the demise of certain styles feels a bit like complaining that nobody is writing A Day In The Life anymore. It is disappointing in some ways. But we've already heard A Day In The Life. Let's see how talent manifests itself nowadays and enjoy that. Because I guarantee the style at the top of the game, like any style, won't last forever. Laver didn't play like Borg, who didn't play like Connors, who didn't play like McEnroe, who didn't play like Lendl, who didn't play like Sampras, who didn't play like Federer, who doesn't play like Nadal, who doesn't play like Djokovic.

So for those who don't like the modern game - don't worry, it will change.

For those who do like the modern game - brace yourself, it's going to change!

The one player I believe we would not get now is McEnroe.

That alone makes me despair for todays tennis. We may already be missing out on another Mac-type genius. Tragedy.

HM, it's not that I don't like the modern game, it's just that are some things missing in it that I would like to see come back again. If nothing else it would give the modern players a chance to show off their talent even more.

And I don't think the current top players are any more or less talented overall (disregarding any individual comparisons).

It's just that when I see, say, Djoko do a sliding splits and hit a front-on half-volley from 3 feet behind the baseline for a winner that Laver could never have imagined doing, I don't take that as an indication that Djoko is a better or more talented player, simply as a sign that technology, fitness etc has moved forward.

Of course, some people interpret that as having a pop at Djoko, or being a misty-eyed nostalgic, but if I replaced Djoko with Monfils, then it would probably not get the same reaction

bogbrush wrote:The one player I believe we would not get now is McEnroe.

That alone makes me despair for todays tennis. We may already be missing out on another Mac-type genius. Tragedy.

Mac's brilliance would come through in any era with any technology. It would just look different.

I mean that in both ways. Different to how he looked in the 80s but also different to the current top guys.

The lack of a Mac-type genius stems not from the conditions but simply from the lack of a Mac-Type genius! And, in fairness, they don't come along too often...

But JHM, that could be looked at as an entirely different way. whereas Laver may have had incredible talents at a skill say serve and volley that Djokovic couldn't match then equally Djoko has talents that Laver couldn't match ie sliding doing the splits and still being able to hit a winner.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The one player I believe we would not get now is McEnroe.

That alone makes me despair for todays tennis. We may already be missing out on another Mac-type genius. Tragedy.

Mac's brilliance would come through in any era with any technology. It would just look different.

I mean that in both ways. Different to how he looked in the 80s but also different to the current top guys.

The lack of a Mac-type genius stems not from the conditions but simply from the lack of a Mac-Type genius! And, in fairness, they don't come along too often...

I really don't agree. take physical conditioning, he was never tops at that. Also no matter what a genius you are you couldn't do constant S&V now, and that was where his genius resided.

JHM - although I quoted you, my rambling wasn't really a riposte to you. It was just the trigger to my thoughts!

In fact, I think I'm of a similar mind to you overall.

I think the game gives and it takes away. I understand why people miss certain playing styles. But I've seen those styles so I also like the fact that conditions have enabled me to see a player hit a sliding splits half volley winner.

A few years from now, when things have changed, I'm sure I'll be moaning that the current bunch aren't as good at that Djokovic, they can't even do the splits! But I'll try to remember how pious I'm being today and look for the good in the game as it is then!

I love your two latest posts (and the one before this) on here Murdoch, and in many ways I agree with you - certainly that talent will come through.  I also think the point lydian has made in the past about the rug being pulled out from guys who developed on faster courts is worth considering - future generations will hone different skills on the different surfaces.

I think tennis at the top in the men's game has always been incredible to watch and that is as true now as it was in 1980 - however, the women's tour is all the poorer for the technology allowing for a power game at the expense of some of the subtlety and it is largely becoming unwatchable - the ATP should just perhaps critically assess where the game is at and where it is likely to be in 10 years if the next generation are brought up entirely with slow courts, slower balls and strings that allow for even greater spin, and whether people will still have the patience to sit through 5/6 hour finals if they are the norm rather than a glorious exception?

Thing is CC, we don't know if Djoko has incredible S & V talents because there's no reason for him or us to find out.
And maybe Laver with today's biomechanical knowledge and rackets/strings would be able to do a sliding splits, front-on half-volley back-spin drop shot.
The players today are doing things that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.

bogbrush wrote:I really don't agree. take physical conditioning, he was never tops at that. Also no matter what a genius you are you couldn't do constant S&V now, and that was where his genius resided.

Perhaps.

On the physical conditioning, my view there is tough luck! All sport has developed in that way (even golfers and cricketers go to the gym now!) so any sportsman has to do the hard yards if they want to reach the top.

S&V is fair point and it's one I can only answer with speculation. S&V was the cornerstone for Mac in his time, on those conditions. Under different circumstances, his genius would be focused on other areas.

To me, it's a bit like saying Shakespeare wouldn't be any good today because nobody says "thou hast" anymore and puns are a bit passé! The style would change but the genius would still come out.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I really don't agree. take physical conditioning, he was never tops at that. Also no matter what a genius you are you couldn't do constant S&V now, and that was where his genius resided.

Perhaps.

On the physical conditioning, my view there is tough luck! All sport has developed in that way (even golfers and cricketers go to the gym now!) so any sportsman has to do the hard yards if they want to reach the top.

S&V is fair point and it's one I can only answer with speculation. S&V was the cornerstone for Mac in his time, on those conditions. Under different circumstances, his genius would be focused on other areas.

To me, it's a bit like saying Shakespeare wouldn't be any good today because nobody says "thou hast" anymore and puns are a bit passé! The style would change but the genius would still come out.

Agree on conditioning, though the point remains that the sport now can't give us "lazy" artists. It could, you know, and they might be more interesting to watch.

S&V demands a different type of genius; instinctive, reactive, urgent. Net play just more that way than baseline. There's a reason why we don't really look at Borg and thing the same about him as Mac, even though he was a great - perhaps THE great.

I think S&V is a trade-off. The only way it would come back as the basis of a top players style is if raquet technology is scaled back. Quick courts would help perhaps but it is the ease of the passing shot that has killed it.

But if technology is scaled back then you don't get the kind of outrageous shots that Rafa, for instance, can hit.

Is there a halfway house in which both can exist? I have my doubts. I fear any compromise might end up being too short for Richard and too long for Dick and we'd end up with neither discipline being executed very well.

We have to go back to basics with these discussions.
What do all the very best tennis players have in common through the era's?

Timing. Hand-eye. Foot-eye. Speed of movement. Agility. Mental strength. Adaptability.

If you were a leading player in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or 00s you had all these qualities in vast abundance. What made McEnroe great at the net would have also made him great from the back too...he would have simply been more of the Sampras/Federer/Becker type model. Besides, his groundies were underrated.

Conditioning is an overlay. You cannot be a top tennis player without those other qualities.
Conditioning does not make up for lack of fundamental skills. It cannot. Tennis is STILL a skill based game...the faster the ball goes, the more skill in timing is required.

Within reason I firmly believe the top 5 would be top 5 in any era...their talent would have realised its ability in different ways by meeting the conditions of the era. However...I'm not saying Laver would be #1 now. He was 5'9, not 6'2. But he would be right up there no doubt. After all Ferrer is, but Ferrer is no Laver.

HMM, I think Rafa would hit those type of shots no matter the racquet, he's the best lateral mover I've ever seen (inc. Borg). Don't forget he played with dreadful strings for much of his career, real barb-wire stuff thrown at Spanish kids, on a racquet that has much less power vs the Wilson's/Head's. As said, talent is talent. You see it in young kids very early...the best just do things better than their peers, quicker, more nimble, better timing, want it more, etc.

S&V will never come back...because some of it was also borne out of lack of skill at the back. That is different now and as said slow surfaces don't reward risk. But the game is changing.... attacking in fast conditions (90s) > defending in slow conditions (00s) > attacking in slow conditions (10s) > attacking in faster conditions (15s+...)...it will go full circle eventually, and a new breed of player will come through. Hitting 5000rpm FHs will be a thing of the past, it will go back to flat, hard hitting...it already is actually, even Nadal is using less RPM these days.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The one player I believe we would not get now is McEnroe.

That alone makes me despair for todays tennis. We may already be missing out on another Mac-type genius. Tragedy.

Mac's brilliance would come through in any era with any technology. It would just look different.

I mean that in both ways. Different to how he looked in the 80s but also different to the current top guys.

The lack of a Mac-type genius stems not from the conditions but simply from the lack of a Mac-Type genius! And, in fairness, they don't come along too often...

I really don't agree. take physical conditioning, he was never tops at that. Also no matter what a genius you are you couldn't do constant S&V now, and that was where his genius resided.

I'm really not convinced that is the case. I would love to see a top-notch Sampras take on some of the current top guys at Wimbledon adopting a serve volley style. Heck, if Raonic learnt to serve volley properly he would suddenly be a live contender for Wimbledon. What you probably can't do any more is serve volley behind an average serve, because the top guys now just have no weakness from the baseline. Gone are the days when you could hit a leftie slice out to a weak one-handed backhand and be more or less guaranteed to pick off the return at the net.

The fact is that serve volley hasn't really been taught at junior level since the early 90s and the introduction of graphite racquets. Playing in the UK, I have never played (and I play at a relatively ok level) any player of my age or younger who has serve volleyed consistently at singles. I suspect its a combination of the end of wooden racquets and the death of grass courts which killed it off. Its been a dying art since the early 90s and neither the court speed change nor the strings are responsible for that. The pro game just reflects the way tennis has moved at all levels over the last 20 years. 

Look even at Santoro - not a great player at any stage but he was able to play his skillful style well into his mid 30s. The slowing down of the courts didn't make him any easier to play. He was ranked about 30 when 26 and about 30 when 36. Talented players like McEnroe or Federer can still thrive in this era.