Rafa gets wild card for Buenos Aires

First topic message reminder :

http://www.canindia.com/djokovic-insists-nadal-still-remains-king-of-clay

What is your opinion ??  Do you agree or is Novak just being patronising ?
Over to you socal

P I S S E D cant be typed and printed out?

Don't get upset, Ruffin is a good guy for a Federer fan and we try not to hold that against him. But you got to support your logic here and he makes fair criticisms. Either address the criticisms of your point or move on I don't think he is attacking you personally just finding fault with you grasping at straws and excuse making. And as for excuse making, I have no problem with it, one man's excuse making is another man's analysis. If you take arguments against your posts too personally you'll ruin the fun for yourself. But he is right Nadal saying something once or twice doesn't make it factually true or mildly proven.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Truffin, I'm talking about NADAL, not here arguing about what balls, what brand of balls they use!  Please stay in context.

I say it again, and I'm getting very irritated - PLS DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF GIVING ANY EXCUSE ABOUT NADAL'S LOSSES!!!!!

Nadal plays like crap, everyone can see it. Only his camp knows what happen. He does not need me to give excuses on his behalf!!!!!

You are making it unpleasant for me to post anything here! Stay away from my posts!

You're irritated? lol..    In nearly every post yesterday you have stated that the tour changed to "new balls" that "do not take spin as well"  and that has affected Nadal.  You are the one bringing it into the context of the discussion.  I see that particular point as false and merely ask you for sources.   You can  not provide a source showing a massive recent tour wide change to the balls.   You can't show us one single source that says anything to that effect.

I will also add that nowhere in the statement you provided from Nadal does he state the new balls "does not take spin as well" Which is what you keep saying. In fact, he says the balls stay on the racquet longer which in theory should help spin. You even claim these new balls help players hit harder, flatter and crush it yet Nadal s says the OLD balls flew off the racquet faster. No where does Nadal say what you have been saying about the effect.

Why are you putting words into Nadals mouth?

What one person sees as someone using an excuse is often seen as not an excuse by the other.   If that bothers you that I said that about you in one sentence, than I freely apologize for offending you. However, that doesn't change the overall point I made in response to your assertion.

There is nothing wrong with me bringing up and debating a point that YOU made in relation to the overall discussion.  Admit you have no proof of it, and Nadal doesn't even state what you said he did and we can drop it.    

Actually- i'll do you a favor and drop it anyway as my point was proven quite nicely by facts and your response.

I said, stay in context. The context here is about Nadal and what he feels about the balls. Nadal has the right to feel how the balls impact his play and so makes the necessary changes to accomodate.

I really hate this kind of feeling suspicious about anything anyone post, too bad I see it often here.

socal1976 wrote:Don't get upset, Ruffin is a good guy for a Federer fan and we try not to hold that against him. But you got to support your logic here and he makes fair criticisms. Either address the criticisms of your point or move on I don't think he is attacking you personally just finding fault with you grasping at straws and excuse making. And as for excuse making, I have no problem with it, one man's excuse making is another man's analysis. If you take arguments against your posts too personally you'll ruin the fun for yourself. But he is right Nadal saying something once or twice doesn't make it factually true or mildly proven.

lol... I'd thank you for calling me a good guy, but I'm more happy that you don't hold it against me that I am a fan of bad boy Fed

No, I didnt put words into Nadal's mouth. He said the balls played differently these days and he's making adjustments. I should have said 'maybe' that had caused the players to hit harder..... to avoid all these unpleasant 'questioning'

What really p i s s e d me off is the accusation that I'm making excuses for his losses, despite me saying that's not my intention.

[quote="Belovedluckyboy"]I said, stay in context.  The context here is about Nadal and what he feels about the balls.  Nadal has the right to feel how the balls impact his play and so makes the necessary changes to accomodate.

I really hate this kind of feeling suspicious about anything anyone post, too bad I see it often here.  [/quote

Yet what Nadal says he feels about the balls is in actuality the opposite of what you claimed he said.... so yes-- suspicion of your statement is warranted. Sorry you can't understand that.

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Don't get upset, Ruffin is a good guy for a Federer fan and we try not to hold that against him. But you got to support your logic here and he makes fair criticisms. Either address the criticisms of your point or move on I don't think he is attacking you personally just finding fault with you grasping at straws and excuse making. And as for excuse making, I have no problem with it, one man's excuse making is another man's analysis. If you take arguments against your posts too personally you'll ruin the fun for yourself. But he is right Nadal saying something once or twice doesn't make it factually true or mildly proven.

lol...  I'd thank you for calling me a good guy, but I'm more happy that you don't hold it against me that I am a fan of bad boy Fed

Fed isn't a bad boy but I do hear that he was the first ever winner of the Richard Sherman "Most Gracious post Match interview" award. It goes perfectly with his ten Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:No, I didnt put words into Nadal's mouth. He said the balls played differently these days and he's making adjustments. I should have said 'maybe' that had caused the players to hit harder..... to avoid all these unpleasant 'questioning'

What really p i s s e d me off is the accusation that I'm making excuses for his losses, despite me saying that's not my intention.

No again- it's not even the players hit harder part that is questioned.  It's the multiple repeated statements that Nadal couldn't get as much spin on these supposed new balls and he had said so.  You stated several times "new balls don't take as much spin as they used to" and used Nadal as your source.  Nadal says no such thing about spin, actually says the opposite.    You agree to that now right?

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Don't get upset, Ruffin is a good guy for a Federer fan and we try not to hold that against him. But you got to support your logic here and he makes fair criticisms. Either address the criticisms of your point or move on I don't think he is attacking you personally just finding fault with you grasping at straws and excuse making. And as for excuse making, I have no problem with it, one man's excuse making is another man's analysis. If you take arguments against your posts too personally you'll ruin the fun for yourself. But he is right Nadal saying something once or twice doesn't make it factually true or mildly proven.

lol...  I'd thank you for calling me a good guy, but I'm more happy that you don't hold it against me that I am a fan of bad boy Fed

Fed isn't a bad boy but I do hear that he was the first ever winner of the Richard Sherman "Most Gracious post Match interview" award. It goes perfectly with his ten Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship.

We need to come up with a fitting award for you!

Nope.

I quote from the translation of the article:

NEW TENNIS BALLS

It is a fact that the new tennis balls have affected the game. It is so. In the Verdasco match it had no effect, for example. There are different factors causing this. The balls have changed a bit and are now hollower. Balls are less lively. A few years ago, the ball came out very fast of the racket and nowadays they stay longer on the strings.

Things have changed and I have tried to adapt to the change. I'm not playing with as much effect as before, I'm playing in a slightly different way.



Rafa said the balls are less lively according to the translation and he's not playing with much 'effect'.

Rafa loves lively balls which he could impart more topspin, it seems the balls now are less lively.

I still don't see spin in Nadals statement.

Why is he being quoted saying something he hasn't?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Nope.

I quote from the translation of the article:

NEW TENNIS BALLS

It is a fact that the new tennis balls have affected the game.  It is so.  In the Verdasco match it had no effect, for example.  There are different factors causing this.  The balls  have changed a bit and are now hollower.  Balls are less lively.  A few years ago, the ball came out very fast of the racket and nowadays they stay longer on the strings.

Things have changed and I have tried to adapt to the change.  I'm not playing with as much effect as before, I'm  playing in a slightly different way.



Rafa said the balls are less lively according to the translation and he's not playing with much 'effect'.

Rafa loves lively balls which he could impart more topspin, it seems the balls now are less lively.

my goodness- you don't even understand spin  or what he is saying do you. Where does he say the new balls "don't take spin as well"   You repeatedly said post after post that nadal was claiming the new balls (no such thing) were not able to take spin as well.   The balls stay longer on his strings and you don't think that helps his spin?

No he didnt specifically said 'spin', but as I mentioned, he preferred lively balls for his topspin and the balls now are less lively.

Well I see where you people are coming from, I should be more careful in quoting Nadal as saying " the balls are hollower..and less lively..." and then followed by my comment that should read 'perhaps not as topspin friendly I suspect or IMO'.

However, my point still stand, that I'm angry that people accused me of something which I've already said specifically that I'm not.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:No he didnt specifically said 'spin', but as I mentioned, he preferred lively balls for his topspin and the balls now are less lively.

Well I see where you people are coming from, I should be more careful in quoting Nadal as saying " the balls are hollower..and less lively..." and then followed by my comment that should read 'perhaps not as topspin friendly I suspect or IMO'.

However, my point still stand, that I'm angry that people accused me of something which I've already said specifically that I'm not.

fair enough.

No you have to factor in 'hollower' balls and 'less lively'. He's already hitting with topspin, so why would he not feel the 'effect' of the ball now. If the balls are more topspin friendly then why he needs further power from his new racket? I would think hw wont 'not feel any effect' on the ball when playing against Verdasco.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:lol BB...I believe T got banned for inciting people to join his forum...but in any case the argument was always a fair one, all competitors in most sports draw strength and advantage from knowing they're physically superior to their opponents.

I think he was back, incognito, some time back. Hell I may even be him for all I know!

By the way, do you think it's too late in this thread to mention that some of us have been saying Rafa hasn't been the player he was for a good few years now?

Yes we know you have been telling us Fed is old since 2009 and Rafa since I think the start of 2011 was not the same player, you know when Novak started winning, odd that two years later he went on such a rampage I think in 2013.  So in the I told you so sweepstakes my dear BB I wouldn't raising my head up in this case if I were you.

That's a dopey post, check with Lydian what I'm on about and you'll realise your mistake.

Yes indeed, Rafa's injuries have caused him no end of trouble for quite a few years now, subsequently coupled with Djokovic going gluten-free and oxygen-max.

Re: all this talk of balls, I'm not aware of any issue with spin but, and I must dig out my old posts, they have got bigger meaning they travel slower through the air...which one could argue means they wouldn't take/sustain spin as long.

Got it...I wrote this on June 13, 2013 regarding adverse changes in tennis landscape regarding the balls:

We just need to change the balls first. "Homogenisation" has been a specific strategy pursued by ITF since the early 2000s after the power 90s. In 2001, ITF mandated via vote that 3 types of balls to be created and used. The 3 types of balls sought to uniform conditions.

Ball type 1- for clay --> a smaller, faster, harder rubber, low bounce
Ball type 2- for hardcourt, normal sized, medium bounce - this is seen as the STANDARD ball.
Ball type 3- for grass, oversized ball (6% bigger), slow, high bounce.

So they purposively sought to slow down grass, speed up clay. The problem is the uniformity of playing conditions via balls led to further uniformity of speed by surface tinkering. As conditions homogenised further events didn't need to vary use of the balls anymore so tournaments simply reverted to type 2 balls everywhere from around 2010 onwards (ITF states use of Type 2 in their 2010 recommendations). I believe Wimb still uses the slow type 3 balls though. Queens probably uses type 2 so we see a bigger difference.

Its no wonder Wimb uses type 3 because a study by South Bank University (London) showed players could play for 35 percent longer when using the type 3 ball! There was also a report which said that during experimentation over a two year period in Davis cup ties, Fed cup ties and men's professional events, the type 3 ball improved accuracy and allowed for longer rallies at all levels of play.

The ball changes resulted in uniform and generally slower conditions which prevented a new generation of attacking players emerging, giving the returner an advantage they didn’t have before. The French Open has used lighter type 1 balls to speed up the game during the 2000s, had this been the case during the 1990s, one of the many attacking players of that era may have had a much better opportunity to win the tournament. In the 2000s, it was arguably easier for attacking players to go deeper with the type 1 balls used.

Furthermore, Tim Henman complained that Wimbledon was slowing down conditions even further by opening ball cans before the tournament started to reduce the pressure of the balls, and counteract the effectiveness of big serving. So ball and court changes led by ITF from early 2000s have led to tennis homogenising and becoming the domain of the baseline player. This will not change until they do something about the balls first and start using type 1 & 2 balls in more places where type 2 & 3 are currently used. Put it this way, if ITF/ATP insist on speeding up surfaces then TDs will just use type 3 balls instead to come back to the norm. Balls are the problem...



Within the same thread, referencing our other game changing aspects, I also wrote this...and please note my reference to the game "moving on" is different to socal's technique based argument:

I've said this a few times now - the game IS moving on. These arguments about defensive skills are becoming old hat. The 90s was the fast attacking era, 00s was the slow defensive era. In my opinion the 10s are becoming the slow attacking era...i.e. more flat hitting is breaking through. But its attacking from the back...not the front...that's the difference between the 10s and the 90s.

The argument is perhaps how do we get more attacking from back AND front? We'll never see true front and back specialists again as technology has put the hands of tennis into the baseliners.

I can agree with all of that the game has been put in the hands of the baseliners because people have a fundamental preference for power in sports. I find it hard to watch old time tennis not only because of the poor quality filming but because it looks like my granny hit the ball when it comes off their racquet. Of course I understand as a player who has a child learned on a wooden racquet what is different in technology. It doesn't change the fundamental fact that people want to see 120 mph forehands and 160 mph serves but they also want to see some athletic running. Now the game to give people what it believes they want can't really have a mix of tech and conditions much different than what we see now. Spin has to be a huge part of it no way you can get a forehand hit that hard to come down into the court without a truckload of topspin. Only so hard you can hit the ball if you hit flat.

There is nothing wrong with spin and power...but surely what people like is variety in how it's used? After all the Swedish even have a word for variety of food - smorgasbord...tapas if you're Spanish...buffet if you're British...etc. Variety is the spice of life...and tennis

lydian wrote:There is nothing wrong with spin and power...but surely what people like is variety in how it's used? After all the Swedish even have a word for variety of food - smorgasbord...tapas if you're Spanish...buffet if you're British...etc. Variety is the spice of life...and tennis

I hate buffets, although it is a good place to pick up a Dave Nalbandian photo and autograph or a case of chicken flu with everyone coughing on my food,  especially in Vegas where really fat people go there eat and eat and eat. Its like watching a junky shoot up.  But I get what you are saying I actually do think even variety should be moderate. I don't want to see third rounds or fourth rounds of RG with a couple of guys who last week were playing each other in a challenger in Kazakhstan. I am happy the surface specialists are gone. Really borderline cheating in my book selling out tech and training to ambush better players for two months out of the year.

I don't know if we can have a game that provides equal chance to baseliners and volleyers. And I scratch my head at how logically suggestions that provide massive, wholesale advantages, YEAR ROUND to servers and volleyers is going to create more variety. I think we don't have the room on tour to move the pendulum in that direction because as we know (and BS gets a citation here) its harder than ever to break and as a whole the tour is holding historically, at very high levels now. We don't have the same athletes and players to recreate that small window in tennis history, 80s and part of 90s, where both styles could flourish. We may need the slower surfaces as a governor due to the increased size, height, stronger athletes of today. I just don't see the room for these drastic changes, due to servers and serving numbers, we don't have room to go much faster and certainly not the wholesale year round big up that you reformers want to make to the game.

Lol..I'm not a fan of buffets either to be honest...but people like different foods/restaurants too. An easy solution would be to limit tech...buts that's draconian. However, it just needs ITF2 balls to be used everywhere, rather than the beachball 3's which slow the game down and make returning so much easier. Otherwise, more surface variety...less DecoturfII everywhere, less sand in paint...sandpaper-like IW a case in point, less use of Plexipave2 courts...again like IW...which are slower than clay. Plexipave4 is quicker...at the end of the day why do we want the same courts and conditions across each phase of the season? Otherwise, it's like travelling the world and having to dine on McDonalds all the time...to round it off on a food note again!

Then be like Rafa and stick to a Mediterranean diet..

socal1976 wrote:I hate buffets, although it is a good place to pick up a Dave Nalbandian photo and autograph

Somehow this line became funnier because I knew it was coming!

As soon as Lydian referred to 'buffet', I could sense the shot being teed up and Socal didn't let me down!

socal1976 wrote:I can agree with all of that the game has been put in the hands of the baseliners because people have a fundamental preference for power in sports. I find it hard to watch old time tennis not only because of the poor quality filming but because it looks like my granny hit the ball when it comes off their racquet. Of course I understand as a player who has a child learned on a wooden racquet what is different in technology. It doesn't change the fundamental fact that people want to see 120 mph forehands and 160 mph serves but they also want to see some athletic running. Now the game to give people what it believes they want can't really have a mix of tech and conditions much different than what we see now. Spin has to be a huge part of it no way you can get a forehand hit that hard to come down into the court without a truckload of topspin. Only so hard you can hit the ball if you hit flat.

Great, so lets have unrestrained power tennis. Lightning fast court and hard, smaller balls. Oh hang on.....


I'd also add, based on his Universal pre-eminent popularity, that what "people want to see" isn't so much 120mph forehands and lots of running around, but what Federer brings to the court; variety, unexpected shots, changes of pace and direction.

Me too HMM...in fact I'm surprised socal didn't throw in the word "empanada" too when referring to His Royal Nalbyness.

BB, the fact that TMF himself (and Murray, and countless others) states more variety is needed seems to fly straight over socal's head. Socal may not like empanada buffets but he obviously likes a diet of the same food! Come on socal...why fly in the face of common-sense where variety is concerned?

Variety is essential for the development and evolution of players as well as the game. More so the players. Means players move forwards and onwards consistently and not get stuck on the same track repeating over and over.

Miss the face paced and turnover of top players.

bogbrush wrote:


I'd also add, based on his Universal pre-eminent popularity, that what "people want to see" isn't so much 120mph forehands and lots of running around, but what Federer brings to the court; variety, unexpected shots, changes of pace and direction.

Well yes but also based on his universal popularity people want to see what Nadal brings to the court; variety, unexpected shots, changes of pace and direction. Nadal perhaps also is more likely than Federer to bring a little excitement to his matches.

I really hope to god you are not basing that on social media numbers!

legendkillarV2 wrote:I really hope to god you are not basing that on social media numbers!

I was talking about universal popularity but of course it's not for everyone. My guess is that you have a more niche like taste?

ww.youtube.com/watch?v=hVovELJiBIs

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variety is essential for the development and evolution of players as well as the game. More so the players. Means players move forwards and onwards consistently and not get stuck on the same track repeating over and over.

Miss the face paced and turnover of top players.

Really this for me is the most bizarre of the selling points used by those who want to recreate the faster conditions of the past, I love Roger Federer or Nadal or Murray but I want them to become irrelevant and leave the game faster? I can't think of any sport where supposedly one of the big drawbacks is that their stars have too long a career and win too much. I think having players stick around an affinity and familiarity with the stars is a positive of the modern game. Somehow to me even positives are talked about in this debate as negative.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I can agree with all of that the game has been put in the hands of the baseliners because people have a fundamental preference for power in sports. I find it hard to watch old time tennis not only because of the poor quality filming but because it looks like my granny hit the ball when it comes off their racquet. Of course I understand as a player who has a child learned on a wooden racquet what is different in technology. It doesn't change the fundamental fact that people want to see 120 mph forehands and 160 mph serves but they also want to see some athletic running. Now the game to give people what it believes they want can't really have a mix of tech and conditions much different than what we see now. Spin has to be a huge part of it no way you can get a forehand hit that hard to come down into the court without a truckload of topspin. Only so hard you can hit the ball if you hit flat.

Great, so lets have unrestrained power tennis. Lightning fast court and hard, smaller balls. Oh hang on.....


I'd also add, based on his Universal pre-eminent popularity, that what "people want to see" isn't so much 120mph forehands and lots of running around, but what Federer brings to the court; variety, unexpected shots, changes of pace and direction.

No actually if you had lightening fast court and a hard small ball you wouldn't get 120 miles per hour FHs. That is what you guys want. In fact if you had those lightening fast balls and courts you favor shorter flatter swings that can not generate the kinds of mph and rpm. In actuality, you guys want wholesale changes I am fine with some tweaks to help out attackers here and there by tweaking surfaces to give more variety.

To bring back volleying on the first ball on almost every point, which is what you want to be viable you will have to trade huge groundstrokes of that level for it. Probably knock 10-15 miles an hour off the avg groundstroke all of sudden players need S and V to finish points. You have to trade winners from the back and power from the back. Like I said if you want to watch groundstrokes that look like your granny hit them then you can have S and V back. The tech and conditions that favor one, naturally don't favor the other. Like the guy who wants that bacon taste but not the fat and cholesterol.

lydian wrote:Me too HMM...in fact I'm surprised socal didn't throw in the word "empanada" too when referring to His Royal Nalbyness.

BB, the fact that TMF himself (and Murray, and countless others) states more variety is needed seems to fly straight over socal's head. Socal may not like empanada buffets but he obviously likes a diet of the same food! Come on socal...why fly in the face of common-sense where variety is concerned?

LOL Murdock and Lydian

I know there are some jokes that age like wine, and Dave Nalby's love of the meat pie is his indelible contribution to comedy. I mean Nalby has become tennis' Benny Hill joke. I mean a dirty old guy with a pervy face chasing around young hot girls who runaway from him to the tune of that silly music is funny, Dave's waistline is our endless source of comedy. Although I think Benny Hill would get charged with sex assault if he was as touchy feely today.


I am for variety as I said in moderation, I don't want the surface specialists to come back. I don't want to see every fast court player lose in the first week of RG and watch Juan Pablowho beat the world 1 and playing another challenger player in the 3rd round. I don't want to see all the baseliners out of wimbeldon early either, which is what started the revolt by the Europeans at Wimbledon. Personally, I like the tennis we have watched the last decade with slow conditions much more than I liked what came before it.

And again variety is supported until you get into the details. The details of what people put forward will not result in a more watchable brand of tennis than we have had in recent years. What people want is old school S and V players to be able to win, well that style has been slowly dying since the advent of the graphite racquet. To get back there you won't get there with tweaks, and at this stage if you told people how drastically you would need change to attain the outcome you like and what we have to give up, then less people would be supportive. Vague concepts are easy to support but the devil is in the details. And if you want to ban luxis or drastically limit racquet tech then I won't support variety. If you want to speed up balls and courts at a few tourneys or slow them down I won't be bothered much either way.

Socal - "If you want to speed up balls and courts at a few tourneys or slow them down I won't be bothered much either way"

Your last sentence was the cut to the quick. That's what we're all saying...no-one wants fast all year, or slow all years...nor medium all year either which is where we are now defaulted. The speed of conditions through the year should look like a sine wave...slow to medium to fast to slow etc. And whats wrong with guys who major on one speed or another? Who cares.....? I loved watching Rafter beat Muster at RG using S&V tactics...it was amazing! Or Agassi beating Goran at Wimbledon from the baseline. Its the classic mix up of styles that makes tennis exciting...that's why Nadal vs Federer originally captured the public's attention. For all our talk on here, the public just aren't that interested in seeing medium-pace HC'er #1 vs. medium-pace HC'er #2...or lets say Nishikori vs. Simon. Or to a lesser extent even arguably Djokovic vs. Murray if you're outside the UK or Serbia. You don't get classic rivalries until you have a contrast of styles...and you don't get a contrast of styles without a contrast of surfaces and playing conditions. Homogenised tennis is the death of tennis...

lydian wrote:Socal - "If you want to speed up balls and courts at a few tourneys or slow them down I won't be bothered much either way"

Your last sentence was the cut to the quick. That's what we're all saying...no-one wants fast all year, or slow all years...nor medium all year either which is where we are now defaulted. The speed of conditions through the year should look like a sine wave...slow to medium to fast to slow etc. And whats wrong with guys who major on one speed or another? Who cares.....? I loved watching Rafter beat Muster at RG using S&V tactics...it was amazing! Or Agassi beating Goran at Wimbledon from the baseline. Its the classic mix up of styles that makes tennis exciting...that's why Nadal vs Federer originally captured the public's attention. For all our talk on here, the public just aren't that interested in seeing medium-pace HC'er #1 vs. medium-pace HC'er #2...or lets say Nishikori vs. Simon. Or to a lesser extent even arguably Djokovic vs. Murray if you're outside the UK or Serbia. You don't get classic rivalries until you have a contrast of styles...and you don't get a contrast of styles without a contrast of surfaces and playing conditions. Homogenised tennis is the death of tennis...

No that isn't what everyone is saying. That may be what you and I are saying but I hear a great many people wanting to make changes to strings and tech to bring back S and V. I can think of a couple of people in mind when making this statement. When you ban technology that helps returners and helps servers you get one out come. A YEAR ROUND ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER.

You can't ban tech once the genie is out of the bottle.

PS Can we get a moratorium on the death of Tennis analogy. We went from Nadal, to conditions, to Djokovic all being the death of tennis depending on who you ask. Quoting Mark Twain:"the news of my death has been greatly exaggerated." I don't mean to pick on you but while I on occasion get accused of hyperbolic language this certainly is hyperbolic and overused.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variety is essential for the development and evolution of players as well as the game. More so the players. Means players move forwards and onwards consistently and not get stuck on the same track repeating over and over.

Miss the face paced and turnover of top players.

Really this for me is the most bizarre of the selling points used by those who want to recreate the faster conditions of the past, I love Roger Federer or Nadal or Murray but I want them to become irrelevant and leave the game faster? I can't think of any sport where supposedly one of the big drawbacks is that their stars have too long a career and win too much. I think having players stick around an affinity and familiarity with the stars is a positive of the modern game. Somehow to me even positives are talked about in this debate as negative.

Talk about HEsque fawning!

Heroes come and heroes go socal. Nothing will stop Federer or Nadal having a legacy talked about years after they retire. What's wrong with a player who turns pro at say 18 and then wind down at 28/29?

Hanging around makes the game look weaker.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Variety is essential for the development and evolution of players as well as the game. More so the players. Means players move forwards and onwards consistently and not get stuck on the same track repeating over and over.

Miss the face paced and turnover of top players.

Really this for me is the most bizarre of the selling points used by those who want to recreate the faster conditions of the past, I love Roger Federer or Nadal or Murray but I want them to become irrelevant and leave the game faster? I can't think of any sport where supposedly one of the big drawbacks is that their stars have too long a career and win too much. I think having players stick around an affinity and familiarity with the stars is a positive of the modern game. Somehow to me even positives are talked about in this debate as negative.

Talk about HEsque fawning!

Heroes come and heroes go socal. Nothing will stop Federer or Nadal having a legacy talked about years after they retire. What's wrong with a player who turns pro at say 18 and then wind down at 28/29?

Hanging around makes the game look weaker.

Nothing is wrong with a youngster coming up or an older player staying longer if he is playing good to great tennis. For me either can be compelling. And yes if I like a player and he can play high quality tennis that I enjoy with his own unique brand, and all the greats have it, I want to watch them as long as possible. The fact is that players are having longer careers because of advances in nutrition, healthcare, and training that simply didn't exist before. I mean something nowadays that is just knee scope where you come back in 3-4 months used to end your career as a footballer. So a lot of the things that are influencing the longer career like yoga, cross training, and better nutrition knowledge are due to advancement as a society as a whole and are not really tennis issues. I mean the slower conditions are not contributing to older guys playing longer as much as these factors I have mentioned. Also the money is too huge. In the past the money was good but it was nothing, nothing like today. And rich people, like all big tennis stars always want more money, everyone does, and at that level of money you can walkaway if you are big brand from a large part of your earnings that accrue directly or indirectly from being active on tour.

I'm lost. Why are fast or varied conditions going to favour youngsters? Most of them will have no clue on fast surfaces (apart from big servers) and variety is usually much more likely in experienced players. Seems to me all that would happen would be it would get harder for them.

Born Slippy wrote:I'm lost. Why are fast or varied conditions going to favour youngsters? Most of them will have no clue on fast surfaces (apart from big servers) and variety is usually much more likely in experienced players. Seems to me all that would happen would be it would get harder for them.

This is an often stated reason by the fast court proponents that younger players are hurt by slow and homogenized conditions. You are right this specious argument is never supported by any facts that prove a causal relation between fast surfaces and more young players. I like you am skeptical that speeding things up helps younger players succeed. I think the evidence they have is that in the past we had quicker conditions and S and V and back then you had teenagers like wilander and Becker winning slams. I don't agree with them that one thing causes the other and that this link is just a coincidence and not a cause.

Well I guess it can be argued that faster surfaces reduce the high level of conditioning needed for sustained rallying on ubiquitous slower surfaces...meaning younger guys have a better opportunity to let their talent make the difference before years of conditioning work is needed on top to break through. Faster surfaces need faster reflexes too...so that also benefits youth?

Exactly.

Some would argue the lack of talent coming through is because they are not good enough. Equally Agassi and Sampras won Slams in the perceived homogenization change.

If you're good enough, you'll adapt. As we have seen with 2 more recent examples

Ivo Karlovic and Estrella Burgos.

I was thinking Federer and Nadal being the polar opposite of players adapting their game to the conditions of the game (not just taking surface speed into consideration) in terms that one developed their game and the other is having more difficulty adapting his at this moment in time.

lydian wrote:Well I guess it can be argued that faster surfaces reduce the high level of conditioning needed for sustained rallying on ubiquitous slower surfaces...meaning younger guys have a better opportunity to let their talent make the difference before years of conditioning work is needed on top to break through. Faster surfaces need faster reflexes too...so that also benefits youth?

Why is it harder for 18-20 year old to be as fit as 28-30 year old, this seems contralogical to me. In terms of proof of an argument I think it is lacking, we don't know that faster conditions will certainly help younger players and hurt the older ones, maybe. But for me no causal link has really been shown other than the opinion of the reformers that fast courts=teenage talent. In law school we called this the logical flaw of mistaking correlation with causation. I mean if it rains on Thursday for three straight weeks does it mean that in this season it always rains on Thursday or is it a coincidence that the last few Thursdays have coincided with rain. One didn't cause the other, they just occurred at the same time because of their own independent reasons having no causal link with each other. Because it rained on a couple of Thursdays in a row doesn't mean that every Thursday you have to pack an umbrella.


I personally think that the young players aren't making it to the top as quickly probably simply for the fact that the tour is more professional and the level is higher, you just can't win with a big serve and big FH on its own anymore. To me this a reflection that the level is higher on tour than lets say 30 or 40 years ago and therefore a lengthier apprentice ship is needed. I am agnostic on faster conditions aiding the young, there could be something in it, but as of yet I haven't seen evidence of a causal link.

You just summarised the flaws in half of medical research announcements, and the global warming fraud (except the correlation doesn't even work on GW).

bogbrush wrote:You just summarised the flaws in half of medical research announcements, and the global warming fraud (except the correlation doesn't even work on GW).

Well I won't comment on GW "fraud" because really I am not an expert in that particular field, other than to say generally, but not always I will accept the prevalent view of the vast majority of real technical experts in the field that suggest it is a problem with drastic consequences that requires intervention by that terrible entity the legitimately elected government. I know that is a sensitive point for you, because frankly I think your politics is a bit nuttier than your tennis views as I can't find very much except for legal drugs and gaming (I am more than an amateur poker shark and an occasional "lol" pot smoker) that I like about Libertarianism. If I was dictator I would sodomize the big multinationals first and foremost, and once I was done ravaging their backsides I would comeback for seconds on Sunday.

Reminds me of game of Chinese Whispers at my childhood parties

The topic of my original post being
Rafa Gets A Wild Card at Buenos Aires

How on earth did we get to this last post