One surface for everyone?

A few commentators seem to think the fast surfaces are probably a better metric of “intrinsic talent” whereby you have to play the first instinctive shot that comes to you. The ball comes to you so fast that you are playing a natural shot as opposed to a calculated one. So, the surface rewards touch players and shot makers rather than counterpunchers and defensive players. Keeping Federer out of the discussion, Johnny Mac, universally considered one of the most talented the game has ever seen, was probably the best ever on indoor and carpet, the fastest surfaces. So there is merit to this theory.

As against this, clay requires phenomenal game sense and ability to construct points. You need to be consistent and defend well. You also need to be patient because your shots will keep coming back. An all round game is a must, one with all the shots, since you can’t hide behind a serve. If you have a weaker backhand (relatively) like, say, Sampras, you just can’t play very well on clay. The surface is a ruthless examination of all round talent as far as shots are concerned. This surface thus rewards completeness of shots, consistency of shots, ablity to construct a point, fitness, patience, defensive ability and determination.

That’s why both fast and slow surfaces should co-exist!

In the 1990s, we had the following

Wimbledon- fastest. Typified by big servers Ivanisevic and Sampras winning a lot. Short points. Serve and volley tennis, but great baseliners without a great serve could still win. (Agassi reached a few finals and won once. In 1999, it took Peak Sampras to beat him!).

USO- Next fastest. Here, more people had a chance! But a bit of an advantage to the fast court players (Sampras won it 5 times!) You could serve and volley or stay at the baseline! A player’s favourite, if ever there were one, which let them be themselves!

AO- Slow hard courts. Once again, a very universal surface, but this time the slow court players had a better chance and the fast players were at a slight disadvantage. For eg, Agassi dominated here (Sampras never beat him at the Australian Open).

FO- slowest grand slam. Favoured baseline play. The ultimate test with lots and lots of long points and grueling, long baseline rallies. Serve wasn’t of much use here at all. Serve and volley was equally perilous.

It was just lovely to see the complete spectrum of skills covered by these surfaces then! To win all four, one needed a wide range of skills. No wonder only Agassi managed it.

Now of course, the surfaces have merged and we see the same type of game bringing success at all the slams. It's a pity, this! (I agree that the strings and heavier balls have a lot to do this. So, when you interpret this post, read "surfaces" as "conditions", i.e. how the playing conditions are pretty much the same at all grand slams nowadays).

Now of course, the surfaces have merged and we see the same type of game bringing success at all the slams. It's a pity, this! (I agree that the strings and heavier balls have a lot to do this. So, when you interpret this post, read "surfaces" as "conditions", i.e. how the playing conditions are pretty much the same at all grand slams nowadays)..

This is what I was saying on the other thread. Glad Djoko won but I don;t think he is the most talented player out there. He currently has the best Physical/talent ratio but I can think of 4 players who seem to be more talented.


The reason he is now beating Nadal more convincingly is that he got fitter recently.

They need to force everyone to get back to natural gut strings again or pace up the conds.

I am not a fan of the tennis I saw yesterday.

You may not have been a fan of the tennis on display yesterday tenez, but I bet you were happy with the result.

I can't imagine you will be complaining if Djokovic does it again to Nadal either.

"Natural Gut Strings"

I HEART little Cat cats !

luciusmann wrote:You may not have been a fan of the tennis on display yesterday tenez, but I bet you were happy with the result.

I can't imagine you will be complaining if Djokovic does it again to Nadal either.

That was indeed the bright side. But though I am seen as a Nadal hater, my point has always been about his tennis not him who I do not know. So not wanting Nadal to win is essentially cause I don;t like his kind of tennis. If someone with bigger muscles and less talent than Nadal comes along and beats him at his own game, I might find myself backing Nadal.

Djoko is a talented player but he wasn't winning much before his gluten free diet, was he?

I'd reather have guys like Dolgolopoulov, Golubev, even Ryan Harrisson, Nikishouri, Gasquet bringing some lightening tennis.

Tenez you need to lay off the gluten, have you seen the improvement of Djokovic's serve. Gluten or no gluten if today Novak was serving more double faults than aces like he was last year and getting broken with the frequency of 09 and 10 then he still would not be having this success.

Personally, I like the modern game. The french is still the slowest surface. The AO is still a very slow bouncy hardcourt. The USO has basically had the same surface since the late 70s. Wimbeldon is the one grandslam that has changed its surface to slow down. And thank god for it, wimbeldon was darn near impossible to watch in the late 90s. Maybe the most boring match imaginable is watching Pete Sampras and Ivanisivic on a grass court play, the first to 50 aces wins guys. Dull, really mind numbingly dull.

I have to agree with the OP; the harmonisation of the game excludes the specialists and makes it closer to simpler being on one surface. As a consequence, some of the great "Everests" have been flattened; the RG/Wimbledon double, for instance, is now a shadow of what Borg achieved.

I admire what Djokovic achieved and is doing, but I was at Centre Court for the semi-finals and I can tell you that the crowd was 85% for Tsonga from the start, and the chat from people around me was that this was because he played "interesting" tennis and Noles game was dull. Live and in person, they were correct. I can admire the athleticism and be in awe of the retrieving, but it's not the same as watching amazing virtuosity and creative play.

Yep, agree homogenisation isnt great for the game...no specialists, long ralleys, everyone plays the same way. Look at what its done for the women's game...so tedious and boring now. I wish they would speed some of the courts up again.

An interesting and well reasoned thread. A couple of points:
1 - Despite the very slow conditions, McEnroe and Edberg both reached the final at Roland Garos with exceptional serve and volley games, and Henman made a semi-final using S&V and chipping and charging a lot of returns. If executed well, it could be a successful tactic against a conventional clay courter - you just had to be exceptional on the first volley.

2 - I don't think there are too many problems with the USO, AO and clay tournaments with regard to their differing characteristics. Wimbledon has probably gone a little too far in slowing conditions down and doesn't reward aggressive and instinctive play quite enough. Given they are not likely to revert to the old grass mix, perhaps the easiest change would be to use a faster ball, to just slightly tilt the balance back to the more instinctive players and away from the retriever/counterpuncher type.

3 - The woman's game has really suffered much more badly because of homogenisation plus the presence of too many tennis academy clones.

[quote="dummy_half"]An interesting and well reasoned thread. A couple of points:
1 - Despite the very slow conditions, McEnroe and Edberg both reached the final at Roland Garos with exceptional serve and volley games, and Henman made a semi-final using S&V and chipping and charging a lot of returns. If executed well, it could be a successful tactic against a conventional clay courter - you just had to be exceptional on the first volley.[quote]

Relatively slow. Cause at the time, players were not as fit so a good shot was a winner, even on clay.Whereas now they can retrieve anything and the new strings gives the returners and baseliners a huge advantage nowadays.

2 - I don't think there are too many problems with the USO, AO and clay tournaments with regard to their differing characteristics. Wimbledon has probably gone a little too far in slowing conditions down and doesn't reward aggressive and instinctive play quite enough. Given they are not likely to revert to the old grass mix, perhaps the easiest change would be to use a faster ball, to just slightly tilt the balance back to the more instinctive players and away from the retriever/counterpuncher type.

Yep - The use of Babolat here at SW19 woudl give a fit Karlovic a very good chance for the title.

As far as I am concerned the main guts one needs in tennis don't come from cats, they come from the heart.

noleisthebest wrote:As far as I am concerned the main guts one needs in tennis don't come from cats, they come from the heart.

I am not sure where are your guts NITB, but mine are not in my heart...just lower down.

I'd say you need heart AND guts to win for sure.

Of course, I see where you are coming from, but do not confuse talent with flair.

Compared with Federer, nobody looks "talented": but the beauty of his tennis to me comes mainly from his unsurpassed body coordination, best exemplified in that Rolex add where he hits the forehand and his whole body is upright and effortless.

Talent is something else: what you can do with the racquet and the ball, or with today's technology what you CHOOSE to do with it.

Federer was relatively unchallenged in his prime years and he et his talent just flow out with his game. It was beautiful.
Then came the guy who studied it and broke it down,
that's what talent is.
I bet if there was no Federer in the picture, Nadal's game could have been different.
Same with Novak.
Although most think he has peaked, Novak's game is still evolving and is yet to get better, watch it Tenez and enjoy.
I suppose we all have different taste, I personally love all court tennis best, and only the very best and talented players can play it on the pro top level.
Novak will have reached his peak once he brings his game a couple of feet into the court.
At the moment, he doesn't need to.

noleisthebest wrote:Then came the guy who studied it and broke it down,
that's what talent is.

Arguable. I don't think they (Toni) studied Federer's game to beat it. They reivented an old successful game and applied new technologies/diets to exploit it best. You can hit as hard as Nadal or you can't, it's as simple as that. Had Nadal been less physically intense, Federer woudl have beaten him everytime, like he has beaten all LH for years. It's an energy issue against Nadal more than anything tactical. That's why I have had problems calling it "talent"...at best Toni's talent as a coach!

Had Djoko learnt his tennis with a SHBH, he would have had the same problem as Federer, if not worse. What make you choose to play one SHBH instead of DHBH has a lot to do with your own talent in fact and more so now what era you belong.

Enjoy Nole at the top. I woudl be the last one willing to spoil your moment. I certainly respect the player who can expose the tennis limitation of Nadal I have been talking for years.

"What make you choose to play one SHBH instead of DHBH has a lot to do
with your own talent in fact and more so now what era you belong. "


From my modest tennis playing experience here's my two bob: i started off with a single backhand, that is the most natural way to hit the shot, and that is the true backhand: a more volatile shot of the two (I'm talking forehand as the other one here) but when on, the more spectacular and artistic.
Then I tried the double handed one...and what a difference! So much more control, it almost felt like a second forehand, DBH has almost no resemblance in its essence to SBH. it its purpose and nature it's much more like a forehand. And with that though, off to gym I trot

noleisthebest wrote:Then I tried the double handed one...and what a difference! So much more control, it almost felt like a second forehand, DBH has almost no resemblance in its essence to SBH. it its purpose and nature it's much more like a forehand. And with that though, off to gym I trot

Exactly.

And this is why you can have talented players playing DHBH at the top but you cannot have a SHBH at the top nowadays without being very talented. I mean talented in the sense of having a great timing.

And that's why you do well to go the gym cause DHBHs require more energy and a fitter body.