What could lead to big server takeover?

We hear a lot on here about how we need the "Djokovized" conditions otherwise the game will be overwhelmed by John Isner - like mega servers, turning every match into a service shoot-out.

The truth might be the opposite.

What does a short guy hate and a big guy love? High bounce. And the reverse is true; big guys can't handle slice. Nor can big guys change direction easily or react as fast as smaller men. The current trend seems created to encourage players to get bigger;

- high bounce
- strings encouraging more topspin and even higher bounce, as a tactic itself
- courts that don't take slice
- slower conditions

Sure, their serves are dangerous and on faster courts would be more so, but a super-fast serve alone has never been enough to carry a player to a great career, and the beanpole service freaks have never been more than a facet of the game, and good for them too, variety is the spice of life.

Men grew to 6' 8" 20 years ago, it's not a new, unique thing. That they can play rallying tennis is. Something has changed to take the game towards them.

Good summary of the current position BB.

In years gone by guys >/= 6'6' could live off serve alone and do "ok"...e.g. Rosset, Martin.
Now they can do even better as the surfaces give them much more time to get to the ball.
Their groundstrokes arent any better than yesteryear...they just have more time to get to the ball so are in better position to the make the shot.
Plus as you say the bounce is higher so their position on ball is further optimised.

The advantages the superquick guys like Federer/Nadal/Djoko have are being negated...all their speed gives them is the ability to carry on the ralley even longer.
And they need to because the tall guys have more time now, its even harder to pass them due to wingspan once they get back to mid court again.

The big guys are still rubbish at the net though...this is where movement is ALWAYS exposed.
I watched Isner warming up against McEnroe and the difference in ability around the net was startling.
Isner was so wooden its untrue.
Lucky for them they dont have to go to the net much other than see the result of the coin toss.

What has changed is speed & tech...resulting in a lessening of allround skills needed to play the game to get to the same ranking as yesteryear.
It all comes down to how you like your tennis...but I agree that the way tennis is going is playing literally into the hands of the very tall players.

Not sure how the examples you give proves the theory.

Todd Martin got to world number 4 and was in two slam finals and two semis. Marc Rosset got to world number 9 won an Olympic Gold and got to a slam semi. John Isner's highest ranking has been world number 9 and the furthest he has been in a slam is the quarters.

I'm not seeing the game being dominated by big servers at present. Players need to have more to their game than a big (and consistent serve). It will get them so far in the rankings but will not usually be enough to beat the very top players.

Big serves ?? Tall men?? Doesnt seem to deter one little Spaniard i.e.
David Ferrer

H 2 H... Raonic 0 Ferrer 4
Isner 1 Ferrer 4
Karlovic 1 Ferrer 2
Berdych 3 ferrer 5
Roddick (not as tall as the rest mere 6ft 2")...2 Ferrer 7

I would suggest that in Ferrer´s case he is every tall player´s nightmare

At what point did my article get morphed into "Big players always beat small ones now"?

The issue is that we're always being told that unless we carry on with ever slower conditions we'd be overwhelmed by the Giants serving from trees and destroying the game.
My point is that far from being true the current conditions actually encourage the increase in average height by diminishing the disadvantages the big guys always suffered on lower bouncing, faster courts that they just couldn't cope with.

Well pardon my mistake why dont you... is it detention for me or will it suffice if I go to the back of the class SIR !!!!! Ill be sure to pay attention next time

I know that the thread did not start as big v small. I was replying to the examples that Lydian was giving which I felt proved nothing. Looking at the rankings I still don't think there is any great evidence that the original theory is back up by fact. However each to their own.

My point calder is that Martin and Rosset probably would have had even better success now. Martin was like a Del Potro but with much better net skills. Rosset was similarly able to play defence or attack but got caught out more on faster surfaces.

Slower conditions for me are multifactorial in their deficits to the game. Yes this might sound bizarre coming from a "Nadal fan" but he's not the type of player who actually benefits from slowing conditions - its been to the detriment of his game IMO. The athletically blessed guys actually gain more advantage on faster courts. The slower guys gain enormously from slower conditions...so we see bigger and older players coming through.

Its been an oft-made discussion on here...the question is how do you achieve a good balance because I dont care if the tour is full of Rochus's or Karlovic's...what I want to see is variety across the year and conditions that reward skill not push the medical envelope.

You could turn that round though and say Isner may have done better when Martin and Rosset were playing as his serve would have been a even bigger weapon and most players weren't displaying the fitness levels we see now. It's all supposition as has been pointed out on another thread. By the way I've no intention of turning this into an eras debate. I've no interest in these sorts of argumenets.

Me neither, "era sm'era" as far as I'm concerned.
But as I said above Isner has the volleying/hands skills of a demolition man - he would have been dreadful at the net in the 90s. Sure he serve is great but then its no better than Krajicek (ever see the movement on Richard's...best kicker I've ever seen) or of course 'born to serve' Goran....except they could move.

I think either way the changes would still create a monopoly.

Say for example would you prefer the current top 4 or would you want a mismash of Isner, Raonic, Berdych, Anderson?

Big serving is an art without a doubt. Look at Sampras. He was what 6'1/6'2? Not a giant of a man, but had a beast of a serve.

I look at Raonic. At the US Open against Murray, his returning was below park standard. I have no idea why he proceeded to stand about 3 feet behind the baseline on the Murray 2nd serve. It was the worst display of tactics I had seen.

If we look at Ivanisevic who mentally folded. For a big guy he had a nice touch at the net, but imploded so quickly.

Isner I like is quite the thinker. He has an exceptional second serve and booming FH's and BH's. He really struggles with length. If he becomes too passive in rallies he will dish up something short. If pace drops off the ball he can struggle with it.

Berdych for me blows too hot and cold. Has a wonderful array of shots, but lacks the consistency to pull them out time and time again.

Yes fast conditions would help, but would it improve the quality of the current product? Not so sure.

Excellent article

Instinctive returners like Murray and Fed are better on faster courts, simply because it requires a more natural skill, that these guys have

I also think faster courts actually negates the great servers, because every serve becomes fast

i.e. they show up the poor returners

Haddie-nuff wrote:Well pardon my mistake why dont you... is it detention for me or will it suffice if I go to the back of the class SIR !!!!! Ill be sure to pay attention next time

Yes and make sure you don't do it again - now go to the back of the class and put on a pointed hat, that's the one with a big "D" for Djokovic on it Lol

This is often the case that when the real world and statistics don't fit your argument well just distort the real world in order to make your argument work before you actually change your own message. The fact remains if you look at the 4 best returners in the world they rank #2,#3,#4, and #5 in the ATP rankings. Therefore the mythical concern that slow conditions all of sudden favors the big server, is just that mythical. The OP just made it up all of sudden. And since 4/5ths of the top 5 is populated by really fast guys and great returners who are not overwhelming on serve, well we must chalk this up to more fake threats to the game. Like the fake threat that the game is losing fans and financial support or will in the future. Big servers are winning less often than ever before the facts indicate that despite the OP's tortured attempts at resurrecting a call for faster conditions. Now we have heard it all big servers love slow conditions, could someone have informed Sampras of that when he would routinely lose to Juan Pablo Whoever in the second or 3rd round of Roland Garros.

Everyone else thought it was right or interesting.

You don't have to come on the thread if you don't like it. I'd recommend lurking and learning, you'd benefit for sure.

No I always enjoy it when you just make something up ad hoc when the facts cut against your arguments. I always find that sort of logical twister on the part of people very entertaining. That is why I almost feel nostalgic for the bush presidency, they were wonderful at making up fake threats to America that required everyone to do what they said in order to defeat said non-existant threats. You would have made a wonderful Bush official. While the man nearly destroyed the global economy he did at least provide for wonderful satire material.

Are you calling me a liar?

Seriously, there were people having a good chat here until you've barged in and turned it into another absurd mess.

Please, can't you control yourself?

No just saying your logic is lacking.

Don't worry I said my piece enjoy the rest of your thread buddy

Ok, lets test out this theory a bit. The two biggest (and probably slowest) guys on tour are Isner and Karlovic. Although it is clearly slower, grass is still generally the quickest and lowest bouncing surface, so one might expect that to be where they struggle.

However, the stats don't support that. Career stats for both (grass/hard/clay order):

Isner

Matches Won - 64.0%/ 64.1%/ 47.2%
Service Games Won - 94%/ 90%/ 88%
Return Games Won - 8%/ 11%/ 11%

Karlovic

Matches Won - 65.1%/ 52%/ 41.5%
Service Games Won - 95%/ 91%/ 88%
Return Games Won - 9%/ 10%/ 9%

So what that looks like to me is that the big servers are most in their element on fast low bouncing courts, where the ball rarely comes back. The fact their movement is poorer is little hindrance in those circumstances.

It is notable that both players suffer a significantly larger dip in their service points won percentages between the different surfaces than they do on the return (i.e. they are easier to beat). Their matches on grass look deeply dull.

Do we really have any low bouncing courts any more? I couldn't describe Wimbledon that way, certainly not compared to a while back.

Do you not think that the likes of Big John seem curiously at ease rallying from the back, especially against high kicking balls? In fact watching Isner I long ago ceased to see him as a Dr Ivo type who once the ball was in play was a sitting duck.

I have to hand to you Born Slippy your reasearch is spot on. Not just because it is meticulous but because it is on point to the discussion at hand. Of course Isner is harder to beat on Grass as those numbers indicate. Certainly low slice is harder for the big guys to handle but when the vast majority of the rallies involve 1 or 2 big shots you don't get a lot of time to test out their lack of mobility or inability to handle low slice. If Isner more easily blows the ball by you on the serve or first forehand you won't get to use that slice bh against him off enough to make it worth mentioning.

As I said Born Slippey your posts do a great deal of damage to the idea that we need faster conditions and that is why we are seeing these odd statements like Big servers like slow conditions. Instead of changing their position to fit the facts, those pushing for a massive pro serve change in the conditions are simply twisting the facts to fit their hypothesis. Now for the first time we hear that big servers like slower conditions, despite the fact as you indicated Isner is a career sub .500 on clay and has a nearly 65% percent win percentage on grass. So the big servers like grass, indoors, and fast hardcourt and always have.

If you must debate on my threads would you stop making statements like "twisting the facts"?

In fact I insist on it.

Player heights (from ATP in feet/inches)...

Federer 6' 1"
Djokovic 6' 2"
Murray 6' 3"
Nadal 6' 1"
Ferrer 5' 9"
Berdych 6' 5"
Tsonga 6' 2"
Del Potro 6' 6"
Tipsarevic 5' 11"
Monaco 6' 1"

Isner 6' 9", Cilic 6' 6", Karlovic 6' 10", Raonic 6' 5"...

Apart from Ferrer and Tipsy, the 'giants' are not that different from the so called 'non-giants'.

Most of these players can server 200+ kmph serves easily. 220+ kmph serves may not be that common though.

My dear Laver was 5'8", Pancho was ~6' 3".

All these players are big already.

monaco isn't 6'1 i know that for a fact, you see him in pictures with nadal and feds and he is definitely smaller.

I don't know it as a fact - I haven't measured his height myself ... but that's the figure that they quote on the ATPWorldTour site. So it's close to a fact!

@LuvSports... My information is based on the ATP website, as Turron concurs.

with 5'11 nalbandian (sorry didn't know it would be that much text!)

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbnid=C4CY8_SJgGXmnM:&imgrefurl=http://www2.gettyimageslatam.com/image/5874210&docid=xyrNHe6XDbjoGM&itg=1&imgurl=http://img.gettyimageslatam.com/STLA/wprev/stla05101.jpg&w=506&h=357&ei=P9aGULGVEMiY0QWrs4CgBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1058&vpy=312&dur=4816&hovh=188&hovw=267&tx=154&ty=128&sig=114750970439200178764&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=191&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0,i:96 -

and with nadal -

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbnid=RrdoFVqezAW5OM:&imgrefurl=http://www.livetennisguide.com/2012/06/05/rafael-nadal-says-juan-monaco-is-one-of-his-best-friend/&docid=Wa0QXvjQHY6trM&imgurl=http://www.livetennisguide.com/wp-content/uploads/Rafael-Nadal-says-Juan-Monaco-is-one-of-his-best-friends.jpg&w=630&h=487&ei=W9aGUMz4KYPS0QXbpoGIBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=674&vpy=149&dur=233&hovh=197&hovw=255&tx=143&ty=118&sig=114750970439200178764&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=185&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:72

Interesting LuvSports. Most places seem to reflect the ATP information.

i just remember when in the past he has looked a good inch shorter than a feds or nadal so im surprised he has been listed that high i thought he was at best 6ft.

Two tall ones, Isner and Raonic lost today to Goffin and Muller respectively.

The courts should be slower and in the service box, and faster and lower bouncing in the back half. The first time I said it it was 3/4 joke, now I really believe in it. it solves everything.

Henman Bill wrote:The courts should be slower and in the service box, and faster and lower bouncing in the back half. The first time I said it it was 3/4 joke, now I really believe in it. it solves everything.

Not a half bad idea Henman Bill, I would definetly test it and see how it impacts play in a limited fashion and if the players like it and the matches are good why not?