Tennis needs to change

by Andy11 Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:18 am

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 Jahu Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:30 am

Not going to happen as Nadal and Djoko ruined the tennis with their power tennis, 5 meters from baseline and where matches are won on Unforced Errors from the opponent and not your winning skills.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:40 am

I've written a number of times about this, and its not a situation created by Nadal/Djokovic.
However, I wont go on about it for fear of floundering and presenting an 'un-logical' case Wink

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:52 am

Mixed feelings on this.

Specifically on serve and volley, I don't mourn its demise at all. I find the era where most rallies were over within 3 shots painfully dull to watch.

I think your point about becoming a muscleman is wrong. Of the top 4, Rafa and Andy are muscular. Novak is not muscular, he's very lean. Roger has never been a muscle man. Even in the last couple of years where he's been perhaps a little 'curvy', he's not been short of success.

I also don't see the sport as being set up for defensive players. Look at the current top ten. There are more attacking players in there than defensive players.

There is however an issue with variety. Whilst I don't miss serve and volley as the basis of tennis, it is depressing how few players have it in their repertoire.

I think though that this may gradually be beginning to change. I think that players are cottoning on to the fact that the way to beat Novak is with variety. Murray, Haas, Del Potro and Dimitrov have all done this successfully. Novak, in turn, is playing way more net points than he used to.

Not that it's all about Novak but I think tennis is often about cracking the code to beat the guy at the top. Rafa cracked the code for Roger, Novak cracked the code for Rafa and now the cat is out of the bag for Novak.

It's only the players without the ability or intelligence to be champions who would anchor themselves on the baseline in a battle v the top guys nowadays.

The pendulum will swing back to variety, I'm sure.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:57 am

Depends what you mean by variety though.
15-20 years ago, outside the top 10 the field was largely made up by surface specialists.
There is variety as a whole or variety within each player.
The 2 things are different but somewhat mutually exclusive.

by LuvSports! Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:58 am

Lydian is the most likely option to make the balls smaller and quicker? Instead of the courts and rackets.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:02 am

IMO that would be a good (and easier) first step LS.
Smaller balls are faster and require greater handling skills.

by Calder106 Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:04 am

Might be missing something here but I watched the Murray Mahut match yesterday (didn't see Wednesday's first set) and I didn't see Murray playing what I would call defensive baseline tennis. I thought it was a pretty entertaining match with lots of variety shown from both players who were both willing to go for winners early in the rallies.

by Andy11 Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:09 am

Maybe when I say 'muscle man', I mean a decided emphasis on physique and stamina. The importance of shotmaking and strategy is completely trumped by this. I agree with Lydian, it is not nadal and djokovic who have created this situation,
but that the conditions allow them to flourish so successfully. The essential point is that the ratio of risk and reward of attacking play has been dramatically altered so that for aspiring players it is no longer a sensible choice. I don't blame the players, they are only acting rationally.

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:10 am

Lydian, for some reason the quote functioning is messing up for me but, in response to your surface specialist comments, you are quite right.

But I don't miss the specialists at all.

RG has become the most dull slam for me because so few players have a realistic chance of winning it.

I'd much prefer to see greater variety in the game of an individual than a mix of specialists across the board.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:21 am

RG and Nadal has become 90s Sampras on grass. Krajicek was the Soderling of that era.
It is boring for non-fans to see the same guy winning but its up to the pack to catch them.
They do eventually, the players age and the game evolves.
However, you say fewer players have a chance of winning RG now yet surfaces are all slower...what chance would anyone have had of beating Nadal in the 90s then?

I'm not a fan of specialists per se. I prefer all-courters - true allcourters (Sampras, Becker, Safin, Kafelnikov, Haas, Federer, etc types).
However, creating fast surfaces tends towards polarisation of specialists again outside the top 10.
Trying smaller balls would be better first step...then less sand in HC paint...then other steps.

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:22 am

Why can I not quote today?! mad

Andy, again, I think you are being a bit nostalgic.

The dominant player of the last decade is an all court player with perhaps the greatest attacking skills the game has seen. That player, even approaching age 32, is still at the top of the game.

Go through the top ten players. Are Federer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, Gasquet and Wawrinka defensive baseline players?

Even the idea that Djokovic, Nadal and even Andy are defensive players is twisting the facts a bit. Being good at defence does not make you a defensive player. Check out bogbrush's thread about what Federer can no longer do to see how amazing the guy's defence used to be.

I think what people don't like is that the current dominant players have defensive abilities that many players find hard to overcome.

But if Nadal and Djokovic had never taken up tennis, the complexion of the top ten would be completely different. Nobody would be talking about defensive conditions.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:26 am

That hits the nail on the head HM Murdoch.

PS I can't quote either. Sad

by bogbrush Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:35 am

I must say that it's not S&V specifically I mourn, it's surface specialists. I actually liked the idea thata guy like McEnroe or Sampras could beat the tar out of everyone on fast surfaces, then have to roll up at RG to find some 19 year old S American could grind them down. Or vias versa, Muster could monster everyone on clay but be blown off court a few weeks later at Wimbledon.

It meant that the best always had new horizons on which to test themselves, and the Holy Grail of the Complete player was always held out as an almost unattainable ideal.

Now the career Slam is verging on routine and the RG / Wimbledon double is not much to get excited about. I would hate Roland Garros being speeded up as much as I hate Wimbledon becoming a high bouncing court or the US Open being slowed down again and again. Don't even get me started on the absurdity of the "hard" court in the Australia

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:39 am

Me neither on the quote function.

HMM - "The dominant player of the last decade is an all court player with perhaps the greatest attacking skills the game has seen."
Don't agree about the "greatest attacking skills" bit but take your point about context in this era.

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.

by time please Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:42 am

Calder wrote:Might be missing something here but I watched the Murray Mahut match yesterday (didn't see Wednesday's first set) and I didn't see Murray playing what I would call defensive baseline tennis. I thought it was a pretty entertaining match with lots of variety shown from both players who were both willing to go for winners early in the rallies.

I didn't watch the second set, but I watched the first on Wednesday and concur with your sentiments Calder.

However, I do think that on the hard courts especially, match after match can look very much the same nowadays outside the top players, and even the the slowness of the hard courts inevitably results in wars of attrition that while entertaining the first few times, I simply don't have the attention span to sit all the way through, after a while. I realise that is a statement without great technical insight or critique but simply a reaction.

HM Murdoch wrote:
I'd much prefer to see greater variety in the game of an individual than a mix of specialists across the board.

I don't really miss the specialists either - Sampras, while coolly brilliant (there has never been a more convincing Wimbledon champion from beginning to end imo) was hard to invest in emotionally because he just seemed to have all the weapons all the time against his opponents on grass, and he always looked invincible. I find Rafa at RG pretty boring too because he has the most perfect and devastating game for clay, whatever vulnerability he may have shown on very odd occasions in a first week, there is little room for doubt. For all that Federer has 7 Wimbledons, and while he was dominating his game never looked as if it had the same stranglehold on one tournament.

I just realised contradicting myself - I guess I am saying that I would like to see greater individuality in individual games - would the size, weight of racquets or balls affect this most?

PS I can't quote either, so did the above manually, so to speak!!

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:44 am

Variety in surface is the issue.

If we could get a low bounce back at Wimbledon and make the USO fast again, I'd be happy with that.

RG is fine and I have no problem with AO being really slow, as long as USO is fast as a counter balance.

by User 774433 Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:50 am

Guys, for the quote function- press the 'switch editor mode' function- it's below align left in the ribbon.
*Edit- when you quote that is.

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:50 am

Lydian wrote: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.

Excellent assessment - although Federer is the dominant player from the slow defensive era?!

As for my "greatest attacking skills ever" comment... I was very careful to put "perhaps" beforehand. Wink

by Guest Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:56 am

You don't really want to eliminate defence out of the game. Yes S&V has been dead for a while, but for me I echo BB and that the game needs surface specialists. Hell we have Clay ones and HC ones, but not Grass ones and that is where such a disharmony occurs in the surface. A true great champion should be able to overcome these and it wouldn't be a crime if they struggled. Queens is quicker than Wimbledon and for me it does offer a truer reflection of the surface.

Yes many changes can be made, but you don't want an imbalance big hitters and S&Ver's dominating the majority of surfaces.

by Johnyjeep Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:32 am

I agree with the sentiment of this article. It's an absolute crying shame that grass court's have been slowed down.

I don't buy the cry of 'boredom' of 3 shot rallies at all. If those three shots are a 1st serve in, excellent return of serve (at the feet of the incoming serve), followed by a pick-up half volley winner, I'll take that any day of the week and twice on a Sunday over seemingly endless exchanges from well behind the baseline. All of those shots takes real skill.

Tennis is foremost a raquet sport. Not an endurance sport. If I want to watch an endurance sport I'll watch a marathon (which I quite often do as I love athletics). I'm not saying baselines have no raquet skills clearly but the art of volleying takes far more skill and technique than retreiving shots from the baseline over and over again.

The dichotomy of playing styles has converged incredibly since surface homogeneity started. My abiding memory of Wimbldeon as a youngster was Goran vs Andre in 92. The server against the returner. Who could come out on top. OK, Agassi was a freak but what a final. The two contrasting styles.

Each to their own I suppose (everyone has the prettiest wife at home!) but there are plently of opportunities on the tour for baseliners/defensive minded players with so many clay and slow HC tournies.

So for two weeks a year players have to play on quick grass? It's a shame that Wimbledon have ceded to the players (style) of today rather than challenging them to adjust. There's enough money on tour for those players who wouldn't want to/or can't make the adjustments needed.

But for those who possibly would want to, the opportunity has been lost. Shame on Wimbledon I say Crying or Very sad

A bit harsh possibly but hopefully you take my point.

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:51 am

Johnyjeep wrote: I'm not saying baselines have no raquet skills clearly but the art of volleying takes far more skill and technique than retreiving shots from the baseline over and over again.

This is true as a statement but who is actually just "retrieving" shots?

Nadal being able to flick a ball at full stretch and land it bang on the opponents baseline time and time again is more than just "retrieving", it's incredibly skilled. Likewise with Novak launching into the splits and driving one down the line over the top part of the net.

If we are talking about players like Simon just plonking it back in play, then yes, of course a volley is more skilled. But then Simon is hardly reaping the titles and rewards either, so it's not like he's representative of what it takes to prosper.

by time please Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:58 am

Do the slams have to comply with ITF standards of speed of court etc? It seems very perverse that Wimbledon slowed down the grass courts when Henman was still playing, and Flushing Meadow conditions have not been rewarding American players whose games favoured faster hard courts.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:58 am

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...

by User 774433 Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:58 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote: I'm not saying baselines have no raquet skills clearly but the art of volleying takes far more skill and technique than retreiving shots from the baseline over and over again.
This is true as a statement but who is actually just "retrieving" shots?

Nadal being able to flick a ball at full stretch and land it bang on the opponents baseline time and time again is more than just "retrieving", it's incredibly skilled. Likewise with Novak launching into the splits and driving one down the line over the top part of the net.

If we are talking about players like Simon just plonking it back in play, then yes, of course a volley is more skilled. But then Simon is hardly reaping the titles and rewards either, so it's not like he's representative of what it takes to prosper.

Fantastic post.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:05 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote: I'm not saying baselines have no raquet skills clearly but the art of volleying takes far more skill and technique than retreiving shots from the baseline over and over again.
This is true as a statement but who is actually just "retrieving" shots?

Nadal being able to flick a ball at full stretch and land it bang on the opponents baseline time and time again is more than just "retrieving", it's incredibly skilled. Likewise with Novak launching into the splits and driving one down the line over the top part of the net.

If we are talking about players like Simon just plonking it back in play, then yes, of course a volley is more skilled. But then Simon is hardly reaping the titles and rewards either, so it's not like he's representative of what it takes to prosper.

Remember though that those shots would not have been possible without modern rackets/strings/core fitness/elasticity - whether that's a good thing or not depends on your point of view.

by Johnyjeep Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:11 pm

True HM. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular when I said retreiving shots.

Indeed as you say, the ability of Rafa and Novak to somehow turn seemingly defensive situations into attacking ones has left me bemused at times!

But even in those incredible shots - they have enhanced their margin of error (by staying at the back of the court) to give them every chance to return the ball (which they know they can do on ever slower courts), meaning they are asking their opponent to hit one more shot, thus statistically increasing the probability of an unforced error - leading to them winning the point.

I'm not knocking that. There is more than one way to skin a cat. It's just not wholly for me. And they are the very very very good ones at that kind of tennis. Not everyone is as talented as them so often it does become 'just plonking it back in play'

And as I say, their are ample opportunities for them to show case these skills across the tour as a whole. The (historical) skills required for grass court tennis are different and I believe it would be better if different skills are required to win tournaments on different surfaces.

But generally speaking, baseline play (and the retreival of shots) is 'safer' than 'net' play. You have more time to see the shot, set yourself and execute from the baseline. You have higher margin for error (I believe) as you are less exposed. Hitting a ball before it has bounced (in any sport) takes more skill due to fewer points of reference (visually) and increased uncertainty (at a higher speed) of the trajectory of the ball through the environment in which it travels.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:11 pm

Yes but given everyone these days has those modern racquets/strings/core fitness why isn't everyone doing what Nadal does then?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:16 pm

Cos they're not as good - or at least they do those shots, but not as well as Nadal. I'm merely pointing out that modern conditions have given modern players the advantange over the players of the past. Probably more so in the defense/retrieval area, although it's true in all areas.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:27 pm

I agree JHM. Since 2000 ITF pursued homogenisation - I don't know why but they did - maybe they just decided specialists were bad for the game, made it boring. At the same time racquet tech was changing hugely too. It was the worst time possible to pursue homogenisation, they should have waited for racquet tech changes to come through first in the early 2000s.

by HM Murdock Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:43 pm

Lydian - a masterful post about the balls! Most of that was totally new to me, so it was fascinating to read. I think you are right too, it seems balls are the big issue. Do you think there is any point in different balls? Why not just have one and then the only variable will be the surface?

Jonnyjeep, good points. I'm not sure I'd say volleying is more skillfull than baseline per se though. It's just different. All your points about the visual and trajectural differences are valid but the other side is that the players have more of the court to aim at. Good baseline play involves great use of angles, the ability the flatten a shot and the ability to hit a shot at full power and land it on a sixpence. I wouldn't elevate good net play above good baseline play or vice versa. I see them as complementary.

by bogbrush Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:56 pm

lydian wrote: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...

Great post. Worthy of a sticky all of it's own.

by Johnyjeep Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:37 pm

Yes, HM all good points as well.

I think in reference to grass though I'd like to see more emphasise on volleying and willingness to come forward. I think we are in agreeance that something needs to be done.

Not wholesale, but certainly some little tweaks to try and increase variety across different surfaces to encourage/promote a different skill set. Note I did not say 'a harder skill set (to execute)'! Hug

by User 774433 Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:42 pm

Fantastic points made all round here, very interesting reading.

by _homogenised_ Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:45 pm

Tennis has been dumbed down and destroyed, and we all know it. The surfaces, balls, and racquets have all been changed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Touch, skill, ability and tactics are playing second fiddle to physique (something I don't mind on clay). It is time hard court and especially grass were changed to be a lot faster. It may also help if we either stopped allowing a second serve, or banned double handed back hand (although that's just a suggestion). The game has become too easy, and skill is dead in the water compared to yesteryear.

We need serious change to the racquets and conditions. Why are racquets allowed to evolve so much? And when does that stop?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:04 pm

You can't cahnge rackets back - every amateur/park player in the world would have to buy a new racket. You could ban some strings though, as only the pros and presumably some well-off players, use e.g. luxilon

by Jeremy_Kyle Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:17 pm

The impact of technology, those days, is just bordering on the ridiculous. When a tennis player is more concerned with producing the highest possible balls with the haviest possible spins, to disrupt his opponents game, rather than playing his own game, you know there's something very wrong.

by The Special Juan Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:24 pm

Superb post lydian clap

There's some very interesting information there.

My own view is that I don't want a return to "*bang* *bang* *bang* *bang* Game, Ivanisevic" tennis at Wimbledon where players like Isner are going to take some stopping but at the same time I want a bit more variety in the speed of the surfaces. Whether that can be achieved by changing the balls at each tournament or changing the courts themselves I don't know. Now that I think about it, wasn't there a furore about the balls at RG a few years ago?

by time please Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:41 pm

I echo the others lydian - really interesting post about the difference the balls make. It is such a travesty that Wimbledon were further scuppering C'mon's chances by opening the canister hours before the tournament - not in the interests of fully engaging the GBP you would have thought Wink

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:48 pm

Thanks TP and everyone else for the feedback. Given emancipator said I talked a load of balls I thought I might as well expand on the subject, lol Wink

Yes that's right TSJ, it was 2011 when FFT decided to agree new 5 yr contract with Babolat (leaving Dunlop...who supply balls for all events leading up to RG). The new Babolat balls were harder and faster - as commented by most players. We saw Isner push Nadal to 5 sets and Federer himself make an excellent run to the final beating Djokovic en-route. So we can see the effect a harder, faster ball creates. Nadal still won but it made it harder...as we know his final vs Federer wasn't straight forward either.

Agree JHM...not much can realistically be done about racquets at amateur level but that's ok.
However, you could argue on the professional tour the max. size allowable is 98sqin, using poly strings un-hybrid is banned, no silicone spray and tensions above 50lbs only, although I don't know how you would enforce that.
But moving to type 1 balls everywhere, and type 2 at Wimb, would make a massive difference...you can see the difference a slight spec change between type 1 balls made at RG11 (within allowable specs - see table below)....imagine the difference going from type 2 to type 1 elsewhere?

Tennis needs to change Captur22

by CaledonianCraig Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:50 pm

Changes would be nice for sure. Sadly though, it is only the powers that be that can make the changes and I certainly won't be holding my breath.

by Johnyjeep Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:57 pm

Yes Special Juan I take your point.

I just don't see that Ivanisevic style of tennis being that hideous. Let us remember that he only won Wimbo once and reached the FO quarters three times. It takes much more than a serve to win Wimbo and Ivanisevic had much more than just a serve (hence he did reasonably well at FO).

The romance of a wild card moving through the rounds and getting to the final was brilliant and more than made up for it. Irrespective of how he did it. Today, that could simply never ever happen.

You mention Ivanisevic and Isner because of their big serve (I assume). They had a physical attribute and they used that to their advantage. Is that any different to what Nadal and Djokovic are doing? By using their endurance attribute to their advantage? I don't believe the two are world's apart at all. Plus players can only play in 2 grass court tournaments a year. Its not like they (the big servers) could dominate the whole tour (even if that was possible which I don't believe it is).

People mention about serving being a dull fest. Yet the serve is seemed as so crucial (and difficult - due to the fact you have a reduced area in which to hit it and your opponent knows roughly where it is going to go), that it is the only shot in tennis that you can have two attempts at. I believe that by only allowing one serve that would actually favour the better servers even more! Can you imagine Murray having to roll in his second serve (granted it is better than it was) time and time again just to try and get a point started!

Tennis is ultimately about winning the point by what ever means. Any player will tell you that. Anything over and above that is just an addition.

by Johnyjeep Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:00 pm

Also, I have just doffed my cap to the pavillion lol

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:16 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:Also, I have just doffed my cap to the pavillion lol

So doff....
(Old Two Ronnies joke)

by _homogenised_ Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:32 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:You can't cahnge rackets back - every amateur/park player in the world would have to buy a new racket

So what

That isn't a good enough reason, and you sure could ban them at pro level. But I agree with others, that changes to the balls and surfaces are a much better idea.

by mthierry Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:59 pm

I don't get the moaning about racquet technology. Surely, the same technology that enhances power and control for a counter-puncher does the same for an attacking player. The monstrous power a player like Del Potro generates is enhanced by this same technology. As for modern tennis being destroyed by these evil changes, it seems it hasn't affected the growing popularity of the sport. The followership of the game has never been more vibrant, vast and varied amongst demographies. The reality of the modern perception of the game is that it would change dramatically if you took out Nadal and Nole and suddenly, the dominant players look very different. The upcoming players like Dimitrov and Raonic are also nothing like those 2 who are actually unique contrary to the fear they'll usher in a new era of similar players.

I have little problem with the modern game but you almost wish for sweeping changes if only for fans to discuss more about the game and debate less conjecture about the effects of modern conditions.

by _homogenised_ Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:27 pm

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,

by bogbrush Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:36 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:Also, I have just doffed my cap to the pavillion lol
So doff....
(Old Two Ronnies joke)

Four candles.

by lydian Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:40 pm

_homogenised_ wrote:All Nadal does it get a racquet on it.

Try telling that to Ancic who Nadal hit a 116 mph FH winner past - apparently 2nd fastest timed on ATP Tour behind Del Potro.
I guess all Nadal did was get a lightweight 300g racquet on it right? Laugh

by Jeremy_Kyle Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:50 pm

mthierry wrote:I don't get the moaning about racquet technology. Surely, the same technology that enhances power and control for a counter-puncher does the same for an attacking player. The monstrous power a player like Del Potro generates is enhanced by this same technology. As for modern tennis being destroyed by these evil changes, it seems it hasn't affected the growing popularity of the sport. The followership of the game has never been more vibrant , vast and varied amongst demographies. The reality of the modern perception of the game is that it would change dramatically if you took out Nadal and Nole and suddenly, the dominant players look very different. The upcoming players like Dimitrov and Raonic are also nothing like those 2 who are actually unique contrary to the fear they'll usher in a new era of similar players.

I have little problem with the modern game but you almost wish for sweeping changes if only for fans to discuss more about the game and debate less conjecture about the effects of modern conditions.

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.

by Sponsored content