PDA

View Full Version : Variety is gone in todays game, now the same players win on every surface too.Boring!


morten
05-11-2009, 12:43 PM
Not only is the volley, touch, and brains gone. The same players can win tournaments on all surfaces now. I miss the times when there was clay specialists, grass and carpet specialists... I mean even Blake and Djokovic do so well on clay, it is just the same no mather what surface, and i Love Nadal, but for those strokes to win the Wimbledon title..c`mon, Tennis is so one dimentional now, the way the robot tennis is now being played, it should be called something else..

Nadalator
05-11-2009, 12:48 PM
Yeah I miss the days where Sampras sucked on clay

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 12:56 PM
Djokovic is good on clay at the present he is the only one who can rival nadal on clay. As for blake he was never good and clay he just made a lucky run in this years estoril open

seffina
05-11-2009, 12:57 PM
It sucks. Let's all stop watching in protest. That'll teach them.

icedevil0289
05-11-2009, 01:00 PM
djokovic does well on clay because he is good on clay. Although I do agree that there is not the match variety anymore.

cliff
05-11-2009, 01:19 PM
Murray has the most diverse game, he really enjoys finding the tactic that will mess his opponent up, here are some Murray clips to enjoy http://www.procomparetennis.net/search/videos:all/Murray

RoddickAce
05-11-2009, 01:41 PM
Tennis would benefit a lot if someone like Edberg shows up, with all the exciting net plays that don't end in 2 or 3 shots max.

Blade0324
05-11-2009, 02:03 PM
Well get ready to flame me I guess. I actually much prefer today's game to the older styles. I like baseline play and longer points. I'm not a S&V fan to play or watch it's just what I consider boring just as the OP considers baseline play boring. I guess to each their own.

icedevil0289
05-11-2009, 02:13 PM
Well get ready to flame me I guess. I actually much prefer today's game to the older styles. I like baseline play and longer points. I'm not a S&V fan to play or watch it's just what I consider boring just as the OP considers baseline play boring. I guess to each their own.

I completely agree, which is why I'm always complaining about how the surfaces are becoming more and more similar and encouraging baseline play and longer points. I have always said that there should be more variety, surfaces that encourage longer rallies and baseline play for those who enjoy it like you, and faster surfaces that encourage s&v for those who enjoy that style.

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 02:16 PM
Nope no variety. Tennis today consists of baseline borfests and mindless ball bashing with no strategy and wait for the other player to get an Unforced Error. Thats pretty much the game of tennis today. And thats what is making players to accel on every surface today. The game is essentially PLAYED THE SAME ON EVERY SURFACE.

Its a shame really.. But thats what the game has evolved too. No changing that

sh@de
05-11-2009, 07:45 PM
I agree with OP. I'm not saying I necessarily want all surfaces to suddenly encourage S&V and touch volleys and more thinking etc., I just think we should have more of a balance. There should be your usual nice, slow clay surfaces (which I enjoy watching very much) where rallies are long, and baseline play dominates. And then there should be your real quick indoor / grass courts where S&V dominates and skills at the net really count. And then there should be the in betweens, the hard courts, which allow for both types of play. That way, there will be real variety, something that today's game really does seem to lack.

Blade0324
05-11-2009, 07:45 PM
Nope no variety. Tennis today consists of baseline borfests and mindless ball bashing with no strategy and wait for the other player to get an Unforced Error. Thats pretty much the game of tennis today. And thats what is making players to accel on every surface today. The game is essentially PLAYED THE SAME ON EVERY SURFACE.

Its a shame really.. But thats what the game has evolved too. No changing that

See for me this is what has made the game more exciting. I don't think that they are boring at all and I find there to be much more strategy on how to force the other player into making an error by going for too much or giving a weak reply. I find S&V tennis to incorporate no strategy. Just serve and run at the net like a comicozy.

Blade0324
05-11-2009, 07:47 PM
I agree with OP. I'm not saying I necessarily want all surfaces to suddenly encourage S&V and touch volleys and more thinking etc., I just think we should have more of a balance. There should be your usual nice, slow clay surfaces (which I enjoy watching very much) where rallies are long, and baseline play dominates. And then there should be your real quick indoor / grass courts where S&V dominates and skills at the net really count. And then there should be the in betweens, the hard courts, which allow for both types of play. That way, there will be real variety, something that today's game really does seem to lack.

See for me I like the fact that the surfaces are more similar now than in the past. It allows the players to play on an even field so to speak and the better players win.

The-Champ
05-11-2009, 07:49 PM
Nope no variety. Tennis today consists of baseline borfests and mindless ball bashing with no strategy and wait for the other player to get an Unforced Error. Thats pretty much the game of tennis today. And thats what is making players to accel on every surface today. The game is essentially PLAYED THE SAME ON EVERY SURFACE.

Its a shame really.. But thats what the game has evolved too. No changing that



the strategy is to make your opponent miss to return the ball in play. It's been the same for ages. Are we watching the same sport? :)

seffina
05-11-2009, 07:54 PM
I quite like tennis now. I enjoyed it before as well, but I like today's tennis just as much. I don't want to live in the past and I find the essence of the game to be just as attractive as always.

I understand if it boring to some and they're free to not watch or watch and complain, but I don't really see how it's any less exciting personally.

prosealster
05-11-2009, 08:21 PM
same winners because they essentially slowed the grass and hard court so all surface essentially played at similiar speeds...so provided u can move equally well on all surfaces....then u'll have similar success on all surfaces

JoshDragon
05-11-2009, 08:22 PM
Nope no variety. Tennis today consists of baseline borfests and mindless ball bashing with no strategy and wait for the other player to get an Unforced Error. Thats pretty much the game of tennis today. And thats what is making players to accel on every surface today. The game is essentially PLAYED THE SAME ON EVERY SURFACE.

Its a shame really.. But thats what the game has evolved too. No changing that

It's a shame that you are so heavily biased towards the 90s tennis players and Pete Sampras. Sometimes, you come up with very good posts but there are a lot like this one as well.

Do you honestly watch much of today's tennis?

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 08:50 PM
the strategy is to make your opponent miss to return the ball in play. It's been the same for ages. Are we watching the same sport? :)
Incorrect. The strategy used to be to hit a winning volley at the net.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 08:52 PM
Not only is the volley, touch, and brains gone. The same players can win tournaments on all surfaces now. I miss the times when there was clay specialists, grass and carpet specialists... I mean even Blake and Djokovic do so well on clay, it is just the same no mather what surface, and i Love Nadal, but for those strokes to win the Wimbledon title..c`mon, Tennis is so one dimentional now, the way the robot tennis is now being played, it should be called something else..
I totally agree!

Blame it on the modern rocket launcher racquets and spin monster poly strings. Go back to wood racquets and gut strings and we'll get the variety back. Borg versus McEnroe anyone? :)

veroniquem
05-11-2009, 09:03 PM
See for me this is what has made the game more exciting. I don't think that they are boring at all and I find there to be much more strategy on how to force the other player into making an error by going for too much or giving a weak reply. I find S&V tennis to incorporate no strategy. Just serve and run at the net like a comicozy.
Exactly, serve and volley was much more mechanical than baseline tennis where you have to construct points, change pace and directions, vary angles and make decisions about when and how to attack. Classic S and V was serve that can hardly been returned by the opponent (thrown off balance), then capitalize on that by putting the ball away at the net: 1-2, no strategy, the returner doesn't do much, waits until it's his turn to serve: no drama, no excitement, no place for spectacular defense. The variations between defense and offense in longer rallies are more engrossing.

The-Champ
05-11-2009, 09:40 PM
Incorrect. The strategy used to be to hit a winning volley at the net.

Which means, you make sure your opponent does n0t put the ball back in play.





Was that everyone's strategy though?

veroniquem
05-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Incorrect. The strategy used to be to hit a winning volley at the net.
Nowadays, a superlatively gifted returner would find a way to return that volley, that's what makes tennis much more entertaining: better defense, no more boring 1-2 combos!

BlahDow
05-11-2009, 09:47 PM
Couldn't the same be said when people used serve and volley all the time?..the difference is nobody complained about it..at least not that I know of

LurkingGod
05-11-2009, 09:50 PM
Nowadays, a superlatively gifted returner would find a way to return that volley, that's what makes tennis much more entertaining: better defense, no more boring 1-2 combos!

True. These days good baseliners can kill any poor volleys with a passing short meaning players require a better touch and better volley at the net to win a point. Oh and they seem to use more brain too since cheap winners don't always work anymore.

veroniquem
05-11-2009, 10:05 PM
True. These days good baseliners can kill any poor volleys with a passing short meaning players require a better touch and better volley at the net to win a point. Oh and they seem to use more brain too since cheap winners don't always work anymore.
Absolutely. That's why tennis is more entertaining now than it's ever been.

dem331
05-11-2009, 10:07 PM
Games evolve with technology and physical progress. There is little you can do to keep them in the past. Even games like test cricket or soccer, where the technology is substantially the same as in the past, have changed totally.

I think one should enjoy the past for what it was and the present for what it is. If one must compare eras, I think the 1975-1985 was great, with competitiveness, variety and skill. The late 80s and 90s were a little boring with Lendl/ Wilander type players whom I found a little uninspiring dominating on slower surfaces and Wimbledon becoming a series of 1 to 3 point rallies were the serve was too dominant.

The 00s have been a little blighted by the überdominance of one player who was so much better than the rest, but the last couple of years with the Nadal/Federer rivalry have been great, taking one back to the Borg/McEnroe days.

Swissv2
05-11-2009, 10:24 PM
I can't believe this thread even exists due to the thousands of highlight reels of fantastic rallys all played during "today's game".

Sure, you could have said this perhaps 4-5 or even 6-8 years ago with players ranked 5 and below, but that was due to the change in racquet technology, surfaces, athleticism, and string technology.

Nowadays I see much more touch at net, amazing passing shots, and exciting rallys that have much more speed and power than games a decade ago - due to the adapatation to the games technological and physical changes.

LurkingGod
05-11-2009, 10:37 PM
Absolutely. That's why tennis is more entertaining now than it's ever been.

It's more entertaining now to me too. I'd rather see good tennis from players who play with similar style than a crappy match between 2 players with different styles.

morten
05-11-2009, 10:49 PM
S&V takes so much skill it`s hard to believe... Talent, precision, timing within a tenth of a second. Besides, before even a baseliner could volley quite well, tennis consists of so many strokes not only mindless topspin bashing as many do today. The mix is great, seing a baseliners battle to pass a s&v player, and his struggle to sneak in at the net. We are not talking Karlovic here...

35ft6
05-12-2009, 01:46 AM
Less variety for sure but for the most part, I like watching the faster, more athletic tennis of today. That goes for the women's game as well. Not that it can't get better. But one thing I would love to see come back is some trash talk and genuine rivalries at the top of the ATP. Guys like Mac, Connors, and Nastase, not to mention less confrontational but equally colorful guys like Vitas. And up against the hot heads, guys like Borg and Lendl, who are relatively sedate on court, are interesting by contrast. All the guys at the top like each other too much, they're too well coached in how to not upset corporate sponsors, etc. Boring.