PDA

View Full Version : Lets go Back to Faster Courts and get rid of all these pusher baseliners!


Inner Game
10-18-2009, 07:02 PM
Tennis is just like baseball...change the equipment and you will see big changes in the game....
In the 70's and 80's the courts were fast and most of the top players could serve and volley....then along comes the clay courters with the big looping topspin that worked great on clay but most got schooled on fast courts....Bjorn Borg was the exception.....
So tournament directors want to attract international player (who have huge fan bases in their countries) decided to make the courts slow...slower....and slowest...
It's now so boring to watch men's and women's tennis....except from the semi-finals on......mindless ball striking waiting for errors....what skill is that?
Now there are really no serve and volley players in the top 20....so sad...
Bring back the fast courts and see how well pushers like Nadal and the Joker would do.....

Noveson
10-18-2009, 07:05 PM
Tennis is just like baseball...change the equipment and you will see big changes in the game....
In the 70's and 80's the courts were fast and most of the top players could serve and volley....then along comes the clay courters with the big looping topspin that worked great on clay but most got schooled on fast courts....Bjorn Borg was the exception.....
So tournament directors want to attract international player (who have huge fan bases in their countries) decided to make the courts slow...slower....and slowest...
It's now so boring to watch men's and women's tennis....except from the semi-finals on......mindless ball striking waiting for errors....what skill is that?
Now there are really no serve and volley players in the top 20....so sad...
Bring back the fast courts and see how well pushers like Nadal and the Joker would do.....

Honestly? I'm not even going to mention Nadal because I don't want to start the frame war. But calling JOKER a pusher? That's just plain stupid. You're plain stupid. I hate you.

Mick
10-18-2009, 07:05 PM
if that happened, karlovic would beat them :)

Noveson
10-18-2009, 07:07 PM
if that happened, karlovic would beat them :)

Lol picture a tennis world in which you have to be 6'8" and above to win.

Mr.Brightside
10-18-2009, 07:07 PM
if that happened, karlovic would beat them :)

that would be great :)

ChrisCrocker
10-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Lol picture a tennis world in which you have to be 6'8" and above to win.

basketball?

was sampras 6'8" was agassi or connors? borg mcenroe or lendel? look at goran, tall lefty, and booming serve, did you see him winning masters and wimbledon every time? he couldnt even win against other players on indoor carpet.

if you like slow baseline game then just say so, no need to say a tall person would dominate if the court was fast. remember, just because you have a big serve, the ball will come back eventually and you will need more skills than a serve to put away the ball.

Noveson
10-18-2009, 07:14 PM
basketball?

No? Hah not basketball at all. Kobe-6'7", CP3-6'0", D-Wade-6'4", etc

ChrisCrocker
10-18-2009, 07:16 PM
No? Hah not basketball at all. Kobe-6'7", CP3-6'0", D-Wade-6'4", etc

yeah i was just following the stereotype that all basketball players are humongous 7 feet giants. i watch it myself

Noveson
10-18-2009, 07:18 PM
yeah i was just following the stereotype that all basketball players are humongous 7 feet giants. i watch it myself

Gotcha. Imagine the day when tennis gets physical athletes like Kobe who are as tall as DelPo but still super quick.

Falloutjr
10-18-2009, 07:28 PM
Hey I like watching matches with 25 hit rallies and point construction and skill. Silly Americans hipsters wanting everything right now with their walkmans and their...their Volvos and their Hot Pockets! It's a disgrace!

JeMar
10-18-2009, 07:45 PM
I didn't read the OP, but sign me up for faster courts.

Carsomyr
10-18-2009, 07:48 PM
I think most of the surfaces are fine the way they are now, but I'd really like to see carpet used for the fall indoor season once again.

President of Serve/Volley
10-18-2009, 08:04 PM
if that happened, karlovic would beat them :)


Carpets, my friend. He would be so good at that surface.

Karlovic is playing in the wrong time, though.

Agassifan
10-18-2009, 08:06 PM
I wonder when Federer will be called a pusher....

President of Serve/Volley
10-18-2009, 08:07 PM
They should bring back carpet and old grass. Nadal and Joker would have a hard time beating Karlovic.

Hell, Federer would be even better on faster surface because he is a better vollyer than anyone in the top 10...

President of Serve/Volley
10-18-2009, 08:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp7R-yB0VKM Karlovic at Queens vs Nadal in 2008... But if he had volleying skills of say Pat Rafter, then he would have won quite easily...


If they make it so fast, the old guys like Sampras, Rafter, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg would all come out retirement and show all the baseliners what vintage tennis like by Serve and Volley style and they would actually win some matches... Especially John McEnroe.

FiveO
10-18-2009, 08:34 PM
There are no pushers on the pro tour

Yes, a return to some faster paced conditions for at least a 1/4 of the current schedule would be good for the game on multiple levels:
1) diversity of game style
2) a break from the pounding grind of almost 9 straight months on what would be termed slow hardcourts in any prior era, sparing those at the top of the game a lot of these injuries which have become all to common place

Doesn't matter when Karlovic played he'd be the same guy in any era. Each one had them. Barry McKay, Colin Dibley, John Alexander, Roscoe Tanner, Victor Amaya, John Sadri, Greg Rusedski, Wayne Arthurs, et al.

Karlovic may win a warm-up level or poorly attended bigger event or two, in faster conditions, but while his serve gets helped, his return and ground game gets ever more exposed.

5

FedSampras1
10-18-2009, 08:40 PM
Yes faster courts pleeeeeeease

(By the way no way Nadal and Djoko are pushers)

tennis_hand
10-18-2009, 10:56 PM
Karlovic will win Wimbledon, beating Roddick.

35ft6
10-19-2009, 12:49 AM
For a while, people were complaining tennis was becoming too fast because of graphite rackets and guys like Becker and Lendl. They said it was becoming less brainy, just sheer power. Now people want it to go back to a serving contest.

Personally, I don't mind slower paced tennis. To me, it's way more interesting. You see more point construction, more offense AND defense, more variety.

wyutani
10-19-2009, 12:59 AM
faster courts means serve will be unreturnable. scores will be like 7-6, 7-6.

Polvorin
10-19-2009, 01:16 AM
Hey I like watching matches with 25 hit rallies and point construction and skill. Silly Americans hipsters wanting everything right now with their walkmans and their...their Volvos and their Hot Pockets! It's a disgrace!

Making assumptions/generalizations like this just shows your ignorance. As if all Americans match your stereotype and all people who like fast court tennis are "American."

As they say: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

lawrence
10-19-2009, 01:38 AM
For a while, people were complaining tennis was becoming too fast because of graphite rackets and guys like Becker and Lendl. They said it was becoming less brainy, just sheer power. Now people want it to go back to a serving contest.

Personally, I don't mind slower paced tennis. To me, it's way more interesting. You see more point construction, more offense AND defense, more variety.

I agree with this actually. Less free points on serve makes for a more interesting game.

Polvorin
10-19-2009, 01:42 AM
I don't think either extreme is good for tennis. One extreme would be grueling moonball fights in which players generally wait for errors and take little risk (which the tour is leaning toward currently). The other, as some point out, is watching one tiebreak after another in which little more than a serve is required to win (i.e. Karlovic).

In my best judgment it seems that the tour ought to try and encourage a variety of styles because it makes the game more interesting for everyone.

I'm guessing that lowering the bounce height rather than speeding up the courts would be the best solution. Then neither the serve nor the moonball would dominate.

lawrence
10-19-2009, 01:45 AM
I don't think either extreme is good for tennis. One extreme would be grueling moonball fights in which players generally wait for errors and take little risk (which the tour is leaning toward currently). The other, as some point out, is watching one tiebreak after another in which little more than a serve is required to win (i.e. Karlovic).

In my best judgment it seems that the tour ought to try and encourage a variety of styles because it makes the game more interesting for everyone.

I'm guessing that lowering the bounce height rather than speeding up the courts would be the best solution. Then neither the serve nor the moonball would dominate.

If you think about it though, the speed of courts right now does just this. I think it's a good balance atm.

Polvorin
10-19-2009, 02:00 AM
If you think about it though, the speed of courts right now does just this. I think it's a good balance atm.

I disagree. I don't think it's too far off though. One has to admit that it's almost impossible to play aggressive, net-charging tennis currently on any surface. The ball sets up too much, doesn't skid. Currently a passive, heavy topspin baseline game is favored pretty strongly which is why almost everybody has adopted that play style.

!Tym
10-19-2009, 02:04 AM
There's NOTHING I hate more than this kind of prejudice in tennis. I'm a fan of ALL styles. I'm sick of posters calling some of the world's greatest ball strikers "pushers." To "push" at the level of Nadal, to do that to win freaking MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars, requires UNBELIEVABLE skill. Yes, SKILL. Ask Robert Lansdorp what he thinks of this. He says that the very best western grippers need to actually be even MORE talented to make it on tour, because they need to differentiate themselves from so many other juniors who play the same style. He says that someone trained to hit a pure flat ball will actually find it easier to make their mark on tour, simply because there isn't as much "competition" in their style anymore. He says that the power of the pro level makes it very difficult to play with a western grip on anything but clay. You need INSANE timing to do what Nadal does with those HUGE swings and FLYING racket head speed and "push." He certainly does NOT resemble any pusher I know. I don't know any pushers who can put ANYWHERE close to that kind of bite on the ball. It's so beyond ludicrous to call ANBODY who can reach the top ten in the whole entire freaking world a pusher, it's just absolutely beyond comprehension to me.

Someone less talented than Nadal taking those kind of ridiculously long and frenetic cuts at the ball would be shanking balls to the moon left and right, if not outright WHIFFING, most of the time against pro level pace, spin, and placement.

This said, I actually do miss the faster courts myself. But NOT for the same reason you do. In the old days, the three segments of the year I looked forward to the absolute most was never hard courts, but rather clay, grass (however short lived), and the indoor carpet season. Why? Because, I've always been a fan of EXTREMES. I like to see the EXTREMES of anything, I have a natural craving to always see only the most extreme ends of the spectrum and style. So to me, ridiculously fast court conditions and ridiculously slow court conditions are EQUALLY exciting to watch. To me, they DON'T compete with each other, no, in my world, they COMPLIMENT one another. To me, the switch from the French to Wimbledon was always BY FAR the most exciting time of the tennis year to me, because here you saw the two extremes back to back. Literally JUMPING from one pole to the other pole in such a short turnaround is what made me appreciate the many different dimensions of the game and the various different techniques that can be employed to great effect that much more.

It was the IMMEDIATE and STARK contrast that made both INFINITELY more exciting to me...than the draaaab hard court season.

What I kind stand about the current world tour is that rather than making everything clay court slow or indoor carpet fast, they've just decided to try and make everything HOMOGENOUS...neutered, in other words. I don't want to watch hermaphrodite tennis. I don't want to see perfectly neutral, level playing fields and surfaces all the time, I want to see EXTREME surfaces. I remember reading a Tennis Magazine article about a quirky little amateur tournament played on ICE in Alaska or something. I thought oh my gosh, I would KILL to see that! Just the shear novelty gave me boose bumps. Viva la difference, dude! That's what makes me excited. It is in the pole extremes where we come to grips with the possibilities and majesty of man kind. Hard courts to me always just represented the rut in tennis...booooring.

This said, in terms of what is fair, I believe that ALL styles are EQUALLY beautiful. I love watching both the extreme funky grips of the clay courters and the elan swings of the traditionalists. I can't stand it when people say oh, MY favorite style to watch CLEARLY requires more skill than YOUR favorite style to watch or play. It's tennis elitism at its finest. It's bigotry, it's tennis racism, it to me is an EGGREGIOUS offense to the human tennis playing race taken as a whole.

For me, in the 90s, the marjoity of stuff was too far slanted to favor guys like Pete Sampras. Imo, now, it's either too neutral and "fair" and "level", or it's too slow.

Imo, it's only FAIR to give these truly talented beings who give sooo much of themselves to turn pro each a FAIR chance at achieving tennis "greatness."

In a perfect world, that to me, would mean, making the early hard court season har-tru/green clay, which would favor slow-courters, yet still give faster-courters a reasonable chance to succeed on a good day. Red clay would remain the same. Grass would remain the same (albeit 90s grass). The hard court season would begin after Wimbledon, and would be approximately just slightly slower than US Open court speed fast, which again, I feel like green clay would give fast courters the clear edge, yet not so much of an edge where it would take a miracle for a slower courter to win on the stuff. The indoor season would be SHORTENED, *but* played on carpet like the old days for extreme speed. This would give players a much needed longer off-season, and also make up for the very fast court players getting such a short grass court season to suit their game (i.e. the clay court season is very long by comparsion, in regards to the two "extreme" far end surfaces in tennis).

I think all in all, this would give all styles a more equitable chance at achieving tennis greatness. I also think the longer off-season and significant reduction in hard court tennis would extend careers. As a whole, I think injuries and burnout would go down quite noticeably and we would no longer see so many stars fade away or break down so prematurely.

I think ultimately this would increase interest world wide, as people would become fascinated by the parrot-like infusion of different styles and shades and colors of play. I also think the sport suffers from the "revolving door" of recognizable names that come and go through the infirmary of any given generation. Tennis needs more stability among its recognizable names in order to build consistent fan interest. You can't alwyas just rely on thet one or two BIG marketable star imo, if you truly want to take off. You need a cadre to draw from that tournament organizers and sponsors and paying fans can COUNT on showing up in one piece.

Polvorin
10-19-2009, 02:23 AM
There's NOTHING I hate more than this kind of prejudice in tennis. I'm a fan of ALL styles. I'm sick of posters calling some of the world's greatest ball strikers "pushers." To "push" at the level of Nadal, to do that to win freaking MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars, requires UNBELIEVABLE skill. Yes, SKILL. Ask Robert Lansdorp what he thinks of this. He says that the very best western grippers need to actually be even MORE talented to make it on tour, because they need to differentiate themselves from so many other juniors who play the same style. He says that someone trained to hit a pure flat ball will actually find it easier to make their mark on tour, simply because there isn't as much "competition" in their style anymore. He says that the power of the pro level makes it very difficult to play with a western grip on anything but clay. You need INSANE timing to do what Nadal does with those HUGE swings and FLYING racket head speed and "push." He certainly does NOT resemble any pusher I know. I don't know any pushers who can put ANYWHERE close to that kind of bite on the ball. It's so beyond ludicrous to call ANBODY who can reach the top ten in the whole entire freaking world a pusher, it's just absolutely beyond comprehension to me.

I don't know who's taking anything away from Nadal. I'm not. But this is some pretty flawed thinking. If hitting flat was a winning strategy, players would be using it.

This said, I actually do miss the faster courts myself. But NOT for the same reason you do. In the old days, the three segments of the year I looked forward to the absolute most was never hard courts, but rather clay, grass (however short lived), and the indoor carpet season. Why? Because, I've always been a fan of EXTREMES. I like to see the EXTREMES of anything, I have a natural craving to always see only the most extreme ends of the spectrum and style. So to me, ridiculously fast court conditions and ridiculously slow court conditions are EQUALLY exciting to watch. To me, they DON'T compete with each other, no, in my world, they COMPLIMENT one another. To me, the switch from the French to Wimbledon was always BY FAR the most exciting time of the tennis year to me, because here you saw the two extremes back to back. Literally JUMPING from one pole to the other pole in such a short turnaround is what made me appreciate the many different dimensions of the game and the various different techniques that can be employed to great effect that much more.

What I kind stand about the current world tour is that rather than making everything clay court slow or indoor carpet fast, they've just decided to try and make everything HOMOGENOUS...neutered, in other words.


In a perfect world, that to me, would mean, making the early hard court season har-tru/green clay, which would favor slow-courters, yet still give faster-courters a reasonable chance to succeed on a good day. Red clay would remain the same. Grass would remain the same (albeit 90s grass). The hard court season would begin after Wimbledon, and would be approximately just slightly slower than US Open court speed fast, which again, I feel like green clay would give fast courters the clear edge, yet not so much of an edge where it would take a miracle for a slower courter to win on the stuff. The indoor season would be SHORTENED, *but* played on carpet like the old days for extreme speed. This would give players a much needed longer off-season, and also make up for the very fast court players getting such a short grass court season to suit their game (i.e. the clay court season is very long by comparsion, in regards to the two "extreme" far end surfaces in tennis).

I think you make an excellent point.

kOaMaster
10-19-2009, 02:54 AM
I don't think it is the court that changed. it's the players, the strategies and maybe the rackets that did.

you won't see anything else also on faster courts. federer and nadal, already agassi proved that modern and succesfull tennis is all about the baseline.

BreakPoint
10-19-2009, 03:13 AM
Lol picture a tennis world in which you have to be 6'8" and above to win.
Sampras is only 6' 1" and he would own both Nadal and Djokovic on the fast courts of the 90's. :)

sunny_cali
10-19-2009, 03:51 AM
Sampras is only 6' 1" and he would own both Nadal and Djokovic on the fast courts of the 90's. :)

how do you know ?

BreakPoint
10-19-2009, 03:57 AM
how do you know ?
Same way I know that the sky is blue. :)

kOaMaster
10-19-2009, 03:58 AM
Same way I know that the sky is blue. :)

which also is just an illusion :-P

BreakPoint
10-19-2009, 04:02 AM
which also is just an illusion :-P
So is tennis. :shock:

wyutani
10-19-2009, 04:12 AM
we're in a matrix. everything is illusion. except keanu's acting.

TheTruth
10-19-2009, 06:15 AM
There's NOTHING I hate more than this kind of prejudice in tennis. I'm a fan of ALL styles. I'm sick of posters calling some of the world's greatest ball strikers "pushers." To "push" at the level of Nadal, to do that to win freaking MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars, requires UNBELIEVABLE skill. Yes, SKILL. Ask Robert Lansdorp what he thinks of this. He says that the very best western grippers need to actually be even MORE talented to make it on tour, because they need to differentiate themselves from so many other juniors who play the same style. He says that someone trained to hit a pure flat ball will actually find it easier to make their mark on tour, simply because there isn't as much "competition" in their style anymore. He says that the power of the pro level makes it very difficult to play with a western grip on anything but clay. You need INSANE timing to do what Nadal does with those HUGE swings and FLYING racket head speed and "push." He certainly does NOT resemble any pusher I know. I don't know any pushers who can put ANYWHERE close to that kind of bite on the ball. It's so beyond ludicrous to call ANBODY who can reach the top ten in the whole entire freaking world a pusher, it's just absolutely beyond comprehension to me.

Someone less talented than Nadal taking those kind of ridiculously long and frenetic cuts at the ball would be shanking balls to the moon left and right, if not outright WHIFFING, most of the time against pro level pace, spin, and placement.

This said, I actually do miss the faster courts myself. But NOT for the same reason you do. In the old days, the three segments of the year I looked forward to the absolute most was never hard courts, but rather clay, grass (however short lived), and the indoor carpet season. Why? Because, I've always been a fan of EXTREMES. I like to see the EXTREMES of anything, I have a natural craving to always see only the most extreme ends of the spectrum and style. So to me, ridiculously fast court conditions and ridiculously slow court conditions are EQUALLY exciting to watch. To me, they DON'T compete with each other, no, in my world, they COMPLIMENT one another. To me, the switch from the French to Wimbledon was always BY FAR the most exciting time of the tennis year to me, because here you saw the two extremes back to back. Literally JUMPING from one pole to the other pole in such a short turnaround is what made me appreciate the many different dimensions of the game and the various different techniques that can be employed to great effect that much more.

It was the IMMEDIATE and STARK contrast that made both INFINITELY more exciting to me...than the draaaab hard court season.

What I kind stand about the current world tour is that rather than making everything clay court slow or indoor carpet fast, they've just decided to try and make everything HOMOGENOUS...neutered, in other words. I don't want to watch hermaphrodite tennis. I don't want to see perfectly neutral, level playing fields and surfaces all the time, I want to see EXTREME surfaces. I remember reading a Tennis Magazine article about a quirky little amateur tournament played on ICE in Alaska or something. I thought oh my gosh, I would KILL to see that! Just the shear novelty gave me boose bumps. Viva la difference, dude! That's what makes me excited. It is in the pole extremes where we come to grips with the possibilities and majesty of man kind. Hard courts to me always just represented the rut in tennis...booooring.

This said, in terms of what is fair, I believe that ALL styles are EQUALLY beautiful. I love watching both the extreme funky grips of the clay courters and the elan swings of the traditionalists. I can't stand it when people say oh, MY favorite style to watch CLEARLY requires more skill than YOUR favorite style to watch or play. It's tennis elitism at its finest. It's bigotry, it's tennis racism, it to me is an EGGREGIOUS offense to the human tennis playing race taken as a whole.

For me, in the 90s, the marjoity of stuff was too far slanted to favor guys like Pete Sampras. Imo, now, it's either too neutral and "fair" and "level", or it's too slow.

Imo, it's only FAIR to give these truly talented beings who give sooo much of themselves to turn pro each a FAIR chance at achieving tennis "greatness."

In a perfect world, that to me, would mean, making the early hard court season har-tru/green clay, which would favor slow-courters, yet still give faster-courters a reasonable chance to succeed on a good day. Red clay would remain the same. Grass would remain the same (albeit 90s grass). The hard court season would begin after Wimbledon, and would be approximately just slightly slower than US Open court speed fast, which again, I feel like green clay would give fast courters the clear edge, yet not so much of an edge where it would take a miracle for a slower courter to win on the stuff. The indoor season would be SHORTENED, *but* played on carpet like the old days for extreme speed. This would give players a much needed longer off-season, and also make up for the very fast court players getting such a short grass court season to suit their game (i.e. the clay court season is very long by comparsion, in regards to the two "extreme" far end surfaces in tennis).

I think all in all, this would give all styles a more equitable chance at achieving tennis greatness. I also think the longer off-season and significant reduction in hard court tennis would extend careers. As a whole, I think injuries and burnout would go down quite noticeably and we would no longer see so many stars fade away or break down so prematurely.

I think ultimately this would increase interest world wide, as people would become fascinated by the parrot-like infusion of different styles and shades and colors of play. I also think the sport suffers from the "revolving door" of recognizable names that come and go through the infirmary of any given generation. Tennis needs more stability among its recognizable names in order to build consistent fan interest. You can't alwyas just rely on thet one or two BIG marketable star imo, if you truly want to take off. You need a cadre to draw from that tournament organizers and sponsors and paying fans can COUNT on showing up in one piece.

Totally agree. The thought that everyone should be the same, dress the same, talk the same way, etc. is ludicrous. I enjoy the different styles and deem none better than the other. Sue me, but I like originality.

Cesc Fabregas
10-19-2009, 06:28 AM
Well the courts today suit the best players Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc all play their best tennis for the baseline. I know everyone always says they want the courts to speed up, but who are the great fast court players to take advantage? If this era had the likes of Sampras, Goran, Becker etc I would be all for speeding up the courts, but the courts of today suit the best players.

Blade0324
10-19-2009, 07:00 AM
The OP is simply a fool. I for one do not like faster courts and think that the courts are actually pretty good the way they are today. However I can appreciate that some people long for the days of S&V. This is not something I would like to see as I find S&V to be very boring to watch, but everyone likes something different. I can tell you that from the lips of a former top 100 player whom has a serve speed that has only been bettered by Roddick that he did not like fast courts at all. He has told me that with his serve being big already that fast courts put him at a disadvantage as it helped the other players serve more than his. He is a quite tall player with a monster serve and great skills at the net. However he preferred to play on clay and slower surfaces as it helped him more than hurt. Just a bit of perspective from someone that played at a very high level in the early 90's. Also he has mentioned that he feels that they are removing carpet as it is very hard on players body's, even more so than H/C.

Mick
10-19-2009, 07:01 AM
we're in a matrix. everything is illusion. except keanu's acting.

we are like tmp files that will get deleted one day.
the universe is like a giant hard drive that will crash one day.

eagle
10-19-2009, 07:09 AM
I'm actually happy with the current state of tennis.

As much as I admire the skill required to play and execute s&v and do it well, I enjoy the long rallies where you can appreciate the match strategy, tactical point construction, variety of shots, as well as player physical and mental fitness.

It is a shame that you don't have s&v players anymore. I don't think most academies even teach that or even school their students to work on volley proficiency. I also don't think it's specifically the court, racquet or string technologies that laid it to rest. It's probably a combo of a number of things that also includes the academies themselves following in the footsteps of Nick Bollieteri school of baseline bashers.

You get a lot more rallies in today's game, but I wouldn't necessarily call the players pushers. At the incredible pace these guys are hitting and chasing down the balls and being able to transition in a stroke or two from defense to offense, they are world's apart from the club or public court pushers we mortals are accustomed to.

r,
eagle

lawrence
10-19-2009, 07:12 AM
we're in a matrix. everything is illusion. except keanu's acting.

Keanu's acting is what caused the illusion. 8)

Oldracquet27
10-19-2009, 07:17 AM
needs to be a lunatic, or...... a pro who just hate Nadal and the Joker. Otherwise how in this world if you have ever played tennis can refer to these guys as pushers??? Do you have idea what it takes specially in the men side to make it to that level where they are??? Please think again.....

TBS
10-19-2009, 07:38 AM
Can we just get over this nonsense of calling any defense-oriented player, especially a top pro who plays primarily from the baseline, a "pusher"?

A "pusher" as I understand it, is someone with little or no power on his groundstrokes, a dink serve, no big shot to beat you with (beyond, perhaps, a lob), no taste for the net, who finds a way to retrieve and return nearly every ball they get. Their whole game is waiting for their opponent to make a mistake.

Now, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with such a playing style, even if I myself don't play that way. But to call people like Murry or Nadal or Djokovic "pushers" is simply ridiculous. Look at their game for five minutes and it is obvious that there is a lot more going on than powerless, dink-serving, retrieving going on.

drakulie
10-19-2009, 07:52 AM
Nadal is a moonballer/pusher on roids, which explains the power. :)

jrepac
10-19-2009, 07:59 AM
So, what is the surface they typically play on indoors nowadays? Are they literally playing on cement or something else? Am curious, since everyone is saying carpet is gone....

Also, the AO went from Rebound Ace to Decoturf, right? The latter is seen as faster, if I am not mistaken.

While Wimby has taller, softer grass now, which makes it slower than in the past, I would still consider that a pretty fast surface..you just don't see that many grass court events anymore.

Similarly, the faster green clay (Har-Tru) is not seen very much anymore. Maybe more of that should come back into the mix.

So, maybe we all think the game is markedly slower, but not sure that is really the case. Nor, would I suggest that a bunch of "pushers" are playing out there. However, if a few high quality S&V players emerged, I think it would give things a very different complexion. Certainly could challenge the baseline guys in a way that they are not used to.

It is fun to mix things up...styles and surfaces...it can get boring when 2 very similar style players are playing each other, I agree. I never really enjoyed Goran vs. Sampras...just booming serves. Much more exciting to put S&V against the baseline game...

TBS
10-19-2009, 08:11 AM
"Much more exciting to put S&V against the baseline game..."

Agreed. Borg vs. McEnroe, or Lendl vs. Edberg, or Sampras vs. Agassi...those were fun matchups!

Mick
10-19-2009, 08:45 AM
i prefer watching matches where the returner has a chance in winning the game.

to me, wimbledon final 2008 (federer-nadal) was better than wimbledon final 2009 (federer-roddick) where the servers would hold serve rather easily until the later stage of the fifth set.

quest01
10-19-2009, 09:44 AM
I disagree I prefer watching the long baseline rallies. I've always thought the most boring tennis anyone can watch is two serve and volleyer's playing against each other, that would put me to sleep. Thats actually what I did if I cant sleep at night is pop in a DVD of two serve and volleyer's playing against each other, I usually fall asleep in minutes. If I was going to watch a live tennis match I would never go to a match expecting no rallies from the baseline, it would be pointless and a waste of money.

Falloutjr
10-23-2009, 06:57 PM
Making assumptions/generalizations like this just shows your ignorance. As if all Americans match your stereotype and all people who like fast court tennis are "American."

As they say: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Actually I AM an American and I get bored playing on hard courts all the time (notice how I'm located in OHIO).

Also, you assumed I was being serious. I'm very rarely serious. I could really care less for what the pros play on I'll watch my precious clay matches and RG and you watch your fast court matches and enjoy them.

Baikalic
10-23-2009, 10:03 PM
I disagree I prefer watching the long baseline rallies. I've always thought the most boring tennis anyone can watch is two serve and volleyer's playing against each other, that would put me to sleep. Thats actually what I did if I cant sleep at night is pop in a DVD of two serve and volleyer's playing against each other, I usually fall asleep in minutes. If I was going to watch a live tennis match I would never go to a match expecting no rallies from the baseline, it would be pointless and a waste of money.

I agree that the growth of baseline play makes tennis more enjoyable for me to watch.
However, I think the two SV match up nowadays is also exciting just because the matchup is so rare.

JoshDragon
10-23-2009, 10:06 PM
Tennis is just like baseball...change the equipment and you will see big changes in the game....
In the 70's and 80's the courts were fast and most of the top players could serve and volley....then along comes the clay courters with the big looping topspin that worked great on clay but most got schooled on fast courts....Bjorn Borg was the exception.....
So tournament directors want to attract international player (who have huge fan bases in their countries) decided to make the courts slow...slower....and slowest...
It's now so boring to watch men's and women's tennis....except from the semi-finals on......mindless ball striking waiting for errors....what skill is that?
Now there are really no serve and volley players in the top 20....so sad...
Bring back the fast courts and see how well pushers like Nadal and the Joker would do.....

Do you actually watch tennis or did you come across this website by mistake?

wyutani
10-24-2009, 02:11 AM
is it true that pushers live longer than others?

CCNM
10-24-2009, 02:18 PM
Serve & Volley-is that the proper name for when both players are at the net? I would like to see more all-court coverage in the game

Claudius
10-24-2009, 03:05 PM
The two biggest pushers on tour, Murray and Simon, play their best tennis on fast courts.

NamRanger
10-24-2009, 05:00 PM
No one wants a serve fest, but no one wants to watch 40 ball rallies all day either. Having extremity in surfaces and a balance is good really. People forget that the USO and AO even when both were faster, actually were very conducive to allcourt play.

ubermeyer
10-24-2009, 07:22 PM
Bring back the fast courts and see how well pushers like Nadal and the Joker would do.....

First, Djokovic is like an Anti-Pusher. Nadal is very aggressive too, although not a pure S+Ver. 80's tennis was too one dimensional, I like this version better. Besides, Wimbledon is still pretty fast. And Karlovic has been ranked in the top 20 several times, and he serves and volleys.

Falloutjr
10-24-2009, 08:36 PM
Karlovic has been ranked in the top 20 several times, and he serves.

Fixed lol :)

President of Serve/Volley
10-24-2009, 08:54 PM
No one wants a serve fest, but no one wants to watch 40 ball rallies all day either. Having extremity in surfaces and a balance is good really. People forget that the USO and AO even when both were faster, actually were very conducive to allcourt play.



We should at least have carpet to come back like in the 90s, to allow S/V to comeback.

I watch the 1990s re-runs, SV is more of an art form and more skillful than baseline rallies....

President of Serve/Volley
10-24-2009, 08:55 PM
First, Djokovic is like an Anti-Pusher. Nadal is very aggressive too, although not a pure S+Ver. 80's tennis was too one dimensional, I like this version better. Besides, Wimbledon is still pretty fast. And Karlovic has been ranked in the top 20 several times, and he serves and volleys.



Karlovic doesn't even volley well... He's like Goran without the volley skills of Goran. And, Wimbledon isn't nearly as fast as 1995 version. They need to go back to those speeds, and I bet Roger Federer would do even better. He's a better volleyer than Nadal, Joker, Murray, and the likes.

If Karlovic would have the volleying skills of Pat Rafter, then he would be a dangerous match up for Nadal, Joker, Federer.... Then again, very few have that volleying skills of Pat Rafter, who a notch below Edberg and McEnroe in that department... Better than Sampras...

matchmaker
10-24-2009, 09:06 PM
The two biggest pushers on tour, Murray and Simon, play their best tennis on fast courts.

I have often noticed that "pushers" like fast conditions, then they can just use the pace of the opponent to get the ball back. If they have to make pace themselves, on surfaces like clay, they are extremely vulnerable.

matchmaker
10-24-2009, 09:16 PM
The two biggest pushers on tour, Murray and Simon, play their best tennis on fast courts.

I have often noticed that "pushers" like fast conditions, then they can just use the pace of the opponent to get the ball back. If they have to make pace themselves, on surfaces like clay, they are extremely vulnerable.

ubermeyer
10-24-2009, 09:23 PM
If Karlovic would have the volleying skills of Pat Rafter, then he would be a dangerous match up for Nadal, Joker, Federer....

If Karlovic could volley like Rafter, except still keeping his increased reach and superior overheads, he would be unbreakable, period.

Sigh... I wish he could.

matchmaker
10-24-2009, 09:24 PM
Tennis is just like baseball...change the equipment and you will see big changes in the game....
In the 70's and 80's the courts were fast and most of the top players could serve and volley....then along comes the clay courters with the big looping topspin that worked great on clay but most got schooled on fast courts....Bjorn Borg was the exception.....
So tournament directors want to attract international player (who have huge fan bases in their countries) decided to make the courts slow...slower....and slowest...
It's now so boring to watch men's and women's tennis....except from the semi-finals on......mindless ball striking waiting for errors....what skill is that?
Now there are really no serve and volley players in the top 20....so sad...
Bring back the fast courts and see how well pushers like Nadal and the Joker would do.....

Lol, I just saw this now. This is a completely clueless statement.

1) Djokovic is an agressive baseliner who always tries to control the point and end it with a winner.

2) Whereas maybe on HC Nadal's game may sometimes be perceveid as lacking in power or depth because of his enormous spin, that is more of a technical deficiency he sometimes has. There are also days that he feels good and will outhit most if not any player.

But if you take a look at the surfaces Nadal likes: clay and grass, you can surely see he is not a pusher. At RG2008 he blew away everyone with very aggressive tennis. Just look at the final. There was no pushing involved in that.

MrBackhandFlick
10-24-2009, 10:04 PM
Not the courts, its the technology. The ball travels too fast to the other end, and players are safer to remain there.

dParis
10-24-2009, 10:56 PM
I was watching a Tennis Channel Classic match earlier this year between Becker and Edburg played on carpet and 98% of the points were decided on 3-shot, or fewer, rallies. Amazingly boring and monotonous. Now I remember why I, and many others, stopped watching tennis in the mid to late 80's.

The-Champ
10-25-2009, 03:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp7R-yB0VKM Karlovic at Queens vs Nadal in 2008... But if he had volleying skills of say Pat Rafter, then he would have won quite easily...

If they make it so fast, the old guys like Sampras, Rafter, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg would all come out retirement and show all the baseliners what vintage tennis like by Serve and Volley style and they would actually win some matches... Especially John McEnroe.


really...it's easy to break Nadal's serve? btw, Baby Nadal handed karlovic a breadstick on an indoor carpet.

Blade0324
10-26-2009, 11:32 AM
We should at least have carpet to come back like in the 90s, to allow S/V to comeback.

I watch the 1990s re-runs, SV is more of an art form and more skillful than baseline rallies....

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I think S&V is less skillful than baseline play. I feel like S&V is sort of a desparate play from players that don't really have solid groundies so they just make a mad rush at the net and pray.

BHud
10-27-2009, 04:57 AM
I would like to see a bit more differentiation in the surfaces to make it more interesting...not an all out return to the days of s&v (I agree...it had gotten boring watching a big first serve followed by a put-away volley...point over), but more of an all-court game. It's now getting boring watching players hang on the baseline and just whack balls as hard as they can.