PDA

View Full Version : IF you think that they ruined tennis. When did they do it?


_maxi
12-09-2011, 10:41 AM
Hi. Ive been thinking for a while that to me, tennis in the 80s and 90s was great. But something happened, and now its not that good. The endless meaningless bodyhurting baseline rallies are present in the 80 percent of the points and it really bores me.

I want to see some variety, I want to see some S/V, some agressive players. But almost everyone plays defensive nowadays.

I think that they screwed the sport by alowing newer strings in the 90s and therefore having to change the ball and the courts in order to stop the new power that the players had. The balls should still be smaller and lighter like they were before, and the racquets not so powerful. Tennis was great with Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, etc...

Now everyone is a grinder and they get tired and injured more often and ask for less tournaments. Federer is maybe the only one with the capability of playing some old school tennis but thats because he was taught to play with a one handed backhand and a small headed racquet.

So, if you agree with me somehow... why do you think they did it? because TV rankings were decreacing? or just because they trusted in the benefits of technology?

Ronaldo
12-09-2011, 10:53 AM
May not recall the complaints that the game was too fast in the 90s.

Mustard
12-09-2011, 10:55 AM
In the 1990s, criticism grew a lot regarding the amount of 1-2 shot rallies on the fastest courts, particularly on the 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue grass-courts of Wimbledon. Complaints about the dominant serves and lack of rallies were as common in those days as complaints about the lack of serve and volley are today.

The reasons that the game has changed is not just down to the surface, but many other reasons. Another big reason is the difference in equipment and strings that enables a much higher standard of service return. This would make life very uncomfortable for a constant net rusher looking to hit winning volleys off return of serves.

Devilito
12-09-2011, 10:58 AM
keep the current surfaces / balls and go back to wood. Problem solved as diversity in play style slowly creeps back in the game.

slickerthansleek
12-10-2011, 03:49 AM
I think the best thing for the game would be to change the surfaces. At the moment, the surfaces are grass = slow, hard court = more slow, clay = slooooooow. I'd rather see grass = fast, clay = slow and hard courts somewhere in the middle. It would add variety to the game and would force players not to just use the one tactic.

Netzroller
12-10-2011, 05:21 AM
Don't present your personal opinion as a fact. I would take baseline grinding over S&V any day. If I watch one of these 90s serve fests it really bores me to death...

tacou
12-10-2011, 05:24 AM
too much defense? The most recent match of the season, Tsonga vs Federer, was brilliant attacking tennis from both men.

Ronaldo
12-10-2011, 05:34 AM
Don't present your personal opinion as a fact. I would take baseline grinding over S&V any day. If I watch one of these 90s serve fests it really bores me to death...

Great example was Isner-Mahut at Wimbledon.

Kemitak
12-10-2011, 02:15 PM
You're comparing your warm, fuzzy memories of the best of two decades of tennis with the past two years? Don't be ridiculous.

Ronaldo
12-10-2011, 02:28 PM
You're comparing your warm, fuzzy memories of the best of two decades of tennis with the past two years? Don't be ridiculous.

Comparing Hammertime then and now, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ngpyRuFg8

cork_screw
12-10-2011, 02:58 PM
The points used to be really entertaining to watch. In fact, they say that tennis viewers (who don't actively participate in tennis) has gone down since the S/V days. The points are kinda boring if you're not a tennis player yourself. I had a friend who won free tix to see the Toronto Masters and she thought it was boring, the thing is, from her standpoint I could see why she would say that. When you watch tennis back in the old days there were a more variety of shots, coming in chipping, slicing, volleying, lobbing, it was more of a fox and rabbit game. The game you see now is more like an andy murray baseline rally game that when a point does end it's just a point lost or won, there seems to be not that same drama or whimsical nature in the construction of the point. I guess that's why I like watching wimbledon so much, although it is strangely becoming more like a clay event with the grass becoming more of a dry dirt ( ??? ) it does reward more of an old school style approach.

Gladly though, tennis hasn't become as boring as baseball. If that were the case we would need a lot of junk food in arms reach just to give us a reason to stay and finish watching the game.

Ronaldo
12-10-2011, 03:07 PM
The points used to be really entertaining to watch. In fact, they say that tennis viewers (who don't actively participate in tennis) has gone down since the S/V days. The points are kinda boring if you're not a tennis player yourself. I had a friend who won free tix to see the Toronto Masters and she thought it was boring, the thing is, from her standpoint I could see why she would say that. When you watch tennis back in the old days there were a more variety of shots, coming in chipping, slicing, volleying, lobbing, it was more of a fox and rabbit game. The game you see now is more like an andy murray baseline rally game that when a point does end it's just a point lost or won, there seems to be not that same drama or whimsical nature in the construction of the point. I guess that's why I like watching wimbledon so much, although it is strangely becoming more like a clay event with the grass becoming more of a dry dirt ( ??? ) it does reward more of an old school style approach.

Gladly though, tennis hasn't become as boring as baseball. If that were the case we would need a lot of junk food in arms reach just to give us a reason to stay and finish watching the game.

Need more homeruns.