PDA

View Full Version : The sorry state of the Slams


netman
07-01-2006, 02:51 PM
You know, 5 years ago everyone was in a panic. New equipment and better conditioning was turning the fast court Slams into a serving contest. The experts were in a tizzy, because the "purity" of tennis was at stake. Wham, bam, thank you was game of the day. Wimbledon was boring, according to these experts. Points were over so fast, no skill was involved. The apocalypse was nigh.

So now the pendulum has swung the other way. For goodness sake, the baseline is dominating Wimbledon. The grass is so long and the balls so heavy, Murray (who trained in Spain on clay) can beat Roddick from the baseline. Even Max "The Beast" Mirnyi was staying back. I've watched the last few days of Wimbledon and just wanted to puke watching nothing but baseline rallies going on forever. Watching a neutered Wimbledon is just digusting.

I guess the next step is to slow down the US Open and Australian to a crawl. More match minutes per ticket dollar spent. Then they can raise the ticket prices because we get to sit through even longer, more boring baseline rallies. But heh, we get more tennis spectating for our dollar/time.

I guess Rafa could own this new tennis world for some time too come.

-k-

LowProfile
07-01-2006, 02:51 PM
Nadal in the 4th round (and very possibly the quarters) of Wimbledon epitomizes this sorry state.

sureshs
07-01-2006, 02:55 PM
Nadal in the 4th round (and very possibly the quarters) of Wimbledon epitomizes this sorry state.

No, he is the No. 2 player and such a player is expected to do well on every surface.

nalbandian_fan
07-01-2006, 03:03 PM
i agree, imo watching wimbledon is like watching chess with half the board missing. i like watching tennis on good ol' hardcourts, they don't give any advantage or disadvantage to any kind of playing style or player, it makes for great all-court tennis.

prostaff18
07-01-2006, 03:07 PM
Yeah you get to see more shots, but the reason that you play on different surfaces is to see who can prevail on all. Yeah some might be great on one surface but bad on the other; the different surfaces separate the good from the great.
But you guys act like Nadal would have no chance if the courts were faster; he is the number 2 in the world. I personally canít stand him, but I give credit where credit is due and it is due to Nadal. You donít get to number 2 without being able to adapt to different conditions.

!Tym
07-01-2006, 03:17 PM
My take? People will never be happy. Why? Because no matter what you do, there will be complaints because either way someone's going to feel "jipped." It's a compromise. In the early to mid 90s there was an uproar about how the courts were so unfair indoors and on grass, just a serving contest, one-two shot points, over. Now, it's oh it's too slow, now only these baseline crumpers can win. And the beat goes on...

Rhino
07-01-2006, 04:05 PM
Hmmmm, no Americans left and suddenly the slams are in a sorry state.
How about American tennis is in a sorry state. You can blame the courts, and the slams, or whatever you want to, but howabout taking a look at the players! Roddick has sucked on all surfaces (US Open - rnd 1, Aus Open - rnd 4, FO - rnd 1, Wimby - rnd 3). Nothing stopped Roddick from playing well today except Roddick, not the courts.
It's funny how when you lose it's always everybody elses fault.
There would be a lot less complaints about the courts, the balls, and everything else if Federer was American.

LowProfile
07-01-2006, 05:07 PM
No, he is the No. 2 player and such a player is expected to do well on every surface.

Your point? At the time of the French Roddick was the number 5 player. No one expected him to make any impact on the clay.

It has less to do with his ranking than his super-topspin oriented baseline game.

Steve Dykstra
07-01-2006, 07:00 PM
My take? People will never be happy. Why? Because no matter what you do, there will be complaints because either way someone's going to feel "jipped." It's a compromise. In the early to mid 90s there was an uproar about how the courts were so unfair indoors and on grass, just a serving contest, one-two shot points, over. Now, it's oh it's too slow, now only these baseline crumpers can win. And the beat goes on...

Exactly.

highsierra
07-01-2006, 07:48 PM
To be fair, Mirnyi came to the net 100+ times in beating Blake. He played pure S&V plus solid ground strokes when had to.

Mirnyi has the perfect body for a S&V player. Looking around ATP today, I just don't see many 6 ft 2 and above players. With the baseline play at a much higher level these days, if you don't have the physical build, atheletism, and natural tennis instinct, there's no way to play S&V successfully. Such a combination of talent doesn't come very often unfortunately.

baseline play has evolved dramatically over the past 20 years, whether it's the grip, the racket, the string, the stamina training, the pinpoint placement. I guess Chang is the one who started the evolution, or revolution of baseline play. What, if anything, has S&V changed? Wimbledon understands this well. Had the surface remained as it was, the game would have been even worse, given the low quality of S&V players, and much higher quality of service returns from most players these days (see how well everyone's handling Roddick's serve). Wimbledon's surface change didn't force the style change. It's the other way around. The baseline play evolution has essentially pushed S&V to the brink of extinction, unless some new technology, play style, or something else that can make it competitive again. Someone in another thread noted that even Federer has been playing less and less S&V. He's cetainly capable of winning at net, but at the same time he probably understands the trend and knows that a more baseline oriented game gives the best chance throughout the entire season.

Things change so move on and stop whining about who moved your cheese.

netman
07-02-2006, 05:26 AM
What made winning a Grand Slam such a special accomplishment was the fact you had to win on very different surfaces. As a player, you had to make dramatic adjustments to your strokes, tactics and mental attitude within the course of one season to do it. A true test of a versatile, accomplished tennis player. Hence the reason very few players have done it.

Since it appears we all agree you can now bring one style of play to all 4 Slams and have a chance of winning, that would indicate to me winning a Grand Slam has lost a good bit of its luster. Okay, maybe its now a test of mental and physical strength these days (which was also part of the mix in the past), but they are definitely not a test of versatility, adaptibility and a player's complete command of all aspects of the game of tennis.

Guess we may get a couple more Slam finals with Rafa bludgeoning high, loopy topspin forehands to Federer's BH. Boy that will make for some exciting (YAWN) tennis.

-k-

netman
07-02-2006, 05:34 AM
Since we all agree the pros know more than we do, here are a couple of intriquing comments from Roddick's post match interview. Caps are mine.

Q. The other day you said that you and John talked about trying to err on the side of aggression. What was your mindset coming into today? Same thing?

ANDY RODDICK: The same thing. I mean, I was consistently, like I said, in the points with the best court position. YOU KNOW, IT'S TOUGH 'CAUSE THREE HARD FOREHANDS TO THREE CORNERS IN A ROW USED TO WORK. NOW IT SITS UP AND YOU GET PASSED FROM SIX FEET BEHIND THE BASELINE. You know, I mean, that's what I asked when I came in. I said, is that not the right play, you know, for me? You know, we were both, you know, a little irritated.

Q. When you walk through the door here, do you now get the feeling that the odds are against you rather than perhaps two or three years ago the odds were more in your favor?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I mean, the last thing I want to do is make a whole big stink. That's not me. But if you ask me a question, I'm going to give you an honest answer. I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE HAVING TO WORK A LOT HARDER TO WIN POINTS ON A GRASS TENNIS COURT.

This BS about better equipment, better basline play, etc. is just that, BS. Wimbledon grass has been slowed down. If you can't see it, go get some tapes of Wimbledon matches from the 70's, 80's or 90's and watch them. Watch how pathetic a Western grip FH player looks on grass and what happens when you stay on the baseline.
Its easy to view several because the matches featuring baseliners are over in about an hour. :)

-k-

rasajadad
07-02-2006, 05:37 AM
Baseliners have won Wimbledon in the past. I think his name was Borg. Alarmists were saying the same things then.

I think the "problem" is that such a small part of the season is played on grass. Only 4 weeks. For the other 11 months, you never have to leave a hard court. (You could if you wanted to, but certainly don't have to.) To be a top player, you have to get/defend major tournament points, though. You can't hide on clay like you could 20 years ago and be a top 10.

ED_4.6HSE
07-02-2006, 05:40 AM
watching wimbledon is like watching chess with half the board missing.
Thats it.

Its not that i dont like baselining i just want the contrast & variety back. The finesse of net play has mostly disappeared, for me thats a real shame

Melissa
07-02-2006, 05:43 AM
Interesting.
I wonder if this thread would "be" if Nadal had lost in straight sets in the first round???

sliceroni
07-02-2006, 06:05 AM
People don't give Nadal enough credit, I watched some of his matches and he adjusts well getting his knees bent low for those backhand and his racquet speed is so fast on the fh side sometimes he doesn't have to do that. But I'm with the original thread on this one, they should have kept it the way it was, a tournament for offensive minded power players. Before the yr 2000 you would never have compared it to a fast hardcourt. If you golf, take a tennis ball and bounce it on the green to whomever you're playing with or to your caddy, that's how it used to be quick, balls just skips very low. I was watching Becker/Lendl semi 89 and Rafter/Sampras 00 final, ball freaking barely bounces compared to today, watch old tapes as it is highly noticable. It's funny because Wimbledon is based on tradition, where many big servers and serve&volley players, all-courters and great returners have dominated (Becker, Goran, Sampras, Laver, Emerson, Mac, Edberg ect). Why did Wimby decided to change tradition to make it more appealing with longer points for the casual or less than casual tennis fan is beyond me. Why don't they do the same thing a Roland Garros by using very light tennis balls and try to quicken the court somehow? I agree game has changed, players are stronger and quicker and velocity of the balls hit is great and there are more winners, the speedy courts of Wimby would still make it difficult, if not more difficult for western grip forehands since the balls are hit harder point for point if they kept the courts speedy, balls light like they did a decade ago. My cents worth.

netman
07-02-2006, 07:14 AM
Baseliners have won Wimbledon in the past. I think his name was Borg. Alarmists were saying the same things then.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Study your tennis history. Better yet, watch Borg play at Wimbledon. He dramatically shortens his backswing to compensate for the speed and bad bounces. Complete change of stroke style from the French to Wimbledon. Its what made him so great. And he was always constructing points to shorten the court, not standing 6 feet behind the baseline bashing away. Again, entirely different tactics from the French.

-k-

sureshs
07-02-2006, 07:48 AM
Your point? At the time of the French Roddick was the number 5 player. No one expected him to make any impact on the clay.

It has less to do with his ranking than his super-topspin oriented baseline game.

No. 5 is not the same as No. 2. And a No. 2 who has beaten the No. 1 on clay and hard court. That is not Roddick.

sliceroni
07-02-2006, 08:11 AM
Key shot that helped Borg win 5 in a row was his return of serve, especially against John Mac. Agassi, Hewitt both baseliners have done well because of their return game.

Eviscerator
07-02-2006, 08:36 AM
What, if anything, has S&V changed? Wimbledon understands this well. Had the surface remained as it was, the game would have been even worse, given the low quality of S&V players, and much higher quality of service returns from most players these days (see how well everyone's handling Roddick's serve). Wimbledon's surface change didn't force the style change. It's the other way around. The baseline play evolution has essentially pushed S&V to the brink of extinction, unless some new technology, play style, or something else that can make it competitive again. Someone in another thread noted that even Federer has been playing less and less S&V. He's cetainly capable of winning at net, .

I disagree with your notion in general and specifically the highlighted comment. Most kids are taught from the baseline, and start out with two handed backhands. However some of them were specifically changed to a one handed backhand and taught how to S&V. Now days, there is less of a reason to convert the kids because they will go through a period of losing before they develop a good S&V game. And for what, to get to Wimbledon and get crushed because the courts and balls are so slow and the balls sits up like never before? Plus you would have the parents all over you because little Johnny use to win, now he is losing since you switched around his game.

If Wimbledon changed the surface back when Pete Sampras was a little kid, I doubt he would have gone on to be one of the best players of all time. The main reason is not because he would not have be because of the slower surface at W, but rather he would have stayed with a two handed backhand and baseline game, rather than being converted to a all court player with a one handed backhand.

Eviscerator
07-02-2006, 08:42 AM
Why did Wimby decided to change tradition to make it more appealing with longer points for the casual or less than casual tennis fan is beyond me.

Very good post in general regarding the low bounces and skidding on grass. That is the main reason baseliners with extreme grips never were successful on grass.

As to your question above, I am sorry to say the answer is all to obvious;

$$$

North
07-02-2006, 08:50 AM
I was waiting for someone to say that. Study your tennis history. Better yet, watch Borg play at Wimbledon. He dramatically shortens his backswing to compensate for the speed and bad bounces. Complete change of stroke style from the French to Wimbledon. Its what made him so great. And he was always constructing points to shorten the court, not standing 6 feet behind the baseline bashing away. Again, entirely different tactics from the French.

-k-

Agreed. Borg had to make more of an adaptation to win on grass because it used to be radically different from playing on clay - way more than today. Grass is still obviously quite different from clay, but the difference is not nearly so pronounced. Tactics that work on clay used to be very maladaptive on grass. Now the grass has been adapted so the techniques to play on it don't have to be as dramatically different. Although watching Wimbledon is not as boring as watching the FO was, it is certainly not as much fun to watch as when the the grass was faster.

Saito
07-02-2006, 08:51 AM
Interesting.
I wonder if this thread would "be" if Nadal had lost in straight sets in the first round???

I think it's great Nadal is doing well on grass, but that fact is irrelevant to the OP. Another fanboy/girl comment.... not everything (but alot nowadays it seems...) is about hating on Nadal. I do believe tennis has changed, but not due to slams. I'd say a factor that changed tennis would be racquet technology for one. Not everyone can get to the net and end points as quickly as before. Now it's a challenge to finish the point, and longer baseline rallies ensue. May seem boring to some, but IMO the ones who set up the point to get to then net make for some very interesting tennis.

tangerine
07-02-2006, 09:11 AM
Were you bored during the Kendrick-Nadal match too? :rolleyes:

Saito
07-02-2006, 09:12 AM
Were you bored during the Kendrick-Nadal match too? :rolleyes:

Who me??

RiosTheGenius
07-02-2006, 09:17 AM
You know, 5 years ago everyone was in a panic. New equipment and better conditioning was turning the fast court Slams into a serving contest. The experts were in a tizzy, because the "purity" of tennis was at stake. Wham, bam, thank you was game of the day. Wimbledon was boring, according to these experts. Points were over so fast, no skill was involved. The apocalypse was nigh.

So now the pendulum has swung the other way. For goodness sake, the baseline is dominating Wimbledon. The grass is so long and the balls so heavy, Murray (who trained in Spain on clay) can beat Roddick from the baseline. Even Max "The Beast" Mirnyi was staying back. I've watched the last few days of Wimbledon and just wanted to puke watching nothing but baseline rallies going on forever. Watching a neutered Wimbledon is just digusting.

I guess the next step is to slow down the US Open and Australian to a crawl. More match minutes per ticket dollar spent. Then they can raise the ticket prices because we get to sit through even longer, more boring baseline rallies. But heh, we get more tennis spectating for our dollar/time.

I guess Rafa could own this new tennis world for some time too come.

-k-
slams are better than ever, what are you on about.

newnuse
07-02-2006, 09:41 AM
Baseliners have won Wimbledon in the past. I think his name was Borg. Alarmists were saying the same things then.

I think the "problem" is that such a small part of the season is played on grass. Only 4 weeks. For the other 11 months, you never have to leave a hard court. (You could if you wanted to, but certainly don't have to.) To be a top player, you have to get/defend major tournament points, though. You can't hide on clay like you could 20 years ago and be a top 10.

Borg came to the net quite often during his run. I believe he even S&V. Some of the older guys here can chime in on that.

fastdunn
07-02-2006, 10:34 AM
You know, 5 years ago everyone was in a panic. New equipment and better conditioning was turning the fast court Slams into a serving contest. The experts were in a tizzy, because the "purity" of tennis was at stake. Wham, bam, thank you was game of the day. Wimbledon was boring, according to these experts. Points were over so fast, no skill was involved. The apocalypse was nigh.
-

Points at Wimbledon has been always short (even in 1940's - 80's)
unless you have good match-up (S&V against baseliner).

Wimbledon changed surface NOT because points got short
but because grass court tennis was getting estranged from outside
world (= baseline tennis).

The problem was tennis on each surface was specialized and polarized
and thus they got less number of good match-ups.


Wimbledon wanted to have more of mainstream baseline tennis
throwing away S&V.

ATP did all they can to remove this polarization and they ended
up having pretty homogenized tour. Now top players are doing better
on ALL surfaces...

Andres
07-02-2006, 10:48 AM
To be a top player, you have to get/defend major tournament points, though. You can't hide on clay like you could 20 years ago and be a top 10.
Does the word GAUDIO means anything for you? Even CORIA? (he had some good results on hard too, but mainly on clay)

Rhino
07-02-2006, 12:55 PM
Does the word GAUDIO means anything for you? Even CORIA? (he had some good results on hard too, but mainly on clay)
hmmmm no, there's no such word as 'gaudio', but coria is the plural of corium, the deep vascular inner layer of the skin.

kabob
07-02-2006, 01:07 PM
Hmmmm, no Americans left and suddenly the slams are in a sorry state.
How about American tennis is in a sorry state. You can blame the courts, and the slams, or whatever you want to, but howabout taking a look at the players! Roddick has sucked on all surfaces (US Open - rnd 1, Aus Open - rnd 4, FO - rnd 1, Wimby - rnd 3). Nothing stopped Roddick from playing well today except Roddick, not the courts.
It's funny how when you lose it's always everybody elses fault.
There would be a lot less complaints about the courts, the balls, and everything else if Federer was American.
It's a pity, but I have to agree with you on all accounts :sad:

AAAA
07-02-2006, 01:17 PM
Matches I've really enjoyed watching so far:

Federer-Gasquet
Federer-Henman
Federer-Mahut
Mirnyi-Blake
Kendrick-Nadal
Murray-Roddick


The grass is just right for the type of tennis I like watching.

jukka1970
07-02-2006, 01:34 PM
Well for starters I don't think the slams are in a sorry state. I mean the fact that there is an s in slams means you're talking about all 4. The australian has a new type material (well not new as in this year) but it's different from the us open hard court, and we have clay for the french.

I think what you should have titled it was the changes at Wimbledon. Personally for me, I don't mind changes. Sometimes they are necessary, sometimes they aren't. I think Wimbledon is just trying to find that right mix to have serve and volley as well as baseliners. But different types had won the title before it changed. maybe they have changed it a bit to much, but at least the clay court specialists aren't as quick to skip Wimbledon entirely.

As for the post coming up because the US only has one representative left for the second week, well I don't know, am sure that was part of the reason for the post. But I'm from the US, and I don't think the change of the grass knocked everyone from the US out except for one woman Perry.

I'm actually happy that most of them are gone (at least the big names). I had no desire to watch Roddick, nor any desire to watch Venus Williams. Mardy Fish retired because he was sick, so that had nothing to do with the grass. It was sad to see Agassi go, but he's played there for 2 decades, and his retirement is coming because he's old. It's tough to lose a legend, but I would rather see the youngster Nadal in the second week. And I also would rather see Agassi lose, then for him to get hurt and not be able to retire after the US Open which is where he wants to finish. If he wanted to finish with Wimbledon I would have been disappointed that he didn't make the second week. It's also to bad that Blake lost, but he'll bounce back, so it's not that I'm happy to see him gone, but it's a loss and it's done.

Jukka

netman
07-02-2006, 02:55 PM
Hmmmm, no Americans left and suddenly the slams are in a sorry state.
How about American tennis is in a sorry state. You can blame the courts, and the slams, or whatever you want to, but howabout taking a look at the players! Roddick has sucked on all surfaces (US Open - rnd 1, Aus Open - rnd 4, FO - rnd 1, Wimby - rnd 3). Nothing stopped Roddick from playing well today except Roddick, not the courts.
It's funny how when you lose it's always everybody elses fault.
There would be a lot less complaints about the courts, the balls, and everything else if Federer was American.

Your post speaks volumes on your lack of actual tennis knowledge.

-k-

netman
07-02-2006, 02:56 PM
It's a pity, but I have to agree with you on all accounts :sad:

Ditto. Your post speaks volumes of your lack of actual tennis knowledge.

-k-

Rhino
07-02-2006, 03:36 PM
Your post speaks volumes on your lack of actual tennis knowledge.

-k-
Oh yeah sorry you're right, Roddick is actually really good right now isn't he? Great return of serve, classy volleys. If it wasn't for those damn courts he's be winning slams. In fact why don't we just mould the whole game around him and give him a realistic chance. Back to the days of serving bombs, no rallies. And guess what? Back to the days of everybody moaning about the courts being too fast.
People adapted to Roddicks game, now it's his turn to adapt.

netman
07-02-2006, 04:05 PM
Oh yeah sorry you're right, Roddick is actually really good right now isn't he? Great return of serve, classy volleys. If it wasn't for those damn courts he's be winning slams. In fact why don't we just mould the whole game around him and give him a realistic chance. Back to the days of serving bombs, no rallies. And guess what? Back to the days of everybody moaning about the courts being too fast.
People adapted to Roddicks game, now it's his turn to adapt.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread. Its not about Roddick. Its about the Slams being homogenized to favor long rallies and the baseline game. Wimbledon use to be about speed, power and adaptibility. Not playing six feet behind the baseline and running every shot down.

Get off your nationalistic high horse.

-k-

AAAA
07-02-2006, 04:25 PM
Wimbledon changed surface NOT because points got short
but because grass court tennis was getting estranged from outside
world (= baseline tennis).



now we need to see your evidence.

Rhino
07-02-2006, 04:27 PM
Perhaps you should re-read the thread. Its not about Roddick. Its about the Slams being homogenized to favor long rallies and the baseline game. Wimbledon use to be about speed, power and adaptibility. Not playing six feet behind the baseline and running every shot down.

Get off your nationalistic high horse.

-k-
Look I hear you about the pro-long rallies thing, it's just fun to tease all the Roddick fans.
When Hewitt lost to Chela in the 2nd rnd of the AO this year he complained again (Lleyton, Dude. . . Just Let it Go) about the Rebound Ace court speed. Roddick however says he did not have any problems with the court during his straight sets win over Frenchman Julien Benneteau. "I'm fine. It's the same for everyone," he said. Of course that was before he lost to Baghdatis.
Personally I'm enjoying tennis more than ever and I love the baseline rallies.

By the way, here's an interesting article about the Wimbledon courts:
http://www.nysun.com/article/35116

AAAA
07-02-2006, 04:40 PM
http://www.itftennis.com/technical/research/tst/2000/

Apparently some researchers taking part in some ITF seminar/conference conclude returners are getting better.

The other links are interesting as well.

chess9
07-02-2006, 08:26 PM
http://www.itftennis.com/technical/research/tst/2000/

Apparently some researchers taking part in some ITF seminar/conference conclude returners are getting better.

The other links are interesting as well.

Very interesting observation. This could account, in some small part, for Roddick's decline? Hmmm....

Too bad they don't have transcripts of the technical papers presented, or did I miss them?

-Robert

ED_4.6HSE
07-03-2006, 12:21 AM
I love the baseline rallies.

So do i but also enjoy net play & serve volley, i get to see baseline rallies all year round already. Tennis is about the variety of shots, the contrast in styles. Basically on grass i want grass court tennis!

A few years old but this about sums up what i'm thinking

http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2603/stories/20030118002707300.htm

Anyway i'm going to watch a boring match with short points, mirnyi v bjorkman!


BTW dont get what this got to do with american tennis? Blake, arguably americas best present player was knocked out by a serve volleyer!

This debate has been going on since '02 when nalbandian & hewitt made the final. Cant see an argument for any wimby being better since the '01!

kabob
07-03-2006, 12:37 AM
Ditto. Your post speaks volumes of your lack of actual tennis knowledge.

-k-
Your post speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge of anything about me. I know a damn sight much about tennis, its history and the current state of affairs. Get off your high horse, Mr. Judgmental.

skip1969
07-03-2006, 08:47 AM
My take? People will never be happy. Why? Because no matter what you do, there will be complaints because either way someone's going to feel "jipped." It's a compromise. In the early to mid 90s there was an uproar about how the courts were so unfair indoors and on grass, just a serving contest, one-two shot points, over. Now, it's oh it's too slow, now only these baseline crumpers can win. And the beat goes on...
couldn't agree more. things come in cycles, and whoever is at a disadvantage is bound to complain. each surface INHERENTLY gives certain players with certain shots/styles an advantage. there's just no way around it. but that's the beauty of having different surfaces. and players playing differently. you know as a net player that you're gonna have a tougher time of it at roland garros. and you know it's harder to win wimbledon 10 feet behind the baseline. sure, it's possible, but every player knows which surface suits them best. and that's the way it should be.

i do agree with rhino, though when he says "Hmmmm, no Americans left and suddenly the slams are in a sorry state." i think when the variables are not in favor of the players you support or the style of tennis that you want to see . . . it's easy to criticize. i think in general, most pros lack the variety to compete well on all surfaces. but as was mentioned, that's what makes the great players stand out from the rest. most of today's pros have CHOSEN to be baseline bashers, for whatever reason. it's become THE acceptable way to play. it's no fault of the slams or the surfaces. it's siimply the trend of the day. but if the number #1 man and number #1 woman on the tour played serve and volley . . . and if they were winning all the slams . . . then we would be singing a very different tune.

(interesting thread with good posts!)

netman
07-03-2006, 11:03 AM
Well Brad Gilbert shed some clear light on the subject during this morning's coverage. He said the Wimbledon organizers did slow down the grass to add to the impact of the heavier balls. They did it because they wanted to make the tournament more attractive to the numerous top European players who either didn't normally attend or didn't really think they could win, thereby making half-hearted stabs at playing.

Now that makes perfect business sense. If you are trying to sell tickets (to pay for that new roof and the increased prize packages), you want all the top players to attend and hopefully still be around in the second week. So why not slow things down dramatically so all the clay court specialists think they have a shot at winning. Gilbert did state he thinks they overshot this year and may speed things up a bit next year. So the dirt ballers better take advantage of this window of opportunity.

Now here is the conspiracy theory for you. :) Since the top British player, Murray, is a retriever trained on clay in Spain, it makes sense to give him a better chance. With Henman and Rusedski in the twilight of their careers, why favor S&V players anymore? So maybe Wimbledon will stay slow for a few years. As Murray improves his fitness level, he might just have a shot. He definitely isn't a S&V guy.

Oh well. Its a business at the end of day and the goal is to make as much money as possible. The US Open and Australian Open both switched off grass. Maybe next, Wimbledon will go to the the same grass they use in the rough at the Masters. That will really slow things down.

I guess for now we are fated to watch a lot grunting, topspinning retrievers bash the ball back and forth at each other for long periods of time. Who can hit the most topspin shots in a row? About as exciting as watching two ball machines shoot balls at each other.

Make tennis even more boring. Perfectly logical response by the out of touch professional tennis community as the world wide interest in tennis continues to drop.

-k-

netman
07-03-2006, 11:06 AM
Your post speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge of anything about me. I know a damn sight much about tennis, its history and the current state of affairs. Get off your high horse, Mr. Judgmental.

You are correct. I only know you from your posts and can only respond to them.

-k-