weeks at No. 1

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by adil1972, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. adil1972

    adil1972 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,435
    connors spent 268 weeks as No. 1 while he won only 8 slams
    lendl spent 270 weeks as No. 1 while he won only 8 slams
    sampras spent 286 weeks as No. 1 while he won 14 slams
    federer spent 302 weeks as No. 1 while he won 17 slams

    on the other hand, nadal has won 11 slams, while being No. 1 for only 102 weeks
    http://tennis28.com/rankings/weeks_No1.html

    how connors and lendl spent so many weeks as No. 1 compared to nadal while winning less slams than nadal
     
    #1
  2. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    12,152
    The biggest reason is Roger Federer.
     
    #2
  3. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Because there is something outside slams? Players earn ranking points for reaching Finals, SFs, QFs, winning other event. Lendl and Connors where good at that. Nadal is good too, but not enough.

    Beside, Nadal won more than one slam only two times: in 2008 and 2010. He won't can't the top rank only with RG.
     
    #3
  4. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    It is easy, I have explained already several times.

    In totally polarized conditions (with different competitive game styles) you would expect the top players winning a LOWER nº of GS (than in an era of homogeneous conditions and one unique game style), BUT if a player is "the best of the era" for many years, he will be nº1 for many many weeks too.

    In another words, polarized conditions and competitive styles VS homogeneous conditions and one unique competitive style, impacts the nº of total GS won by the top players, BUT it does NOT affect the nº of years (or weeks) at nº1 in the same way.

    Again, the decathlon exmple:

    A man who is the best at decathlon can very well be the nº1 (at decathlon) for many years, but he will never win, say, 8 or 9 out of the 10 decathlon events (in each decathlon competition) all the time (in fact not even once has that happened) because such 10 events in one decathon are vastly different.

    On the other hand, if we create a "homogeneous decathlon", consisting of 10 times running the 100 m race in each "homogeneous decathlon competition", then the best at that (currently Ussain Bolt) not only will he be the best (at that thing) during many years (like the previous example), but he will also win 9 or 10 out of the 10 exactly identical 100 m races of each "homogeneous decathlon competition".

    I hope this makes you understand why polarized conditions and styles VS homogeneous conditions and style, affects tremendously the nº of GS won by the best player (players) of the era, BUT it does NOT affect the same way the years (or weeks) at nº1 by the best player of the era.

    Lendl and Connors dominated given eras (that is why they were nº1 for so long), but in their respective eras it was much more difficult to win different GS, that were played on totally vastly polarized conditions, against players with totally different playing styles each suited to specific conditions.

    In the current era, not only Nadal, but also Djokovic will get to 10+ GS soon but neither will get to 200+ weeks at nº1 (probably not even 150+ weeks at nº1).

    In short, trying to compare numbers from different eras is, most of the times, senseless.
     
    #4
  5. xan

    xan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    1,111
    wait what what what do you mean? there is tennis outside of slams ?!???
     
    #5
  6. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Yes but its boring nobody care lol.
     
    #6
  7. Fiji

    Fiji Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,189
    Because of the homogenization of the surfaces, the current best player(#1) on tour can win all the slams. We saw it with Federer, Nadal and soon Djokovic. Expect many Career Slams in the future.
     
    #7
  8. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    Lendl may have "only" won 8, but he made 19 finals, so he was making deep runs on a consistent basis.

    Also, the level of consistency established by Federer, IMO, has made it much tougher to attain that #1 ranking. Look at the Sampras era when guys like Moya and Muster made it to the top. Heck, even Marcelo Rios made it to #1 and he never won a slam. The Aussie Open final is the only time Rios ever made a final or semi in his career.

    It is hard to imagine a guy making it to #1 today without a slam win. Murray had a fantastic 2012 and is only at #3.

    Look what it took for Federer to regain the #1 spot. He finished 2011 on a 15 match win streak taking Basel, Paris and the tour finals in the process. He followed that with a SF in Australia, wins in Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, and Madrid. A SF in Rome and Roland Garros and a final in Halle. And still, it took a Wimbledon win to overtake Djokovic.

    Or, look at Ferrer. He won 7 titles last year (most on the tour BTW), including Paris, Valencia and Acapulco and a final in Barcelona. On top of that, his slam performances were QF, SF, QF, SF. That's a pretty solid year that got him to #5, still behind an injured Nadal who hadn't played since Wimbledon (where he lost in the R64). It still took a SF run in Australia and the loss of 1200 more points by an absent Nadal for Ferrer to even crack the top 4.

    The constistency at the top has made it tougher.

    Lendl and Connors were both very consistent players, which is why they held on to that #1 ranking for so long.
     
    #8
  9. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Dude, I already explained, but you didn't get it. It is not the players, it is the conditions.

    Tommy Haas, at 35, after uncontable injuries and surgeries, gives it another try in the last months and now is nº17 in the world.

    So much for your "deep talent" current era...
     
    #9
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Great post. Federer dominated the tour makes it really hard for any player to reach #1. Nadal holds the record for the most weeks(160) at #2 because Roger was too dominant. Had Nadal was playing in any of the previous era, those 160 weeks at #2 would sure be #1. Since 2003, for the player to reach #1 he had to be a mulitple slam winners(12-month stretch), unlike in the past decades when a player only needed to win one slam to be #1(eg Sampras in 1998 ). Even a non-slam winner Rios managed to be #1(LOL). Based on their results, Nadal would have more multiple year end #1, Del Potro 2009, Fed 2008, 2010 and 2012, Murray 2012...all would be good enough to end the year # in the previous generations.

    With that being said, being ranked #1 in this era is much, much tougher thus more impressive than in the past. The level of accomplishment has to be much greater to earn the #1 ranking(and year end #1).
     
    #10
  11. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Another robot that reads numbers but doesn't have a clue about the reasons behind those numbers...
     
    #11
  12. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Ding ding ding! We have a winner. And it didn't take long.
     
    #12
  13. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Numbers are facts. For example, Nadal in 2005 won 11 titles, including a slam + 4 Master Series. Yet he ended the year #2. In the previous generations, many year end #1 players were much less accomplished than Nadal. So who had it tougher? No question it's was much tougher since 2003.

    To add, Fed in 2003 was good enough to end the year #1 in the past generation.
     
    #13
  14. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Why do you insist in comparing numbers from different era, knowing that conditions of current era are totally different than in any previous era (thus making it senseless) ?

    Nevermind, actually I am not even interested in your reasons (if there is any).

    I am just amazed at how simple or naive some people can be, comparing oranges to apples as if nothing...

    Or maybe it is just that I am a mathematician and all my life my work has been to find the reasons behind things. Numbers, facts, are explained by other facts, that are explained by other facts,etc.

    Numbers alone, Statistics alone, without the research about the roots, the reasons behind those numbers, means nothing at all.
     
    #14
  15. sale

    sale New User

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6
    What about Wilander? 7slams total, 3 slams in 1988 but was number one for just 20 weeks.
    Becker 6 slams total, 12 weeks at number one.
     
    #15
  16. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Why do you always insist on telling us we can't compare things from different eras? You're right ok! We get it. The problem is nobody cares. It's a message board. We debate. It's what we do. If we had a bunch of people like you telling us we couldn't debate, we wouldn't have much of a friggin board would we now? Just in case you haven't noticed, I'm really trying to be nice, but you're really getting on my nerves, and I don't want to put you on ignore because you seem knowledgeable enough when you put your mind to it instead of telling us we can't debate because of differences between eras.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013
    #16
  17. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Because it is what has happened. Things have changed, conditions have changed, different games styles have vanished,...all this have effects on the numbers and you have to be purpousedly blind to not get it.

    And, because it actually does make sense the fact that the total nº of weeks at nº1 is not that affected by the changes (because after all, the best is the best of each era, even if those eras have totally different conditions), whereas the way the titles (GS) are spread among more or less different players IS totally affected, it actually makes sense depending on polarized or homogeneous conditions.

    So the main reason I repeat it, is because there is actually a solid reasoning that explain these things and I like it when things make sense (because, as I said, this is what my job has been all my life).

    But nevermind, I'll try to not repeat it too much, after all, this is just a tennis forum (not a science forum).
     
    #17
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    The agenda is to minimize Roger's achievements, as usual. The only argument they have is pure conjecture, but facts/data doesn't have merit(lol). However anyone in their right mind knows facts/numbers are the only objective answer to a debate. Speculation can support both sides and it only goes around in circles. Pointless !
     
    #18
  19. McLovin

    McLovin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,245
    The problem is, while weeks at #1 are a nice number, they tell nothing other than just that: weeks at #1.

    Rules for computing #1 have changed between each generation, as have point totals for each tournament (Lendl received 452 ATP points for winning the Australian Open in 1990).

    So, to say 'so and so player only won N majors but was ranked #1 X times' means absolutely nothing.
     
    #19
  20. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    You must be blind or something worse, TMF.

    Why would I want to minimize Roger's achievements when I have said MANY TIMES here that, FOR ME, in my totally subjective opinion, Federer is the best tennis player I have seen (at least in the last 20 years).

    But I know what is a subjective opinion of mine, and what is a solid reasoning. I have no solid reasoning to say that a great player from one era would have achieved more than a great player of another era had they been born the other way around.

    It is not a Federer thing. I have said many times too that numbers don't tell the whole story, EVEN among players from more or less the same era.

    Sampras's numbers are TOO MUCH higher than Becker's numbers, but those two great player's level was much more similar than what their numbers seem to indicate.

    If you compare Sampras's numbers or Federer's numbers with Lendl's or McEnroe's numbers, they seem to indicate that Sampras (or Federer) was much better than Lendl or McEnroe, but I have no solid reasoning to accept that, because they played in different times and conditions (even if Sampras's 90s conditions were as polarized as Lendl's and McEnroe's 80s conditions, but it was a different time period).

    Had they been born the other way around, and maybe Lendl's or McEnroe's numbers would have been higher than Sampras's or Federer's. I have no way of knowing.

    But the homogeneous conditions and game style of the current era will produce the effect of GS spread among less different players (only the two or three best players at that unique style, will have options every time) and that is exactly what is happening in tennis in the last years.

    I only care about things that makes sense or doesn't make sense. You only care about your hero whorshipping as a truly teenage girl, and so any reasoning that could explain things about the anomaly of the current era, you see it as an attack to the only reason of your existence, your hero.
     
    #20
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    But if Lendl doesn't win the AO, the winner would received 452 points too, not 2000 points.

    If Federer didn't win a slam, another player would earned 2000 points, not 452.

    The system is based on 12-month stretch, and whoever was more accomplished, he/she is the #1, simple as that.
     
    #21
  22. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,557
    Because winning 7 times at one major doesn't get you the #1
     
    #22
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    True, when somebody shows the moon, they only see the finger pointing at the moon
     
    #23
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Gerulaitis was number 4 winning Dallas,Rome and other superseries and reaching USO F, Masters final and FO semis, that speaks volume of what is and what is not tough
     
    #24
  25. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Deleted post..
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013
    #25
  26. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Like I said, you're right, I get it, I just couldn't give a damn about you telling me what's pointless to debate and what's not. I'll debate what I damn well like, and if you can't separate your real life job from a tennis forum, well then we unfortunately have a problem.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013
    #26
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Of course I'm not referring to any years of the past were easy to be #1, but there were plenty that it takes less effort/accomplishment than today. Not to say that any past #1 wasn't difficult, but the bar has raise much higher since 2003 to present. These years are the toughest for players to be #1. You can't find a 10 years period that can be compare to 2003 - present time.
     
    #27
  28. Gonzo_style

    Gonzo_style Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,897
    Slam Slam Slam Slamslammmmmm!

    Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are other tournaments, ATP1000, ATP 500, ATP 250, WTFs, OG and DC.
     
    #28
  29. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,648
    Location:
    South
    Nadal has record weeks at number two at any era.

    So, Hitman is correct, if you see he has spent so many weeks fewer at number one compared to the other two players you mentioned, that's the reason, Fed. He is also the reason he is ranked number 5 now, also the reason he has no legs to stand on.
     
    #29
  30. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York
    102 weeks is actually a lot (similar to Borg and Agassi). Only 8 players in open era have been #1 for 100 weeks or more. (Fed, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Nadal, Agassi). All superlative players but with different degrees of consistency and longevity. Reminder: Nadal is only 26.
     
    #30
  31. Indio

    Indio Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    338
    I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the fact that Tommy Haas has managed to reach #17. In 1994, Karsten Braasch, reached #34 while being a smoker. Try that in today's game, no matter how similar the courts are alleged to be.
     
    #31
  32. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Don't you know there is a chain-smoker in the current top-4? :) (Legend has it...)
     
    #32
  33. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    Haas is 34 not 35..you are a maths bloke..please get it right...its your job you know :neutral:
     
    #33
  34. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,080
    ****ty thread.. stinks big time.

    Corollary - Wozniacki spent 67 weeks at No 1 in 2010-11 and no slam. So, 2010-11 is the toughest era in tennis.
     
    #34
  35. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    How many weeks at #1 did Nadal and Federer have at the age of 26?
     
    #35
  36. Smasher08

    Smasher08 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,116
    Location:
    The 6
    Gotta admire that: a true model of German efficiency! :lol:
     
    #36
  37. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    18 slams i win. 26wks no1 i win..u suck. no u suck. weak era. asterisk. ur player sucks..no ur player sucks. and u suck..456978 slams i win.
     
    #37
  38. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    No it here that you hare incorrect. It is true that you have to achieve more today to be n°1 (or n°2), but it is also true that it is easier to achieve more today, as Mattenis explained. Because of the homogeneous conditions, the best players in this conditions have a shot at every event.

    With more polarized conditions, the top players have a shot at only a part of the events, the part where the conditions suit their game better. Sampras, McEnroe, Connors had it harder than Federer to win on clay. Lendl, Wilanders had it harder than Djokovic and Nadal to win Wimbledon.
     
    #38
  39. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    However it is possible to compare apples and oranges if you know that they are apples and oranges, no? We have some knowledge of the change in playing conditions which can helps us to weights achievements made in different eras: Agassi's calendar slam is more impressive than Fed's or Nadal's, just as Borg double Wimby-RG is more impressive that theirs.

    Obviously it won't be mathematics, we won't agree on everything, but we can still find good knowledge. Maybe it's because I'm a social scientist. ;)
     
    #39
  40. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    True, but in five weeks and a half, he will be 35, and he will still be top-20 I guess. :)
     
    #40
  41. The Moonballer

    The Moonballer New User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    35
    dull has so many weeks at #2, let's just give dull his 2nd place spot. Or third, Sampras is far superior to dull.
     
    #41
  42. McLovin

    McLovin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,245
    No, it isn't as simple as that. In today's ranking system, the four majors are given 2000 points, then you have the Masters 1000s, then the 500s, then the 250s.

    Back in 1990, Lendl received 452 points for winning the AO, but Edberg received 536 for Wimbledon in the same year, 379 for winning Masters Cincy, and 411 for winning Masters Paris.

    So, the point totals are not uniform and therefore ranking results and major winners from the past cannot be used to compare against similar achievements today. The numbers have no correlation with how many majors someone has or hasn't won.
     
    #42
  43. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    why were there unequal points for winners of different majors :confused::confused:
     
    #43
  44. McLovin

    McLovin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,245
    If I had to guess, I'd say there were 'bonus points' for beating people in the Top 10, or at least above your ranking, but http://www.atpworldtour.com/ is acting flaky right now so I can't look & see who they beat on their way to the finals.
     
    #44
  45. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    The ranking system has changed many different times.

    Prior to 1990, it was the average what was computed (i.e. the points divided by nº of tournaments played), that is why Connors was nº1 in 1977 ahead of Vilas (his average points per tournament was a bit higher than Vilas's). There was also the complication that there were some tournaments (invitationals and others) that had good draws but did not have points to the computation of the ATP rankings.

    In the 90s, the best 14 results (in terms of points) was what was computed (and NOT the average like before, i.e. not divided by 14 or nº of tournaments played). A good fraction of the points any player had, were BONUS points. You gained points by advancing rounds AND beating ranked players. If a player won a tournament beating several top-10 players, especially, beating the nº1 player in the world, he could obtain as many points by BONUS as for the tournament win itself (so he could win almost the double of points than other player who won the same tournament beating only low-ranked players).

    The most bonus points was awarded if you defeated the nº1 player (so the nº1 player was always at a disadvantage here, because he could not defeat himself :) ), then defeat of a 2-5 ranked player, then 6-10 ranked player, then 11-20 ranked player...

    All these bonus points were doubled in GS respect to Masters-Series (and Master-Series with respect to International Series...).

    They also changed the points awarded from year to year (a little higher year after year, or at least they upped them few different times during that decade), that is why if you watch the Year End Rankings during the 90s, you'll see that in 1990 or 1991 they seem to have lower points than in other years in that decade.

    The Masters-Series or Super-9 (now M-1000) were not mandatory, so many top-players skipped some of them carelessly (they could gain almost as many points in an international-series tournament if it had a strong-field, because of the bonus points).

    It was so different back then.

    Another example, a very big tournament in the 90s, the Grand-Slam Cup (with great draws and probably the highest prize money) did not count to the rankings (at least until very late in the 90s decade). As I said, this was much more common during the 70s, big tournaments with big draws, where top players fought hard to win, did not count to the ATP-rankings.


    Today it would be very rare to have a very big singles tournament, with all the top-players fighting hard to win it, knowing that it does not count to the ranking. But prior to 2000 it was very common.


    Yet some more reasons why it is senseless trying to compare numbers from different eras.
     
    #45
  46. McLovin

    McLovin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,245
    Thank you, mattennis. I started to write up something similar, but couldn't remember the specifics (i.e. whether it was 12 or 14 tournaments), so I just bailed on that post.
     
    #46
  47. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    ok thanks..i didnt know about 'bonus points' in the old days :)
     
    #47
  48. Indio

    Indio Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    338
     
    #48
  49. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    I have put the links several times in the past.

    In 2000 WTF ( in Portugal ) they used (for the first time) a 8% bigger ball and it was very noticeable how much it slowed down the shots (the ball speed decreased more than before through its trajectory).

    Wimbledon changed to a slower ball in 1995 (after the 1994 Sampras-Ivanisevic final, where very few points had more than 4 strokes, even if other players in other rounds in that same tournament, for example Bruguera-Chang, played from the baseline and had longer rallies).

    US OPEN slowed down its surface in 2001. They slowed down it again in 2003.

    Wimbledon officials said that, even though they changed the grass type in 2001, the effect could not be that dramatic (many players complained about how slow and high bouncing Wimbledon's grass was in 2002 ) because they had been tweaking things since the middle of the 90s to make it possible to have longer points, but the changes had been gradually year by year, so it could not be that dramatic from 2001 to 2002 (officials said).

    Little by little, all tournaments that had an indoor carpet, changed to a hard court during the end of the 90s and beginning of the 00s.

    In the 80s and 90s, fast and low-bouncing indoor carpet tournaments were, at least, 1/3 of the season.

    Already in 1994 and 1995 several players (Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and more) complained about how tournaments officials had changed the conditions of many indoor tournaments, turning to a slower and higher bouncing carpet. For example, Paris-Bercy was called "the little Roland Garros" by several players in 1994 and 1995 because how slow it was (in their opinion) even if it was an indoor carpet tournament.

    I have put the links of all this in the past (testimonies of tournaments officials and many tennis players).

    It is not only the surfaces, but the ball type as well.

    For example, in 2011 Roland Garros they used a lighter ball, and the change was dramatic, it was noticeably faster and way easier to hit winner shots, even if it was on clay.
     
    #49
  50. Indio

    Indio Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    338
     
    #50

Share This Page