Wimbledon in the 90s was the lowpoint

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by James_M, Dec 6, 2009.

  1. James_M

    James_M New User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    15
    If you watch a whole match, you will understand me (even if you don't agree)

    Take a match (Krajicek vs Sampras for example). Watching highlights can make it seem quite exciting, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Most of the time, the players can't get the return in play, much less hit a good return. You can almost count on one hand how many times the returning player gets to hit a second shot. For me, the foundation of great fast-court tennis is the quality of the return. Things got so bad that the powers that be decided to destroy the fundamentals of grass court tennis in order to make the tennis more entertaining and giving us the unwatchable (to me), hard court, specialist-free tennis that we have nowadays. That's how bad things were in the 90s. No wonder tennis struggled for popularity in that era.
     
    #1
  2. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Well it went too far the other way!

    Now there is no serve volley, the courts are too slow!

    I guess getting it right is really difficult!
     
    #2
  3. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Ignore post.
     
    #3
  4. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    I think it's actually much better now that the courts are slower. Entertainment wise it's gotten much better in the last few years.
     
    #4
  5. JoelDali

    JoelDali G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10,587
    Its obvious you've never played on grass, much less at LAEC.

    I'm sure you could return Sampras bombs effectively all day.

    :shock:
     
    #5
  6. TennisLurker

    TennisLurker New User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    It is true that many young tennis fans, who only know 90's tennis from youtube highlights, think that 90's tennis was more entertaining than it really was.

    The 94 Sampras Goran final was ugly and boring, Pete got asked by journalists right after the matc in the press conference if he thought that the match was boring from a spectator point of view, and there were lots of articles complaining about the high speed, the lack of rallies, the ace fests and service winners orgies, even articles saying that Wimbledon should abandon grass.

    People exagerate when they say that now Wimbledon is green clay, it is still very fast, otherwise Roddick wouldn't have made all those finals. It is still the the best surface for big servers.
    The ball does bounce higher than in the past, now it plays more like the old Australian Open, in which Wilander could beat McEnroe and Edberg on grass, and another clay courter like Vilas also had good results.
     
    #6
  7. Dave M

    Dave M Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,941
    Location:
    England
    I don't think the 94 final was that bad, i wonder if i was just able to appreciate how hard it is to learn to serve that well altering placement etc to make it more suitable for the surface.I went there at that time,probably spent more time watching players on the practice courts than in my seat!
    I went this year and while there is a very big difference between 1993 and now it's not quite like clay.It is a good comparision to the old Australian open.
     
    #7
  8. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Not all grasses play the same.
     
    #8
  9. Ripper014

    Ripper014 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,863
    The most entertaining tennis in my opinion was in the 70's and 80's, loaded with skill and personalities... Think about the players from these decades... starting with Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche... to Connors, McEnroe, Nastase. Lendl, Vilas, Orantes, Edberg, Wilander and Borg and so many others. Definitely a golden age... they all had different styles of play and they were all effect.
     
    #9
  10. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Today's tennis is far too much on power and less on touch.... Courts need to speed up to offer a more wide range of styles!

    I miss the classic serve and volley vs baseliner or true attacking tennis, like Becker-Sampras.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2009
    #10
  11. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Too much power tennis today.


    I like a mixture of styles, or just a super fast indoor court (Boris Becker style) serve and volley.

    But they should make Wimbledon like old Wimbledon, and I bet Dr. Ivo will do very well.
     
    #11
  12. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    That makes no sense. You're saying that there's too much "power tennis" at Wimbledon right? Well, Karlovic is the definition of a huge server "Power game". So was Boris Becker, in fact a lot of the tennis veterans from the 1980s said that Becker, hit the ball harder than all of the other players during that time.

    Also, a Federer vs Nadal final is much more of a mixture of styles when compared with Becker vs Sampras, Becker vs Edberg, or Ivanisevic vs Sampras.
     
    #12
  13. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,225
    Need faster surfaces. When I saw the wear patterns on centre court it was pathetic. Even wimbledon is so slow that it doesn't help out the S&V players.

    Hard courts need to be fast again. Baseline play is incredibly boring.
     
    #13
  14. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589

    While this is true, Ivo plays serve and volley, yes he can hit harder than anyone on the serve, like Becker did back in the 80s. What I meant was, baseline power tennis, something Karlovic doesn't do...
     
    #14
  15. GinoGinelli

    GinoGinelli Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    144
    I couldn't disagree more! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy matches even totally at the baseline but not every time. For me its become repetitive and seen it all before. I want to see different tennis on different surfaces, variety is the spice and all that!

    edberg v rafter was so refreshing, wish I'd watched the rest of the masters


    *Btw I don't think the 90's was that bad. Ok it was dire when you had two huge servers against each other (ppousis, krajicek, rusedski etc) but it was no worse than now when two baseline pushers slog it out for the millionth time. You had great matches as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2009
    #15
  16. Dave M

    Dave M Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,941
    Location:
    England
    I thought that nick bollettieri makes an interesting point when he said we have (almost) no variety anymore because results are so important in junior tennis. I suppose sponsors/acadamies etc want the top ranked kids, if someone changes their game to learn to serve and volley even though long term it'd surely help them be a better player short term they'd loose and thats tough to take for any child learning the game.(Or parent paying a fortune i would imagine).
    It's also important to see the subtle differences between the play of say Edberg and Henman and Becker and Sampras, the former players were "poper" serve and volleyers (anyone see the masters last wekend, how good was it to see Edberg and Rafter playing like that?) and the latter two as an example of pl;ayers who served huge serves then volley'd the put away.I guess they were an evolution on the former using the seve as a huge weapon on it's own rather than a means to winning with the volley.
     
    #16
  17. PimpMyGame

    PimpMyGame Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,433
    I agree with the OP. New technologies in rackets and strings have killed off the old Wimbledon, and having boring tennis in the 90's turned me off the game completely for a while. In the UK we have very little tenns on tv, other than Wimby.
     
    #17
  18. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Yes you are right unfortunately:(

    I also think the ball bouncing so high is the biggest problem, the Wimbledon courts are still quite fast (would like them faster though), but the ball bouces too high now!
     
    #18
  19. Ripper014

    Ripper014 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,863
    I agree speeding up the surface will help the S&V player... but it will not improve the game. You will get more service winners... and more winners being hit from the back court. We see enough of that now, where a player can hit a clean winner almost at will from the baseline. What we need is to slow down the ball where hitting clean winners cannot be done a will, where you have to strategically move a player off the court before you can even attempt to go for a winner. I am pretty sure in the 80's someone made an oversized tennis ball, I believe the idea was to slow down play for novice players using the large head frames. Maybe these balls should now be the norm.... they can retain the current equipment, and bring back speed of the game in the 70's and 80's.
     
    #19
  20. Dream_On

    Dream_On Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    345
    Wimbledon should be for S+V if you want baseline rally's then thats whats the french open/australian open is for.
    Us open should be a mix
     
    #20
  21. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,926
    Agreed. Some Wimbledon matches in the 90s were bore-fests.

    A genuine contest with a contrast in styles was the ideal - not two big servers putting on a serving display.

    Boring.
     
    #21
  22. srinrajesh

    srinrajesh Guest

    dont agree that it was boring in the 90's there was still enough scope for the baseliners as Agassi and Courier showed by winning and reaching finals there ...
    A faster surface is required so that we can see how the player adapts his style ...
    It was more interesting as we saw a clash of different playing styles. Players had to hit great drop volleys, deep approach shots, powerful volleys deep in the court, passing shots over the net rusher, lobs to beat them ....
    Do we see this kind of play anymore at wimbledon ?

    there were finals between agassi-ivanisevic, sampras-courier, sampras-agassi which all provided enough scope for different game

    Other finals were becker-edberg, becker-sampras where there was rallies at the net as well .. how many times do we see volleys traded there apart from doubles match now a days.
     
    #22
  23. morten

    morten Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    i agree.......
     
    #23

Share This Page