Tennis - Courts have made defence the new attack, says Federer

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

We shall never know

Oh, but we know.

Countless efforts to win at the WTF or Cincy say a lot.

Originally Posted by Mustard

I already have elaborated, I don't know what else I can tell you. The reason conditions are more homogeneous today than in the past, is a combination of the modern technology, the fazing out of carpet courts until they totally disappeared from tour and the change of Wimbledon grass from 70% Rye to 100% Rye. And yes, the differences between speed on different courts have narrowed over the years as well, but this factor is totally exaggerated compared to the other factors (i.e. the technology and the fazing out of carpet courts).

The bolded part is your opinion, and not a fact. And, going from what I have seen with my own eyes, I would say, that you are wrong.

You have not elaborated. You clearly stated, that racket and string technology are responsible for the slowing of the courts, but did not explain how this exactly happens. My own experience says, that different courts play in a differrent way with exactly the same racket and string setup. The differences for me as an amateur can be felt very clearly! I can only imagine what it means for the Pros.

So, the question is, if what you say is true, and everything is dependant on the racket and string setup, how is that possible?

How is it possible, that Pros like Federer and Nadal are having different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surface, if the racket and string setup is so decisive, and the differences between the surfaces are "negligible" as you put it?

That is, what you should elaborate on.

[Magnetite]

They do need more variety.

It's exciting watching different tactics and strategies play out. It's exciting watching the top players adapt their games to different courts.

Serve and volley tennis was great to watch, as is baseline tennis.

It's also great when an underdog plays the tournament of their lives and makes it to a grand slam final.

None of these are happening anymore. Don't get me wrong the Novak/Fed final was awesome to watch, but there have been many tournament finals in recent memory that have been monotonous. The same patterns over and over and over again.

[dimeaxe]

Originally Posted by Magnetite

They do need more variety.

It's exciting watching different tactics and strategies play out. It's exciting watching the top players adapt their games to different courts.

Serve and volley tennis was great to watch, as is baseline tennis.

It's also great when an underdog plays the tournament of their lives and makes it to a grand slam final.

None of these are happening anymore. Don't get me wrong the Novak/Fed final was awesome to watch, but there have been many tournament finals in recent memory that have been monotonous. The same patterns over and over and over again.

I disagree, they both played like sh!t, I guess they were tired.

[Gonzo_style]

David Ferrer is responsible for everything!

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Oh, but we know.

Countless efforts to win at the WTF or Cincy say a lot.

I should point out that even Djokovic hasn't won Cincinnati. It seems to be his bogey tournament, at least up to the present day.

Nadal may not have won Cincinnati or the World Tour Finals, but he did win Dubai in 2006 on a fast hardcourt, beating Federer in the final. It was a classic case of Nadal hanging in there under an onslaught and eventually counter-punching Federer for the victory.

But besides, Cincinnati and the World Tour Finals are not Wimbledon on the old 70% Rye grass.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

You have not elaborated. You clearly stated, that racket and string technology are responsible for the slowing of the courts, but did not explain how this exactly happens.

I have. Today's game has power, spin, depth and authority in the rallies that are unprecedented in the history of tennis. This compels players to stay at the baseline more often than not.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

My own experience says, that different courts play in a differrent way with exactly the same racket and string setup.The differences for me as an amateur can be felt very clearly! I can only imagine what it means for the Pros.

I'm sorry, but when have I denied that different courts play differently? I'm just saying that over the years, by far the biggest factor in the modern playing style and conditions (i.e. the way the game is played today), is the technology, much more so than surface speed (I'm talking here of speed independently from racquet technology).

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

So, the question is, if what you say is true, and everything is dependant on the racket and string setup, how is that possible?

Do I really need to say it again? Okay, I'll say it again, today's game has power, spin, depth and authority in the rallies that are unprecedented in the history of tennis. This compels players to stay at the baseline more often than not. This, combined with the fazing out of carpet courts, are the biggest reasons why there are not many "surface specialists" these days, and why serve and volley is close to extinction on the tour, and why baseline play predominates on all current surfaces on tour.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

How is it possible, that Pros like Federer and Nadal are having different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surface, if the racket and string setup is so decisive, and the differences between the surfaces are "negligible" as you put it?

That is, what you should elaborate on.

I think you've totally missed the points I was making. You seem to be under the impression that I think that all surfaces are exactly the same and aren't different in any way. That was never what I meant, and such a suggestion would be absurd in the extreme.

My main point is, court conditions are different everywhere, but the biggest difference from the conditions of past eras to today's conditions, is the racquet technology and the fazing out of carpet courts on the tour.

[Rjtennis]

They really need to change the court speed to promote different styles of play. Players should demand it. It also hurts players physically to play long points match after match.

[Rjtennis]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

David Ferrer is responsible for everything!

When a basically weaponless Ferrer is winning indoor on a supposedly fast surface you know the courts and balls have gotten too slow.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

My main point is, court conditions are different everywhere, but the biggest difference from the conditions of past eras to today's conditions, is the racquet technology and the fazing out of carpet courts on the tour.

I never said, that you say, that all the courts play the same. You say, that the improvement in the racket technology and strings are so big (i.e. you say they are the main difference between now and then (phasing out of the carpet is a non issue, since it doesn't concern the technical aspect of this discussion)), that they negate compeltely the small (in your opinion) variation in direction slowing of the surfaces.

I asked you how is it then possible, that Federer and Nadal have so different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surfaces, if the racket and string technology is such a prevalent factor? Surely, Nadal would be having the same results everywhere on HC, since the differences in the speed of the courts are so negligible compared to the string and racket technology (since he uses the same racket and strings everywhere), no?

You didn't answer that.

Just to make sure, that we are on the same page.

You are saying, that the people stay on the baseline, because the modern racket and string technology are too much to do anything different.

My question, regarding this is: Did you watch the tourney in Madrid this year, and if "Yes" what kind of rackets did the players use?

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by Rjtennis

When a basically weaponless Ferrer is winning indoor on a supposedly fast surface you know the courts and balls have gotten too slow.

What you want to say? Surface in Paris is not fast?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

I never said, that you say, that all the courts play the same. You say, that the improvement in the racket technology and strings are so big (i.e. you say they are the main difference between now and then (phasing out of the carpet is a non issue, since it doesn't concern the technical aspect of this discussion)), that they negate compeltely the small (in your opinion) variation in direction slowing of the surfaces.

The technology has led to serve and volley being close to extinction and the dominance of baseline play. That doesn't mean that different courts all have the same conditions, just that baseline play predominates everywhere.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

I asked you how is it then possible, that Federer and Nadal have so different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surfaces, if the racket and string technology is such a prevalent factor?

You're misunderstanding me. There are still clear differences between the surfaces, which is why Nadal dominates on clay but not on hardcourts for example, but that doesn't change the things I've said about the technology and the fazing out of carpet courts being the main factors in today's tennis play on the tour (i.e. baseline play with authority) being different from the tennis style on tour in past eras.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Surely, Nadal would be having the same results everywhere on HC, since the differences in the speed of the courts are so negligible compared to the string and racket technology (since he uses the same racket and strings everywhere), no?

You didn't answer that.

Because there are clear differences between clay and hardcourts. I never suggested otherwise. I'm sorry if you got that impression, but that was never my point.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Just to make sure, that we are on the same page.

It doesn't seem that we are.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

You are saying, that the people stay on the baseline, because the modern racket and string technology are too much to do anything different.

Most of the time, yes. The modern technology makes it harder to get off the baseline.

The modern technology compels players to stay on the baseline the vast majority of the time, because of the power, spin, depth and authority in the rallies in today's game. This doesn't change the fact that the courts are different at each tournament, or even different courts at the same tournament. But baseline play does now hugely predominate at all tournaments, and it's mostly because of the technology in today's game.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

My question, regarding this is: Did you watch the tourney in Madrid this year, and if "Yes" what kind of rackets did the players use?

What happened in Madrid this year was down to the surface, it was ridiculously slippery.

[NGM]

Federer is totally right. I dont understand why some of you think he is bitter. Faster court is something we demand for years, and now when Federer says it out loud somehow he is bitter?

Faster court is a must. I dont think it should be discussed anymore. Tennis becomes boring and boring with slow court and everyone play the same, 1-2 meters behind the baseline. Federer is only genius left in the world of gladiators. And it is not a good thing, at all.

One bigger thing I want to point out, that is tennis is dying with slow court. Boys born in the slow era like Nadal, Djokovic have the most benefits of it but also suffering, because they are burnt out quickly than before. And to counter that inevitable end, they demand shorter calendar year with much less tournament and two year ranking. That are all bad for tennis as a sport. Federer maybe is the only man understand bigger picture and try to prevent it. I dont understand I dont see any support for him in this important thing, instead you say he is bitter. WTF is that?

[mattennis]

I think that (one of the things that) Mustard is trying to say is that players today (on average) impart much more top-spin than in previous eras. And because of that much top-spin the balls travel slower (take more time to get to the other baseline) than with a very flat hit shot. That alone can make the impression that the conditions are slower than they actually are.

And that is true.

But apart from that, I really think that many outdoor hardcourts (AusOpen, US OPEN, and many others) have been slowed down noticeably, and they are using slower balls as well.

You (Mustard) say that todays players average shots have more power than earlier, and that is true, but probably the main reason is that in todays conditions the balls sits up in a way that did not happen on faster former conditions.

When I watch Agassi, Martin, Chang playing in the US OPEN in the 90s, their average shots may have been slower than today (the court and balls were faster and after the bounce the balls did not sit up as today, it was more difficult to play on those former faster conditions), but you could see that when they had an easy ball, a ball that sit up after the bounce, they smack a flat shot that looked WAY FASTER than the average winner shots you see today. Todd Martin flat attacking shots, even Chang when he decided to smack a flat winner off of an easy ball, were absolutely impossible to retrieve, whereas today you see that it is much more difficult to hit a shot like that (because the balls are slower and they lose much more speed after the bounce today).

So there are many different things that contribute to what all of us are watching: slower hard courts, slower balls, and much more top-spin on average.

So, have they slowed down hard courts and balls? For me it is clearly: YES (apart from stopping using carpet and slowing down of Wimbledon grass and balls there too).

Do the type of strokes influence the perception of speed? Yes, of course. I remember when Todd Martin won the Barcelona Open one year in the 90s against Alberto Berasategui in the final, that suddenly that slow clay of Barcelona looked WAY FASTER only because the powerful flat shots of Todd Martin were absolutely impossible to retrieve for Alberto Berasategui.

Is it this thing what you are trying to say, Mustard?

But apart from that, they have slowed down some hard courts and balls noticeably.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The technology has led to serve and volley being close to extinction and the dominance of baseline play. That doesn't mean that different courts all have the same conditions, just that baseline play predominates everywhere.

We have had this conversation before and I do not think, that anything has changed. Go back and read all the discussions.

Also, this discussion is NOT about S&V. There is much more to a fast and low bouncing court than serve and volley.

Originally Posted by Mustard

You're misunderstanding me. There are still clear differences between the surfaces, which is why Nadal dominates on clay but not on hardcourts for exmaple, but that doesn't change the things I've said about the technology and the fazing out of carpet courts being the main factors in today's tennis play on the tour being different from the tennis play on tour in past eras.

We are talking about HC and grass, if I am not mistaken. Why the clay vs. HC argument keeps popping up in your responses is beyond me.

It is also beyond me, why you keep talking about carpet, when carpet is not presented on Tour at the moment and it has no place in that discussion (because there is nothing to compare there).

Originally Posted by Mustard

Because there are clear differences between clay and hardcourts. I never suggested otherwise. I'm sorry if you got that impression, but that was never my point.

The same as above.

I am not talking about Nadal's success on clay vs. his overall success on HC. I am talking about his success on slow and medium HC vs. fast HC. There is a clear difference.

Originally Posted by Mustard

The modern technology compels players to stay on the baseline for the vast majority of the time, because of the power, spin, depth and authority in the rallies in today's game. This doesn't change the fact that the courts are different at each tournament, or even different courts at the same tournament. But baseline play does now hugely predominate at all tournaments, and it's mostly because of the technology in today's game.

You seem to think, that staying on the baseline is typical only for slow and medium HC, which is far from the truth. Even on the fastest HC can be and is rallied from the baseline. It is just that a much more penetrating balls can be fired for winners in such conditions. The modern technology is perfect for such play, but the speed of the courts doen't allow it.

Originally Posted by Mustard

What happened in Madrid this year was down to the surface, it was ridiculously slippery.

This is not an answer to my question.

Besides, are you suggesting, that the players couldn't find their shots, because of the slipperiness of the blue clay? And if you are not suggesting that, why are you talking about it, as though the slipperiness is responsible for what we saw?Because I sure as hell saw a lot of attacking play. From the baseline.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by mattennis

When I watch Agassi, Martin, Chang playing in the US OPEN in the 90s, their average shots may have been slower than today (the court and balls were faster and after the bounce the balls did not sit up as today, it was more difficult to play on those former faster conditions), but you could see that when they had an easy ball, a ball that sit up after the bounce, they smack a flat shot that looked WAY FASTER than the average winner shots you see today. Todd Martin flat attacking shots, even Chang when he decided to smack a flat winner off of an easy ball, were absolutely impossible to retrieve, whereas today you see that it is much more difficult to hit a shot like that (because the balls are slower and they lose much more speed after the bounce today).

It is a sad thing, when I see the dynamic of a point being changed because 3 or 4 consecutive shots, that would have been clean winners on fast courts are being returned, like nothing has happened. The conditions are considerably slower now, compared to the 90ies, no matter what Mustard say and that has nothing to do with the technology and everything to the with the surfaces (and the balls, but that varies too much).

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

But he played, and didn't complain during the event. He adapted to the conditions and did his best.

But there needs to be variety. I'm really sick of these Djok-Muzz-Raf 20 shot slugfests. It's always the same.

Don't tell Clarky or Mustard that, they think those endless 30-shot rallies are beautiful.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Don't tell Clarky or Mustard that, they think those endless 30-shot rallies are beautiful.

Yes, I do. I find Borg vs. Vilas on clay, including an 86 stroke rally at the 1978 French Open, to be enthralling, while for others it's the definition of boredom.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yes, I do. I find Borg vs. Vilas on clay, including an 86 stroke rally at the 1978 French Open, to be enthralling, while for others it's the definition of boredom.

When was the last time, when you hit in a, say, 20 shot rally?

[CCNM]

So Roger feels there should be slow courts AND fast courts? TOTALLY AGREE!!!!

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yes, I do. I find Borg vs. Vilas on clay, including an 86 stroke rally at the 1978 French Open, to be enthralling, while for others it's the definition of boredom.

Oh boy you're really full of it.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Oh boy you're really full of it.

For liking clay-court tennis?