Watching all these old matches on Youtube and some of the replays on Tennis Channel has me feeling nostalgic for the 90's and to some extent early 2000s.
I miss a lot of the contrasts in the sport. I feel the Serve and Volleyer is almost extinct, we have less all court players and most are either power baseliners or aggressive counterpunchers (you'd don't really see any defensive counterpunchers). The guys today seem to have very similar games (and to some extent this makes sense because with the current style you can get a good level of success), no major weaknesses and don't need to be as creative as in the past.
I think several factors play into the variety of the past.
1.) When you had a major weakness, you had to play your strength and not wait to be attacked. Guys like Becker and Edberg would be looking for the earliest opportunity to come in, knowing they wouldn't be winning long rallies. Guys of today seem to have minor weaknesses, so they can wait out longer to hit their big forehand. Guys like Lendl and Agassi set up the blueprint for today.
2.) I'm guessing many of the pros of the past were taught how to play the net. I'm certain players of today are trained at the net too, but not as a key focus or primary strategy. I wonder what would happen if some guys trained the net game twice as much as their ground game?
3.) Less distinction between surface speeds.
4.) Guys of today are more explosive/faster in general compared to the generations before. So this makes an offensive game more difficult, when the court is covered so well.
and
5.) Changes in equipment--more and more pros play with 98" or above and obviously poly.
Obviously, changing #1 and #4 would be a step backwards, kudos for the current generation to be pretty solid in technique (I might argue some might learn to hit a little flatter) and be up to speed on physical training.
Changing #2 is possible, but carries risk. With current tech and current competition, it seems going to the net would a be a high risk opition. But maybe if more were trained, we'd have enough numbers that someone would rise to the top to be competitive in the top 20.
Changing #3 to faster surfaces might help the all court player and SERVBOTs, but I still don't think it would bring back S and V.
So could changing #5 create more variety?
They've had oversized racquets for years, but still many pros stuck to 95 or below. Is this due to strings or just game evolution?
I'd love it if they limited racquet size to 95" and would be curious to see what would happen if they eliminated poly or allowed only hybrids?
If everything else was equal, would the Big 3 have captured as many titles if they could only play with 95" and gut?
Would Nadal be able to drive exploding forehands bounding above his opponents all day at Roland Garros or would it's bounce be diminished by smaller racquets and gut string?
Would Djoker find it difficulty to bash the ball for hours and have the same level of consistency without poly?
Would Fed's career have ended 2012ish without the aid of a bigger racquet and continued support of poly?
In general would we see success from more untraditional players with racuqet changes? Would Lopez have found more success if the rest of the field had less margin with their groundies? Could returners handle Isner, Roddick and Karlovic's serves so well without the bigger racquet and polys? If they could only bunt those big serves back, maybe the server would have time to come in?
If some guys can't bash their way from the baseline anymore, and start hitting more short balls, will more players have to become all court players to avoid losing from the baseline?
I miss a lot of the contrasts in the sport. I feel the Serve and Volleyer is almost extinct, we have less all court players and most are either power baseliners or aggressive counterpunchers (you'd don't really see any defensive counterpunchers). The guys today seem to have very similar games (and to some extent this makes sense because with the current style you can get a good level of success), no major weaknesses and don't need to be as creative as in the past.
I think several factors play into the variety of the past.
1.) When you had a major weakness, you had to play your strength and not wait to be attacked. Guys like Becker and Edberg would be looking for the earliest opportunity to come in, knowing they wouldn't be winning long rallies. Guys of today seem to have minor weaknesses, so they can wait out longer to hit their big forehand. Guys like Lendl and Agassi set up the blueprint for today.
2.) I'm guessing many of the pros of the past were taught how to play the net. I'm certain players of today are trained at the net too, but not as a key focus or primary strategy. I wonder what would happen if some guys trained the net game twice as much as their ground game?
3.) Less distinction between surface speeds.
4.) Guys of today are more explosive/faster in general compared to the generations before. So this makes an offensive game more difficult, when the court is covered so well.
and
5.) Changes in equipment--more and more pros play with 98" or above and obviously poly.
Obviously, changing #1 and #4 would be a step backwards, kudos for the current generation to be pretty solid in technique (I might argue some might learn to hit a little flatter) and be up to speed on physical training.
Changing #2 is possible, but carries risk. With current tech and current competition, it seems going to the net would a be a high risk opition. But maybe if more were trained, we'd have enough numbers that someone would rise to the top to be competitive in the top 20.
Changing #3 to faster surfaces might help the all court player and SERVBOTs, but I still don't think it would bring back S and V.
So could changing #5 create more variety?
They've had oversized racquets for years, but still many pros stuck to 95 or below. Is this due to strings or just game evolution?
I'd love it if they limited racquet size to 95" and would be curious to see what would happen if they eliminated poly or allowed only hybrids?
If everything else was equal, would the Big 3 have captured as many titles if they could only play with 95" and gut?
Would Nadal be able to drive exploding forehands bounding above his opponents all day at Roland Garros or would it's bounce be diminished by smaller racquets and gut string?
Would Djoker find it difficulty to bash the ball for hours and have the same level of consistency without poly?
Would Fed's career have ended 2012ish without the aid of a bigger racquet and continued support of poly?
In general would we see success from more untraditional players with racuqet changes? Would Lopez have found more success if the rest of the field had less margin with their groundies? Could returners handle Isner, Roddick and Karlovic's serves so well without the bigger racquet and polys? If they could only bunt those big serves back, maybe the server would have time to come in?
If some guys can't bash their way from the baseline anymore, and start hitting more short balls, will more players have to become all court players to avoid losing from the baseline?
