Sangria
Semi-Pro
Breakpoint just climaxed.
Can we all agree, tennis needs a change?
- Thread starter richied
- Start date
Breakpoint just climaxed.
mindgrinder
New User
faster courts, shorter points, shorter points less innovative shots after 10 yr same thing = New post on TT for slower courts. Duh!!
Tennis is game of 2 players slower courts bring out shot selection and strategic play, S&V was more or less a game of big servers...
Tennis is game of 2 players slower courts bring out shot selection and strategic play, S&V was more or less a game of big servers...
Blinkism
Legend
And back to long pants and long skirts..
As a matter of fact, tournaments should pay out in shillings and dubloons, too!
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you.The surfaces seem to be getting magically slow or fast depending on who wins.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
No we need those heavy silk-made gowns . :lol:
namelessone
Legend
If Nadal even wins USO, two things will happen: moronic threads started by Nadal trolls and lamenting threads started by Nadal haters complaining that USO has turned to clay and is SLOWER THAN EVER.
Personally I think that Nadal's shoes churn out clay on whatever surface he plays on and that the stash runs out by the time USO rolls around
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
I have a feeling Nadal demands the organisers to put blue clay on USO courts-kinda mixture of hard and soft-that's why the semis :evil:If Nadal even wins USO, two things will happen: moronic threads started by Nadal trolls and lamenting threads started by Nadal haters complaining that USO has turned to clay and is SLOWER THAN EVER.
Personally I think that Nadal's shoes churn out clay on whatever surface he plays on and that the stash runs out by the time USO rolls around
Bud
Bionic Poster
If Nadal even wins USO, two things will happen: moronic threads started by Nadal trolls and lamenting threads started by Nadal haters complaining that USO has turned to clay and is SLOWER THAN EVER.
Personally I think that Nadal's shoes churn out clay on whatever surface he plays on and that the stash runs out by the time USO rolls around
Yeah... just waiting for the numerous threads claiming DecoTurf is actually blue clay, should Nadal win... even though the DecoTurf has been in use for over 30 years.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Solution: Get all the players that don't win Wimbledon each year to attend a compulsory 4 months Serve and Volley tennis Academy.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
They have had blue clay at the US open for the last 3 years , unfortunately Nadal was injured in 07 and 09 and sacrificed 08 for the Olympic Gold which he won on the blue clay in Beijing.
cucio
Legend
Sorry to spoil it, but there are players that are a force in the game no matter what you put under their shoes.
This is the record of Ivan Lendl in Wimbledon from 1983 to 1990:
SF SF 4R F F SF SF SF
I don't think Nadal's would have been any worse than that, had he played in that era, with that technology and on that surface. He is way, way more than a "grinder".
People like dichotomies, you only need one neuron for them. But reality is significantly more complex. Nadal is not just ridiculous conditioning, the guy has a superb technique. Federer is not just otherwordly technique, he is a genetic freak too, an incredible athlete with tremendous endurance and resistance to injuries.
This is the record of Ivan Lendl in Wimbledon from 1983 to 1990:
SF SF 4R F F SF SF SF
I don't think Nadal's would have been any worse than that, had he played in that era, with that technology and on that surface. He is way, way more than a "grinder".
People like dichotomies, you only need one neuron for them. But reality is significantly more complex. Nadal is not just ridiculous conditioning, the guy has a superb technique. Federer is not just otherwordly technique, he is a genetic freak too, an incredible athlete with tremendous endurance and resistance to injuries.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
The change tennis needs is more natural surface tournaments, There is way too many hard artificial surface events which contributes to too many injuries.
ksbh
Banned
Nothing wrong with the current state of Wimbledon. If I may add ... much as I dislike the person himself, I'm a huge fan of Sampras' grass game. I've never made it a secret that I think he's the greatest player ever to play grass court tennis. Yet I'd choose to watch a Wimbledon final from 2004 to 2010 over one from the Sampras era 9 times out of 10, the only exception being Wimbledon final 1999. Grass court tennis is so much more worth viewing now.
This is just another thread for Federer lovers to vent their frustration at Nadal's extraordinary performances at Wimbledon.
This is just another thread for Federer lovers to vent their frustration at Nadal's extraordinary performances at Wimbledon.
oscar_2424
Legend
U r just mad 'cause your boy Fed got his ass kicked!
AM95
Hall of Fame
all i have to say to that 6 (5 consec) > 2
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Nadal has only played 6 Wimbledons.
After 6 Wimbledons, Nadal is 2 wins, 2 finals
After 6 Wimbledons Fed was 2 wins, 1 1/4 final, 1 first round
:shock:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
The real problem is that Nadal wins in 3 sets without even being broken (final) (if memory serves me correctly).
(Incidentally) The FO Final 2009 was awfully boring with Fed winning in 3. We really need Nadal to step it down and claw out victories from 2 sets down esp in the finals.
Wimbledon final in 3 sets ! What a scandal ! What an outrage ! Fans cheated. Sponsors cheated. How arrogant of Nadal to win so decisively.
Beating Murray in 3, was a direct attack on Her Majesty herself !
(Incidentally) The FO Final 2009 was awfully boring with Fed winning in 3. We really need Nadal to step it down and claw out victories from 2 sets down esp in the finals.
Wimbledon final in 3 sets ! What a scandal ! What an outrage ! Fans cheated. Sponsors cheated. How arrogant of Nadal to win so decisively.
Beating Murray in 3, was a direct attack on Her Majesty herself !
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Isn't he a bit too old to manage that ?
ksbh
Banned
Yes and he won those 6 titles because the grass was slow as clay. The jokers that organize Wimbledon have killed the tournament. A baseliner winning 6 titles at Wimbledon! A shame really!
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
They should slow down the clay to make it different to medium speed hard courts and make it like the real old clay. Fast court low bounce specialists like Federer shouldn't be anywhere near the final of real clay slams, they should be producing results like Fed did between 1999-2004 where he struggled to get past the 4th round on a surface closer to the real old slower clay. Also real slower clay would encourage the development of real clay court specialists, as it is now all the hard court specialists transition to clay easily because it is almost the same as hard courts so almost all the hard court specialists are the same players as the best french open players.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
It's fine if the surface is fast if you slow down the equipment. Wimbledon was great when the surface was fast and players used wood racquets. Fast surface with "fast" racquets, like today's powerful graphite racquets, would not be as good since there would be too many aces and winners. The best combination is fast surface with slower racquets.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
They wouldn't be if you brought back the old fast grass and indoor carpet, like in the 90's, when serve and volleyers like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, McEnroe, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Henman, etc. dominated. So it does indeed have to do with the grass.
Bryan Swartz
Hall of Fame
That doesn't make any sense. Nadal went to net 26 times in the semis, Murray 28. Not only that it's illogical on it's face. How often a guy goes to net says nothing about how good he is at winning the point once he gets there.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Very well said. Borg used to play exclusive from the baseline at the French to win, but when he got to Wimbledon, he had to completely change his game to play serve and volley to win at Wimbledon. That's what was so incredible about Borg. Did Nadal have to serve and volley to win his two Wimbledons and get to two other finals? Um...Nope.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes, it is. I've been saying that for years. It's nothing but a nuclear arms race with regards to equipment. My opponent uses something bigger, and better, and more powerful, and more spinny, so I have to get something even bigger and more powerful and spinny just to compete with him. Then he'll go get something even bigger, and even better, and even more powerful, and even more spinny. Then I'll have to go out and get something....... So when does it stop? When everyone has a rocket propelled ball launcher that can spin the ball at a million RPM's as their racquet? :???:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'm not sure if it's quite as bad you imply though. Federer uses a very traditional racquet. I'm not sure that there's anything exceptional about the racquets today compared with in the 90s, especially since a lot of pros use older frames anyways.
The strings, yes, but I still think the "problem" is mostly the court surfaces and not the technology.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
A lot of pros now also use Babolats, which didn't even exist until the late-90's.
Anyway, even the older graphite racquets are much more powerful and spinny and more forgiving than the wood racquets that were used for over 100 years.
The problem is in technology... both strings and rackets, it doesn't help that they have changed the surfaces to try and adapt.
The new technology has changed the game to the point that the pros can hit the ball so hard that a serve and volleyer does not have time to react, so the prudent thing is to stay on the baseline. But as shown at last years USO Final... that is not a safe haven as players can hit clean winners from the baseline at will.
As for the changes in the surfaces... all they have effectively done is make all surfaces play pretty much the same. The simple answer as mentioned is to dial back the power and spin of the equipment to the mid to late 80's, and limit the size of the rackets... maybe to about 90 sq/in. The pros these days are significantly better athletes, bigger, stronger, perhaps faster making these games would put the game in a much better place... IMHO.
The new technology has changed the game to the point that the pros can hit the ball so hard that a serve and volleyer does not have time to react, so the prudent thing is to stay on the baseline. But as shown at last years USO Final... that is not a safe haven as players can hit clean winners from the baseline at will.
As for the changes in the surfaces... all they have effectively done is make all surfaces play pretty much the same. The simple answer as mentioned is to dial back the power and spin of the equipment to the mid to late 80's, and limit the size of the rackets... maybe to about 90 sq/in. The pros these days are significantly better athletes, bigger, stronger, perhaps faster making these games would put the game in a much better place... IMHO.
Last edited:
genius24
Semi-Pro
Tina
Banned
Agreed with that.
Yeah, many do. I don't think there's anything magical about a Babolat though. I remember Krajicek or Sampras serving bombs playing with very thin, traditional racquets. I guess you could make the argument that the racquets allow the players to hit harder with shorter motions (Roddick's serve comes to mind), but even there it's 98% about Roddick's explosive motion and quick twitch muscles. I'm pretty sure he'd be crushing the ball with a Graphite Original OS. I think people generally overestimate the "technology advancements" with regards to racquets. I say, let's change the court speeds first before we start limiting the racquets players can use.
ksbh
Banned
Hey Sentinel ... what's with your signature?!
I've gotten burned over Cheryl Tiegs and blown up for Raquel Welch, but when I end up in the hay it's only hay, hey hey. -- ksbh
I'm used to seeing my name with Zeenat in the same line but these other two?
I've gotten burned over Cheryl Tiegs and blown up for Raquel Welch, but when I end up in the hay it's only hay, hey hey. -- ksbh
I'm used to seeing my name with Zeenat in the same line but these other two?
Can we all agree, tennis needs a change?
Will it suffice if we start spelling it with a "P" ?
Praetorian
Professional
I think we all can agree that today's players are stronger, faster, and more fit than their counterparts in the past. We all agree that equipment makes them hit the ball a lot harder with more spin as well. How about they increase the size of the court say 10-15-20%. Make them cover more ground, negate the pace a little.
Falloutjr
Banned
The dimensions are fine as is. You'll just see players hitting sharp, unreturnable angles if you make the court any wider and people hitting drops every other ball if you make it longer.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Hey Sentinel ... what's with your signature?!
I've gotten burned over Cheryl Tiegs and blown up for Raquel Welch, but when I end up in the hay it's only hay, hey hey. -- ksbh
I'm used to seeing my name with Zeenat in the same line but these other two?
It's a line from one of your best-selling albums: KSBH Live at the Royal Albert Hall, London.
Praetorian
Professional
They can do that now; however, most of em don't. A LOT of times it's a bash fest. I'm all for angles, and creative shot making such as the drop ball. I personally would love to see more variety in the sport.
Falloutjr
Banned
Actually, energy return is what determines court speed. Grass and carpet courts have a high time of impact, so the ground exerts less force on the ball, resulting in a shorter bounce. They also have little friction, thus the balls travel faster and farther after they bounce. Clay is the opposite of grass in terms of physics because clay has a short time of impact, resulting in higher bounces, and more friction, resulting in slower balls after the bounce. My guess as to why a tennis court would be slower and higher bouncing is by shortening the grass, decreasing the time the ball takes to hit the ground instead of creating a cushioning effect by taller grass. This would also increase the friction coeffecient, resulting in slower balls.
Praetorian
Professional
They can do that now; however, most of em don't. A LOT of times it's a bash fest. I'm all for angles, and creative shot making such as the drop ball. I personally would love to see more variety in the sport.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Ya think if they speed up the courts, Gasquet might man up, grow a pair and win a slam?
netlets
Professional
+1
Wimbledon was cool earier only because it was Wimbledon and represented a change for a few weeks. The points were always short and repetitive. Now there are actually rallies to suit the players and the modern game. The French Open and US Open were always my favorite Grand Slams to watch because there was much more strategy involved and long, interesting points. Thank God Wimbledon is getting some of that too. Noone needs to watch a million serves that can't be returned, or a big serve and one big shot to end the point. I can't believe anyone can think the French Open was boring this year. Did you only watch the final?
Similar threads
